• Wikileaks publishes secret files on Gitmo prisoners
    81 replies, posted
[quote=BoingBoing] Wikileaks has published secret files on prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, with hundreds more ready to be released in the coming month. In total, internal documents concerning 779 prisoners will be published, according to the site, accounting for every detainee at the facility. In thousands of pages of documents dating from 2002 to 2008 and never seen before by members of the public or the media, the cases of the majority of the prisoners held at Guantánamo -- 758 out of 779 in total -- are described in detail in memoranda from JTF-GTMO, the Joint Task Force at Guantánamo Bay, to US Southern Command in Miami, Florida. These memoranda, which contain JTF-GTMO's recommendations about whether the prisoners in question should continue to be held, or should be released (transferred to their home governments, or to other governments) contain a wealth of important and previously undisclosed information, including health assessments, for example, and, in the cases of the majority of the 171 prisoners who are still held, photos (mostly for the first time ever)... The Washington Post has launch coverage, focusing on previously unknown information about the whereabouts of Al Qaeda leaders around Sept. 11, 2001. [/quote] [url]http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/24/wikileaks-publishes-4.html[/url] Had a real hard time finding a source on this (that wasn't Wikileaks it self). This appears to be REALLY breaking news (I saw it on the Wikileaks Facebook page 10 mins ago) Other much longer sources. [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/wikileaks-discloses-new-details-on-whereabouts-of-al-qaeda-leaders-on-911/2011/04/24/AFvvzIeE_story.html[/url] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-lives-in-an-american-limbo.html[/url] Actual leaks: [url]http://wikileaks.ch/gitmo/[/url] They appear to be coming in a slow trickle. Not really sure what to make of this yet (I haven't had a chance to actually read anything). I do hope they don't reveal anything really sensitive that could actually endager anyone. I wonder where they got this info from this time.
Might be a bigger link than all the cables. Wow, just, holy shit.
And my productivity levels have dropped to 0
Haven't heard much from WikiLeaks lately, glad to see they're still kicking.
Good leak. No one can argue this will put human lives directly in danger.
most of the ones that i want to read arent even uploaded yet.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;29411877]Good leak. No one can argue this will put human lives directly in danger.[/QUOTE] From the small amount of stuff I have read so far (like one page in one document) it seems its just general information on prisoners (like what they are accused of etc). This seems to be information that while not very useful to the general public could arguably be of public interest. Although knowing Wikileaks anything really revealing will come out towards the end of the month.
We already knew a lot of this. I think a lot of this was even available through the freedom of information act. You just had to request it.
[QUOTE=GunFox;29412008]We already knew a lot of this. I think a lot of this was even available through the freedom of information act. You just had to request it.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you have stumbled across Wikileaks latest way of getting leaks. Posting FoI requests. The document I looked over looked like it had been censored (lots of big black blobs).
I miss the old days when released everything to public using torrents.
[QUOTE=aydin690;29412134]I miss the old days when released everything to public using torrents.[/QUOTE] So do I. I think the problem with (as they have said) a massive dump of information however is that people do not have the chance to take in and process (in their minds) the information.
So many innocent civilians have been taken there. Nice to know that now they have even more documented proof of the injustices they face. Of course, knowing the US media, nobody will care that innocent people are still not compensated for torture and imprisonment since Wikileaks is "so last January." Edit: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO8IJmrPKLM[/url]
[QUOTE=Nahyan;29412428]So many innocent civilians have been taken there. Nice to know that now they have even more documented proof of the injustices they face. Of course, knowing the US media, nobody will care that innocent people are still not compensated for torture and imprisonment since Wikileaks is "so last January."[/QUOTE] The prison, in its lifetime, has housed under 1000 prisoners. Of those, a tiny fraction have ever even been disputed as being there under false pretenses. A surprisingly small number actually. The rest are legitimately unpleasant folks. In some cases, if I recall, so much so that they no longer have citizenship in their own country because their own government disowned them. Meaning that even if they were to be released, they would literally have nowhere to go. The prison exists because we don't know what else to do with terrorist prisoners. They can't be housed in civilian prisons, and they aren't conventional prisoners of war, so mixing them with standard military prison is a bad idea. So we put them there. Putting them on trial would be pointless. We capture them overseas. We have no jurisdiction overseas. They have possibly not even broken any laws in their home country. Not that anyone ever takes the time to understand that fighting against terrorist factions doesn't work like other scenarios.
[QUOTE=GunFox;29412743] Putting them on trial would be pointless. We capture them overseas. We have no jurisdiction overseas. They have possibly not even broken any laws in their home country. [/QUOTE] Not to mention what do you do with them after you have found them guilty? Lock them up for life? Execute them all (even then they would need to be locked up somewhere for a long period of time)? As bad as it sounds, "targeted killings" is an easier way to deal with the problem of high up terrorist leaders.
[QUOTE=GunFox;29412743]The prison, in its lifetime, has housed under 1000 prisoners. Of those, a tiny fraction have ever even been disputed as being there under false pretenses. A surprisingly small number actually. The rest are legitimately unpleasant folks. In some cases, if I recall, so much so that they no longer have citizenship in their own country because their own government disowned them. Meaning that even if they were to be released, they would literally have nowhere to go. The prison exists because we don't know what else to do with terrorist prisoners. They can't be housed in civilian prisons, and they aren't conventional prisoners of war, so mixing them with standard military prison is a bad idea. So we put them there. Putting them on trial would be pointless. We capture them overseas. We have no jurisdiction overseas. They have possibly not even broken any laws in their home country. Not that anyone ever takes the time to understand that fighting against terrorist factions doesn't work like other scenarios.[/QUOTE] we should send them all to "terrorist island" where they can blow each other up over extremist religious ideals in peace
[QUOTE=V1ro;29412963]we should send them all to "terrorist island" where they can blow each other up over extremist religious ideals in peace[/QUOTE] It (almost) already exists, its called Guantanamo bay. All you need to do is persuade the government of Cuba to detonate the land mines and then (in theory) it will be an island.
[QUOTE=Jsm;29412997]It (almost) already exists, its called Guantanamo bay. All you need to do is persuade the government of Cuba to detonate the land mines and then (in theory) it will be an island.[/QUOTE] The US and Cuba already put landmines around Guantanamo Bay, though it was more to keep people out than in. The US got rid of the their mines, but the Cuban ones are still there.
I just read the file on the Canadian guy who threw a hand grenade and killed a US soldier and aparently he provided valuable information on Al Qaeda and what not. I wonder if this is actually true or just put there by the people because they knew one day this information would be leaked.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;29413307]The US and Cuba already put landmines around Guantanamo Bay, though it was more to keep people out than in. The US got rid of the their mines, but the Cuban ones are still there.[/QUOTE] I know, they were the mines I was referring to. I can't find it right now, but apparently Castro was quoted as saying that if the US stayed one day past the time they are allowed to he would separate it from Cuba.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;29413307]The US and Cuba already put landmines around Guantanamo Bay, though it was more to keep people out than in. The US got rid of the their mines, but the Cuban ones are still there.[/QUOTE] I was under the impression that landmines were illegal under international agreements
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29415927]I was under the impression that landmines were illegal under international agreements[/QUOTE] The US isn't part of that treaty. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty[/url] The US generally doesn't use anti-personnel landmines, but we keep them in our inventory and retain our ability to deploy them. This is in keeping with most of what the US does in regards to weapons bans or restrictions. We stop using them, or invent new ones which invalidate or mitigate the problems that let to the ban in the first place. If you look up any given weapon ban that isn't chemical or biological in nature, you will find that the US is probably not a part of that. Even in the Geneva conventions, we didn't agree to several of the weapon restrictions (to be a part of the conventions you need only sign a certain number of the agreements, not all of them).
[QUOTE=CaptainSnake;29414091]I just read the file on the Canadian guy who threw a hand grenade and killed a US soldier and aparently he provided valuable information on Al Qaeda and what not. I wonder if this is actually true or just put there by the people because they knew one day this information would be leaked.[/QUOTE] He was a child soldier when he killed the guy. I don't think he should have been sent to Guantanamo Bay.
In this thread, Gunfox lays down a thick heaping slice of truth. Thank ya dude :3: Its not sarcasm(seriously its not)
[QUOTE=aydin690;29416494]He was a child soldier when he killed the guy. I don't think he should have been sent to Guantanamo Bay.[/QUOTE] If I recall correctly this is one of the arguments for releasing a lot of people, they were only children when they were detained.
Personally I'd be more interested in some leaked documents on the confinement of Bradley Manning, we already know the US has broken pretty much every law there is in the Guantanamo case.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;29421610]Personally I'd be more interested in some leaked documents on the confinement of Bradley Manning, we already know the US has broken pretty much every law there is in the Guantanamo case.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be surprised if info about him did end up on Wikileaks eventually. It probably would legitimately be whistleblowing anyway.
[QUOTE=GunFox;29412743]The prison, in its lifetime, has housed under 1000 prisoners. Of those, a tiny fraction have ever even been disputed as being there under false pretenses. A surprisingly small number actually. The rest are legitimately unpleasant folks. In some cases, if I recall, so much so that they no longer have citizenship in their own country because their own government disowned them. Meaning that even if they were to be released, they would literally have nowhere to go. The prison exists because we don't know what else to do with terrorist prisoners. They can't be housed in civilian prisons, and they aren't conventional prisoners of war, so mixing them with standard military prison is a bad idea. So we put them there. Putting them on trial would be pointless. We capture them overseas. We have no jurisdiction overseas. They have possibly not even broken any laws in their home country. Not that anyone ever takes the time to understand that fighting against terrorist factions doesn't work like other scenarios.[/QUOTE] Yep. God forbid those dirty terrorist scum would ever see habeas corpus! also known as the main reason these people won't be tried in american courts is a. the case against them would be thrown out as evidence against them is often so insubstantial it's a joke and b. if they were, they would be granted the freedoms and protections of the constitution, god forbid. also loving the idea of "putting them on trial would be pointless, so we'll just fucking keep them" excellent.
God bless uhmerica
[QUOTE=Jsm;29421481]If I recall correctly this is one of the arguments for releasing a lot of people, they were only children when they were detained.[/QUOTE] Do you really think children should be sent to g-bay?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;29421776]Yep. God forbid those dirty terrorist scum would ever see habeas corpus! also known as the main reason these people won't be tried in american courts is a. the case against them would be thrown out as evidence against them is often so insubstantial it's a joke and b. if they were, they would be granted the freedoms and protections of the constitution, god forbid. also loving the idea of "putting them on trial would be pointless, so we'll just fucking keep them" excellent.[/QUOTE] We have no right to put them on trial anywhere. To do so would violate their rights.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.