h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As many of you hopefully know, Guantanamo Bay is a US military base located, of all places, in Cuba. For the last two years it has provided the USA with a convenient dumping ground for "illegal combatants" - prisoners, mainly captured in Afghanistan, who are "suspected of terrorism". Not "charged with", just "suspected of".

Within the last week, 5 of the 9 prisoners held there who were British citizens have been returned to the UK. 4 of them were arrested on arrival, but the police decided that there was no crime to charge them with. They had been in a prison camp for over 2 years, and yet there is no evidence they did anything wrong.

What's more, one of these ex-inmates has confirmed the repeated reports that the Guantanamo prisoners are regularly subjected to inhumane treatment, and even physical and psychological torture. They are denied sight of the outside world, let alone access to lawyers. This is the kind of thing we associate with corrupt African dictatorships, not the world's great "democratic superpower". Our notions of "justice" and "fundamental rights" are there for a reason - we cannot "suspend" them because of "extreme circumstances", because nobody has the right to take that decision.

5 of these "suspects" have now been found to be innocent to the best knowledge of the British police. They are the lucky ones. How can the rest of the world sit back and allow these illegal imprisonments to continue - if there are loopholes in international law because of where they are being held, those loopholes should be closed. Once there are no loopholes left, the full force of international sanctions should be levied to show that this is something we will not put up with from anyone.

The international community has the chance to call the US Government's bluff that these people are being treated badly "for a good reason" - will we seize that opportunity, or will we simply let them continue?

[IMSoP]

Here are some juicy links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3504034.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=501031
and by way of a mark, cos I haven't read it yet: F19585?thread=284846

We can try to sieze opportunities to stop this outrage, but the US government won't listen.

I think that they need access to lawyers, to their families and to be tried, if they are guilty then lets get it over and done with, but it seems that many arn't and they deserve to be home and with a lot of compensation.

I think it is ridiculous to say it is a crime to fight but not in uniform, all countries including the US have a section who fight in civilian clothes. If our country was invaded, are they saying it would be wrong to fight for your country unless you have your uniform etc, bull, if you care enough to fight for your own life and country you should be able to do what you feel is right.


To be honest there are a lot of faults in the Geneva Convention, the US happily imprisons those who brake the law on it, but also constantly brake the law on it themselves. Its seems that to be caught is the real crime.

Under international law people who fight out of uniform are illegal combatants
That this would've made the Minutemen or French Resistance illegal combatants doesn't seem to bother our governments since like most international treaties it was made for their convenience, not our good

>>I think it is ridiculous to say it is a crime to fight but not in uniform<<

Kaz, I wouldn't even bother arguing the point, as it just buys into one of the justifications for this farce: it hasn't even been demonstrated they were combatants.

There is no point having the largest army in the world if that doesn't mean you get to do what the f**k you like, to whoever you like, anywhere, all the time.

There is the US, and there is the rest of the world. To the majority of the US, the rest of the world is apparently an irritating irrelevance.

Frankly, I hope it stays that way. Let's face it, the last thing we want to do is attract their attention.

Think about it - you have the most heavily armed, technologically advanced nation on earth, feeling ornery and paranoid, p**sed off because it's found no WMDs in Iraq, led by a barely literate fundamentalist idiot, spoiling for a fight and in an election year. Trying to impose sanctions of any description would be like trying to going into a cage to calm down a rabid tiger using a hatpin.

The USA is not like a playground bully who will back down if confronted. If confronted, it will attack, in full force, anything that looks even vaguely like a target, as roughly half the British service personnel killed in the Iraq war would tell you if they could. Sanctions are the very worst possible idea.

Just be glad it isn't you rotting in Cuba.

Unfortunately the pedant in me feels obliged to point out that the world's largest army is in fact that of China. Sorry.

No prob. You're right, of course. China's army is huge - 2.5million plus. Quite a lot of them have actual guns, too, although not all of them work. They're apparently going to buy some quite quiet diesel submarines real soon now, and one day they might order a second squadron of fighter jets that could stand a chance against F-15s - fighters the US already regard as two generations old.

For "largest", please read "second largest, best financed, best equipped, most technologically capable and most dangerous" and for "army" read "army, navy, airforce and Marines and special forces".

Second largest would be North Korea, apparently

OK, how about "largest non-conscripted, entirely voluntary"?

how about largest wagebill
I'll bet Chinese conscripts don't get paid much

Even entirely voluntary has its problems, as a few reservists in Iraq have been keen to point out: "One weekend a month, my ass!"

I believe that for a period in the 1990s, you could have used the killer stat "The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined".

On a more serious note though, if there's one thing Iraq has brought home to Dubya's administration it's that they can't force through whatever foreign policy objectives they like simply through military means. The economic cost is just staggering as could be the electoral cost. No-one's talking about invading North Korea now.

you'd have thought Vietnam would've taught them that
suspect that means we'll have more trouble in about 30 years

" No-one's talking about invading North Korea now." - did they ever? The decision makers, I mean.

When was the last time they went to war against any nation with actual resources? Gulf war one was paid for by Japan and Germany mostly. The Afghan war was fought by Afghanies and special forces of other nations, then the americans bommed it for a while and went in when it was safe (and bombed some canadians just to be sure).

Any nation who's government does not kick up one hell of a stink who has citizens there should be voted out a.s.a.p. as they obviously do not value the lives of their people.

I think it is time the world demanded "justice or release", if only so that when the US predictably responds "or else or what?" we'll all finally know for sure where we stand.

The reason nobody ever suggested invading North Korea was that there was/is actually some possibility they may have some actual weapons of mass destruction, and the US would NEVER invade a country that had those. The lesson of Iraq was clear - if you don't have WMDs, don't p**s about trying to prove; get some quick, or die.

I think it's obvious that they should have been released some time since! Any useful information that's ever going to be got from them has been got, and that's not much, I gather.
<>
I have always suspected torture of some sort - and some of the prisoners were/are children! (13-17, which to me counts as children.)
Show me where to protest!

Why do you need to be shown?

I would have thought several options would immediately suggest themselves.

1. Guantanamo Bay. Everyone with an atlas knows where that is.
2. The White House. This is in AMERICA, Della. It's a big white building where the nasty man lives.
3. The US embassy, if you lack the will to move outside your homeland. It's at 29 Fitzherbert Terrace, Thorndon, Wellington. That's the capital of the country where you live, Della. Their phone number is 462 6000. Would you like me to draw you a map, dear?

You obviously have no idea how far Wellington is from Auckland. Stop being so jumpped up and learn that "show me where to protest" is not an invitation for smarmey condescension.

Della, do you realise that this is that horrible little git whoo/member/number that was following you around accusing you of being racist?

Wellington to Auckland is about 660 kilometres, about an eight hour drive. You obviously don't remember that I didn't "accuse" Della of being as racist. She used a term of racist abuse in an argument on h2g2 and I objected. No "accusations", merely objection to an undeniable fact. She never apologised either...

11 hrs bus
16 hrs train

And here you go jerking off again