What do they say about a prisoner and his crime? oh yeah: there's no such thing as a guilty prisoner in Jail.
"I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial."
There haven't been any charges brought against him, and his life for the past DECADE (10+ years) has been stuck in a fucking limbo.
The US Government won't even let him commit suicide by way of hunger, so in essence he has absolutely no hope or choice as it currently stands.
Clearly there was someone who felt this dude was dangerous or else they wouldn't have flown him halfway around the world to "sit in limbo" there are prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq and it's MUCH cheaper to keep prisoners there, the only ones flown to cuba are those deemed "a higher security risk".
A hint at possible charges is hidden in the third paragraph of his plea for attention: "Years ago the military said I was a “guard” for Osama bin Laden..." he of course qualifies this by saying it's not true. But if true is fairly serious because it would imply he was highly trusted if he was a personal guard for OBL.
Again I haven't done any actual research into his situation but he most probably doesn't deserve nearly half the self-righteous indignation that everyone here is displaying.
--
In a parallel universe, I claim that you are committing conspiracy to overthrow the reigning King. You say you were just walking by the forest to check out wildlife. I say nonsense; I have the power to capture you. The extent of your crime is that you were in the forest.
I then capture you and throw you in a dungeon/prison, parade you naked, urinate you, rob you of basic dignity, flog you when I have a bad day or just for my amusement. I also feed you the same bland food daily.
This is your reality [1]
I do this continuously for 20 years == 7300 days in a row. You either start growing crazy or realize it would be better to end the misery yourself. At this point you have been robbed of the aspirations you had to contribute to scientific discovery by cataloguing flora and fauna. You realize that you haven't seen your children for ~20 years. Because you have been labeled an enemy of the state, your wife was thrown out of the city limits, etc. You choose the only option that is remotely viable: deprive yourself of nutrition till you die.
I rob you of that choice. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FUCKING CHOICE NOW. I strap you to a cot, and force feed you a disgusting liquid diet for the next N years of your life. You live like this for the rest of your life or till I decide otherwise.
Because in this scenario, I have power, I can do whatever I please in the name of protecting the life of this King.
[1] As an experiment, lock yourself in a room for a day/week with some bland nutritious food & pots & pans for bodily functions. No books, no computers, no phone or music players, or any other distractions. For added effect, wear noise canceling headphones & blindfolds. And just chill. Repeat this for a long period of time, and you'll either want to kill yourself because your existence has been reduced to nothing, or you'll go crazy. In reality you'll get pretty restless and bored within the hour.
If that's what happened well it sucks to be him but technically under the Geneva Convention and current laws of war, the US is allowed to hold him until the war ends at which point it must try him before a court (which can be a military tribunal) or trade him for it's own soldiers who are being held as POWs (which doesn't really happen because Al-Qaeda murders most prisoners).
Also small quibble with your story, he's been held for less than 10 years not more than 20. He gets normal food and can talk with fellow inmates and his guards, he is not urinated upon nor does he claim he was tortured, aside from being force fed. He does have access to all sorts of entertainment, so there isn't quite 1:1 parity here.
And for the record: a hunger strike (to death), like suicide is not I repeat not EVER an acceptable form of protest. Suicide is a cop-out, and a principle =/= a life.
a life >>>>>>> a principle.
To take your life in a form of protest is to admit you are wrong.
Also someone just posted a link to his Dossier and this guy is far from innocent: He admitted to fighting for Al-Qaida, he is mentioned in Al-Qaida documentation, regarding UBL.
So there you have it: he wasn't "walking in the forest to check out wildlife".
If you have reliable evidence then put him on trial or else shut up.
And he doesn't need a trial, we just don't want him to go back out there and fight again which is totally fair and how POWs work. Take a look at the Geneva Convention, not the Wiki version but the actual thing either from the part that I posted or go to the UN website and take a look.
Whether or not US Forces say he's guilty does not make him guilty in reality. They could be lying; they have lied many times in the past
So you are happy with "guilty until proven innocent" and "as he might be guilty, we can't give him the chance to prove otherwise because he might fool the legal system" as a moral precedents?
If there is evidence charge him and give him a fair trial, if there isn't admit so and let him go.
> but he most probably doesn't deserve nearly half the self-righteous indignation that everyone here is displaying.
You might be right, you might be wrong. But how will we ever know one way or the other without evidence presented? This is the sort of thing we in the west regularly chide other regimes for, and we are doing it ourselves making complete hypercrits of ourselves - this is why people who care about such things are getting rather indignant about the whole thing.
In times of war most civil liberties are suspended, we can discuss the fairness or "rightness" of that, but until we can all calm down and talk instead of hit that's the reality that we live in.
The same way a soldier gives his life to his country and with that signs away his freedom, the same way that war suddenly makes murder "legal", war gives a government body the "right" to take away what one would think are inalienable rights. I laugh at their indignation because they think they can pick and choose which parts of war to keep, but the reality is it's all or nothing and everything in between.
Even under "war rules" these prisoners should be dealt with in a better way.
And "Guilty until proven innocent?" Really? Idiot.
It's possible they should be treated better but this guy is a known bodyguard of UBL[1] and has lied consistently to everyone [1] so it's not clear how he's being treated (remember this is a Oped about politics - anything goes).
I'll ignore the last line as you've said nothing of substance.
[1]http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/43-samir-na...
That facility is in use in order to circumvent the law in treatment of prisoners period. It was located in Cuba in order to not be on US soil, because the Bush administration thought that offshore abuse would be easier to get away with.
If you have been awake at all during the past 12 years you will have heard the news stories about prisoners being tortured/executed there.
Furthermore, you will have heard the news stories of many inmates there turning out to be completely innocent.
Finally, you will have heard of the "people sweeps" in Afghanistan and Pakistan in which local warlords sold off people arbitrarily as "terrorists" to US forces, who didn't know better (and didn't care).
These people have been bunged up in Guantanamo without a fair trail. A fair trial is the only way to determine if they actually are who you and the lying US military claim they are.
If the prisoners are "guilty" of being enemy soldiers, then yes they can rot in jail until the US withdraws from Afghanistan.
If they are innocent, they should be freed immediately and compensated.
If you can't fathom that the word of the US military (or any part of any government really) should not just be taken on trust, you should take a time-machine to Nazi Germany. You'll love it there.
There is a (A) regular prisoner, that the normal legal rules apply to, including for terrorists.
Then there is (B) prisoner-of-war, which is for if there is a state of war and said person is a soldier in an enemy state.
Anybody who does not fit into category (B) by default fits into category (A).
"Enemy combatant" is something the Bush Administration pulled out of their ass because they wanted to torture prisoners.
If they were following the rules instead of making up criminal shit like that, they'd have had to treat the AlQaeda suspects ("suspects" including innocent civilians turned in for bounties) as category (A) civilian prisoners and not torture them. That wouldn't have fit the Bushies' plan.
The plan was to torture the prisoners by water boarding and make them "confess" that Saddam Hussein was behind 911 - to manufacture a "reason" for the Bushies to attack Iraq. And the plan worked.
What are the official laws regarding a POW? Certainly not that of naturalized citizens...
After skimming the UN Laws for POWs[1] and reading the parts that seemed to deal with internment and time length, it's not really clear to me why he should have to be tried.
Once he's be associated with the enemy he can be held until the end of Hostilities at which point the "host" country can decide when and how to exchange him with "ex-enemy" . That last part will be a little difficult because I don't think Al-Qaeda takes many prisoners.
That said, they might be violating laws regarding torture but that's a whole nother ball of wax.
[1]http://www.un.org/arabic/preventgenocide/rwanda/text-images/...
You may be thinking of Abu Ghraib
http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/43-samir-na...
tl;dr: Member of al-Qaida, bodyguard of Osama, fought in the front lines against US and coalition forces, consistently lied to interrogators.
I'm not sure what kind of court he would be 'tried' in considering he's not a US citizen.
I wasn't aware that to be tried in court citizenship is a requirement.
This seems to be actively debated in the upper echelons of US law and politics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#L...
Please, download the iConstitution app and spend 10-15 minutes reading it.
> these prisoners are in a legal gray area
No, the prisoners and their lawyers know where they stand. The US DOJ is trying to figure out the grey are they are. The guilty ones have been tried and sentences. These others may be of questionable character but not enough to be guilty. Now the US government is filing appeal after appeal to keep the lawyers busy because in the end the US will be deeply embarrassed by this whole affair.
Gandhi also preached and practiced something called "Peaceful Protest" this guy is accused of "associating with"/guarding UBL.
Even nazis got trials.
So as soon as Al-Qaeda agrees to end hostilities all those in Gitmo will either be freed or tried. This is life not some stupid movie or game, we don't get "do-overs" and "I'm sorry"'s. If you associate with a regime that another stronger power thinks is wrong you're gonna have a bad time. (and the UN allows it)
Secondly, 11 years without trial or even a concrete charge against "an accused terrorist" would be something USA and its citizens would be appalled about if Russia or China did so to their "terrorists".
Thirdly, I am against hunger strikes when they can be avoided. Simply because they can turn political and in turn can be abused. Gandhi did abuse it a bit. Indian politicians and activists do it a lot. But eleven years of being held without solid evidence or being charge is just fucked up. This is being done out of desperation and fatigue rather than ideology.
He's not just an accused terrorist, he's a enemy combatant and a POW, totally different ball game. And while the US might be "appalled if Russia or China did it," it would be for political reasons (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) and not ethical (reasons).
Finally, this thread has gone on far enough, I'm stepping out. I will not be replying to anymore posts.
A, E/I, O/U
(fatha, kasra, dhamma)
I don't understand why one would insist that he lives (prohibit hunger strike) and at the same time refuse him a trial. If he is guilty of some crime, then let him stand trial and suffer the consequences. If there is really no evidence against him then he should be freed. If the feeding tube is in your hand and you don't try for one of these options, you are not human.