Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 356 posts

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#91

Post by sofixa »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #58
sofixa wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly the US is exempt from the war crimes laws, and that needs to change. But it would require leaders of other major powers/countries to push for this I don't see this happening any time soon, without a popular movement that drastically alters the American political landscape. Whichever party a president and legislators are from, they have war criminals among their ranks, so they couldn't accept their friends,…

This happens with a lot of things in politics, the compromise is usually to just set a future date when you start doing the right thing and give amnesty to people before that. Some kind of gradual change is often buily in as well. I agree that proportional representation and greater democracy can fix a lot of current problems, but we don't need to put off everything until that arrives and indeed that will need to be…

> This happens with a lot of things in politics, the compromise is usually to just set a future date when you start doing the right thing and give amnesty to people before that

I really don't think that's a great idea for war crimes. They're already illegal, and absolutely despicable. Some really terrible things were done, they should be punished - saying from 2030 we'll really punish war criminals doesn't inspire confidence, and probably won't be an actual deterrent until the US starts enforcing it en masse.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#92

Post by SuoDuanDao »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #78
shapefrog wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes You cant be too shocked about stuff that has an actual wikipedia article ...

>Panjwai massacre,[1] occurred in the early hours of 11 March 2012, when United States Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales murdered sixteen civilians and wounded six others in the Panjwayi District of Kandahar Province, Afghanistan He was sentenced to life without parole. >The Maywand District murders were the murders of at least three Afghan civilians perpetrated by a group of U.S. Army soldiers from June 2009 to June…

>it seems to me the US has done a fairly decent job of holding themselves accountable.

That's easy to claim when you're the one doing the investigation. By refusing to co-operate with the International Criminal Court, the US has signalled it will not be held responsible for war crimes unless it's convenient for it. That decision is not great for the US's optics.

I say that as someone whose ancestors were invaded by both US and Soviet forces, and I happen to think US forces really are less likely to commit war crimes - but that seems more a result of rugged individuals holding themselves to a higher standard, "The US" seems to have acted as badly as any other large, unaccountable institution would.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#93

Post by platz »

stephen_g wrote: post #90
platz wrote: post #75

> He had just been conducting research in Afghanistan, and was expecting to begin college at the end of the year. Instead, he was accused of being an al-Qaida leader, kidnapped by Afghan warlords and handed over to the CIA this is the only information information in the whole arricle about why he was sent there, and it is pretty sparse information. If i were to put on my critical thinking media hat, this gives the im…

It mentions that 86% of prisoners there were handed over by locals as being “suspicious” when offered very large bounties by the US Government (apparently up to millions of dollars). The article also links to this report of an ex-Bush era official saying most detainees were innocent [1] and the ALCU has some more info and numbers [2]. 1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-... 2. https://www.a…

What I'm critiquing is the article itself, which rather conspicuously leaves out key details, independent of his actual guilt or innocence.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#94

Post by mrtksn »

mdp2021 wrote: post #72
mrtksn wrote: post #11

This implies the US population being held responsible because the US is a democratic nation. The idea is, every 4 years the highest position of governance is put on a trial and the population votes if they approve or disprove the way things are done and reconsider alternatives. Besides the 4 year period for the evaluation of the highest ranking officers, there is an ample opportunity for direct intervention through o…

> This implies the US population being held responsible because the US is a democratic nation Such "proposal" is completely irrational. Proposals must be defensible, irrational ideas are not universally defensible. One is not responsible for other people's choices , and cannot be held responsible for other people's (or coinhabiting peoples') choices, nor for the barbaric systemic faults that hinder the ideal implemen…

"Key figures must be held responsible" is the highest rated opinion right now. It's fascinating how nation denies responsibility for the actions of the freely and democratically elected officials, which are the very same key figures that "must be held responsible".

For some reason, people with option to choose and change their representative claim that they cannot be held responsible for the actions of their representatives.

What's irrational on holding a population responsible for the choices they make? I see statements but no reasoning that would explain the irrationality of holding the electorate responsible for the actions of the elected. Care to explain?

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#95

Post by sofixa »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #70
blunte wrote: post #2

Key figures in US military and US leadership need to be held accountable. Same as with CEOs, if you only punish the organization and not specifically the leaders, there is no disincentive to doing it again. Clearly the US is exempt from the war crimes laws, and that needs to change. But it would require leaders of other major powers/countries to push for this. But… this will never happen because almost no leader want…

Which war crimes were committed? Be specific.

Drone strikes of innocents, including US citizens, are an easy one.

Illegal kidnapping, detention, and torture, of mostly innocent people at that, is another easy one.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#97

Post by nicoffeine »

hyperman1 wrote: post #60
tgv wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Key figures in US military and US leadership need to be held accountable. Isn't that a bit of a one-sided, vindictive point of view? I don't know who are still being detained in Guantánamo, but if there are terrorists among them, shouldn't these key figures then also be rewarded? I don't have the answer neither, but IMO the way the responsible people should be treated depends on their intentions, willingness to acc…

No. That's what due process is for. If you can't reasonably prove someone is a criminal, they don't belong in jail. Compare: Throw the whole population of your country in prison. Clearly, you've also imprisoned every terrorist of your country. Should you be rewarded for that? The Guantanamo situation is comparable: The US picked random people from the street based on gossip at best, or because they looked funny at a…

It’s worse than that. The US offered cash equivalent to several years wages for turning in suspected terrorists. People immediately started reporting any tribal or personal enemy to collect a check and rid themselves of a rival.

The first suspect who died in custody was a cab driver named Dilawar. He died in handcuffs that were attached to a chain link cage. One of his interrogators said he knew the guy was innocent —- he had some experience interrogating terrorists —- but his superiors wouldn’t listen and he continued the torture.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#98

Post by sofixa »

tgv wrote: post #85
hyperman1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That's what due process is for. If you can't reasonably prove someone is a criminal, they don't belong in jail. Compare: Throw the whole population of your country in prison. Clearly, you've also imprisoned every terrorist of your country. Should you be rewarded for that? The Guantanamo situation is comparable: The US picked random people from the street based on gossip at best, or because they looked funny at a…

> Compare: Throw the whole population of your country in prison. That's not a comparison to the situation in Guantanamo. 780 people were detained there, out of a potential 400 million (depending on where you draw the borders). > Nobody should be rewarded for that. One strike, you're out? Is that the rule you judge by?

Are 780 people, of which only 8% were actually "bad", "one strike"? Not to mention even most of the "bad" ones were not tried or given a due process, and most were tortured.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#99

Post by Macha »

md_ wrote: post #64
sschueller wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the UN Assange has undergone continuous phycological torture [1]. I know the US considers phycological torture as enhanced interrogation tactics but the UN sees it as torture. [1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

To paraphrase @popehat, this is just how federal prisons are. (OK, I don't know how such prisons are in the UK, but presumably they're bad.) That's a Bad Thing, for sure. But I suspect most of Assange's fans aren't upset about the treatment of Assange because they oppose the carceral state; it's because they're fans of Assange. In other words, if you say "I'm opposed to the conditions of Assange's detention", I suspe…

It's not unheard of for one western country to refuse extradition to another because of poor standards of prison systems.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/10/dutch-court-bl...

From what I've found, the UK in particular is not in a huge position to throw stones given the standards of their prisons result in this being yet another area where they're a sort of mini-USA. But e.g. the Swedish system would be better.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#100

Post by AmericanChopper »

bildung wrote: post #83
AmericanChopper wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept of an international criminal court itself is an affront to national sovereignty, and isn’t very widely supported. Among those who go along with it, they tend to stop once it creates an issue for them. The ICC primarily prosecutes the war crimes of war losers. They’ve convicted some Nazis, some Serbs, and a few African war lords here and there. But it’s silly to presume they have authority over any nation…

> The concept of an international criminal court itself is an affront to national sovereignty, and isn’t very widely supported. It is supported (i.e. signed and ratified) by all industrialized countries except the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...

This is just demonstrably untrue. Most Asian countries are either non-signatories, or have withdrawn. China, Russia, Israel, KSA, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Qatar, Turkey… are all post-industrial nations.

Also, of the fully ratified signatories, it’s only supported when politically convenient. No member of NATO is going to allow for their citizens to be prosecuted by some extraterritorial court that thinks it has jurisdiction over half the world. Every NATO country has been accused of war crimes, and they’ve probably all committed them. None of them have been prosecuted, allies won’t call on other allies to be prosecuted, even Angela Merkel defends Israel’s on this topic, and Israel barely even pretends that they don’t commit war crimes.

It’s also why there’s so much popular anti-ICC sentiment in Africa, because a lot of people there think it only exists to prosecute Africans (which isn’t a very easy accusation to rebut).

Post reply on HN