Worldwide Protests Mark Sixth Anniversary Of Guantanamo Bay
Worldwide Protests Mark Sixth Anniversary Of Guantanamo Bay
Six long years ago today, “the first orange-clad, shackled and blindfolded prisoners arrived at Guantanamo’s Camp X-Ray.” Since that “dark day in recent American history, more than 700 people have been detained without due process and not a single trial has been completed,” notes the ACLU.
Today, people worldwide marked this anniversary with protests. More than 70 people were arrested at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is currently considering “whether prisoners still detained at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their confinement in U.S. courts.” In London, Amnesty International organized an all-night vigil outside the U.S. embassy. A look at some of the protests around the globe:
President Bush continues to resist calls to close Guantanamo and has found a strong backer in Vice President Cheney, who has expressed objections to shutting down the facility. Some of the conservative voices who have urged Bush to close it:
Gen. Colin Powell: “[W]e have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open. … We don’t need it, and it’s causing us far more damage than any good we get for it.” [6/10/07]
Defense Secretary Robert Gates: “In his first weeks as defense secretary, Robert M. Gates repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate, according to senior administration officials. He told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.” [New York Times, 3/22/07]
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “I fully agree, we would like nothing better than to close Guantanamo.” [10/9/07]
Sign the ACLU’s petition to close down Guantanamo HERE.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
63 Responses to “Worldwide Protests Mark Sixth Anniversary Of Guantanamo Bay”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
what were they arrested for…’wearing orange??????’
January 11th, 2008 at 4:30 pmGOP schizophrenia on parade.
“We must be tough and brutal to these terrorists! SHow them no mercy and no quarter! They will torture us so we’ll torture them!”
VS.
“They are treated better than American prisoners. They are given delicious food and Koran’s. They are treated no worse than any frat-pranksters. A little water on the face.
America is turning into a pariah state.
-GSD
January 11th, 2008 at 4:31 pmBut, but, but you haven’t heard that we feed them lemon pepper chicken!!?!?
January 11th, 2008 at 4:33 pmGuantanamo Bay is in Cuba, a sovereign nation that we force to allow us to have a military base, which we use hold prisoners so they are not on our soil.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:34 pmThe Spanish American War isn’t over yet folks. Remember the Maine
Nuremberg is the symbol of sound, legitimate justice in the face of real tyranny.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:36 pmAnd then there’s Bush.
It needs to be shut down immediately. If you have actual evidence against someone then let them have their day in court, otherwise let them go.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:39 pmWow!
It used to be that much of the planet saw truth & justice through our President’s eyes.
Now, the entire planet sees through this primate’s lies.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:39 pmGitmo is a boil on our collective national ass.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:42 pm8, RUC,
Hmmm, that’s what Rush used for his deferment. Can he go there, too?
January 11th, 2008 at 4:44 pmWhat I find amazing about this is how quickly Gates got on the Bush bandwagon. He did start out sounding like he had a mind of his own and a soul as evidenced by what he said about Guantanamo. Now he is nothing more than another Bush Sycophant.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:44 pmThe upside is we are officially under one year until we can turn the corner on this nightmare and start rebuilding our reputation. The downside is all the further damage that can be done in that year.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:52 pmgood thing Hypocrite Bush was at the auschwitz memorial yesterday talking about human rights.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:55 pm“If you have actual evidence against someone then let them have their day in court, otherwise let them go.”
Name one war in history were enemy combatants captured on the battlefield were “given their day in court.”
The detainees at Guantanamo are not being held as criminal defendants. They are being held as enemy combatants during a time of military conflict, which is sanctioned by international law and the law of war.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:58 pmwhich is sanctioned by international law and the law of war.
-Comment by Exley
ExLax, when was war declared?
January 11th, 2008 at 5:00 pmName one war in history were enemy combatants captured on the battlefield were “given their day in court.â€
During the Gallic wars, the Romans executed all enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:04 pmThat must have been a good thing, as the Romans had and empire too!
the war on terrer requires that we sacrifice.
Our First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendments.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:05 pmNow I know what happened to all the fabric from Christo’s “Gates” project in Central Park. There’s a whole new industry, based in China no doubt, for making and selling fake Guantanamo suits to the world.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:06 pm“If you have actual evidence against someone then let them have their day in court, otherwise let them go.â€
Name one war in history were enemy combatants captured on the battlefield were “given their day in court.â€
The detainees at Guantanamo are not being held as criminal defendants. They are being held as enemy combatants during a time of military conflict, which is sanctioned by international law and the law of war.
Comment by Exley — January 11, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
—–
If they’re being held as ‘enemy combatants’ then the Geneva conventions apply. If this is the case, we can’t interrogate them beyond name, rank, serial number. Also, enemy combatants are returned at the cessation of hostilities. We are not in conflist with Iraq or Afghanistan.
What law do you think DOES apply to ‘enemy combatants’? Are there any?
January 11th, 2008 at 5:09 pmDeebaser, There is a difference under the Third Geneva Convention and US law between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants.
To be considered lawful enemy combatants, they must for example, be captured in uniform.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:18 pmI wonder if the Gitmo menu still includes “Noodles Jefferson.”
January 11th, 2008 at 5:21 pmIf there were anyone in Bushco with a bit of historical knowledge and political savvy; this whole story would have gone away if everyone involved had simply said, ” Waterboarding is torture and, like all torture, we condemn it.”
Then, if a tape shows up showing waterboarding? Throw someone under a bus.
Unfortunately they chose this idiotic, “let’s make ‘em guess what we’ll do to ‘em” approach.
Whether, or not, their intent is evil; their results are evil. Once established, a reputation for abusing captives, even “enemy combatants”, is repaid many fold. It’s, arguably, the most stupidly evil thing a government can do while it has troops in harms way. Not to mention American civilians for generations to come.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:26 pmGot nuze for you Exley, for mujahdeen, their robes are their uniform.
Plus, many of these ‘terrists’ were the result of bounty hunters turning in political enemies. Nice try.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:26 pmThe detainees at Guantanamo are not being held as criminal defendants. They are being held as enemy combatants during a time of military conflict, which is sanctioned by international law and the law of war.
Comment by Exley — January 11, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
We’ve been hearing that one for several years now, and yet so many of them turned out to be either completely innocent or simply patriotic (by their own lights). Why do you suppose they have let so many of them go, Exley?
January 11th, 2008 at 5:30 pmNothing short but the apprehension, trial and execution of those who approved or implemented the policy should be accepted.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:40 pmLawless Gitmo is a shame upon the USA.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:55 pmThe country I was raised to love had flaws, but, it didn’t operate secret prisons for political prisoners. There is no U.S. or international law which allows for the indefinite detention of uncharged foreign nationals.
I will not stand for a government which “disappears” people, even if it’s for my protection. And no one who supports such a thing has any right to the proud title of American Patriot or, indeed, their Freedom.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:56 pmNot Prisoners of War, not criminals, but “enemy combatants.”
It’s a disingenuous semantic argument.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:03 pmYes, it is torture,…
i mean…,
no its not, …..
i mean we are not doing it anyway, …
i mean the USA doesnt torture anyway…
excuse me for a second, i need to go call Roberto Gonzales…
OK, heres the deal, i dont think im supposed to talk about it…
BUT, if i were to talk about it, i need to be able to do whatever we have to do to keep Americar safe….
Even if it means something illegal…
NOT that it is illegal….
OOPs, i mean….
Not that we are doing it….
Oh, we DID do it ???
Wait, let me go talk to Roberto again….
=======
January 11th, 2008 at 6:09 pmBrad
http://911review.org/
Deebaser, There is a difference under the Third Geneva Convention and US law between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants.
To be considered lawful enemy combatants, they must for example, be captured in uniform.
Comment by Exley — January 11, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
—–
You’re forgetting that unlawful combatants are treated as civilians under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Hence they are subject to civilian law and held personally responsible for the crimes they did or did not commit.
Unless you’re arguing that this ALSO does not apply. In which case I ask again in bold: What laws govern the detention of the individuals held at Gitmo?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:11 pmthey should close Guantanamo prison- after shooting all inmates.
we are talking about one bunch of very bad people . i am from Israel and some of my military service was keeping Palestinian prisoners . i always felt sorry that they didn’t get the death penalty(in Israel there is no death penalty - shame on us.)
January 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pmGot nuze for you Exley, for mujahdeen, their robes are their uniform.
Comment by RUCerious — January 11, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
RUC, do you *seriously* think the authors of the Genenva Convention would have bought this argument? If so, the Serbian nationalists who murdered Arch-Duke Ferdinand and sparked WWI could have called whatever coat they were wearing their “uniform”.
The men who wrote the GC were no strangers to terrorism, though it was mainly anarchists with a sprinkling of radical socialists that they had to deal with.
The people detained in Gitmo should get trials before military tribunals and if found guilty serve their sentence then be released. This endless limbo is bad for everyone.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pmTo be considered lawful enemy combatants, they must for example, be captured in uniform.
Comment by Exley
this is not true……..another…….distortion of the truth
January 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pmComment by robbar — January 11, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Sick f_ck.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:14 pmRUC, do you *seriously* think the authors of the Genenva Convention would have bought this argument?
I couldn’t acutely give a crap. The ‘uniform’ of a mujhadeen are their robes.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:15 pmthey should close Guantanamo prison- after shooting all inmates.
we are talking about one bunch of very bad people . i am from Israel and some of my military service was keeping Palestinian prisoners . i always felt sorry that they didn’t get the death penalty(in Israel there is no death penalty - shame on us.)
Comment by robbar
so now we have a jewish nazi?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:16 pmIf robbar is really an Israeli, I want back every effing cent we’ve donated to that sorry ass country since I started paying taxes in 1965.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:16 pmNow that I think about it, it doesn’t matter squat if robbar IS Israeli, give us our shekels back!
January 11th, 2008 at 6:16 pmrobbar clearly states the fundamental difference between Israelis and Americans.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pmNot Prisoners of War, not criminals, but “enemy combatants.â€
It’s a disingenuous semantic argument.
Comment by Zooey — January 11, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
Laws are based on designations, Zooey. The GC does recognize the difference between soldiers serving in uniform and those who do not.
Does anyone know if the Taliban ever signed on to the GC? If they did, THAT would be disingenuous - every woman who suffered under their heel would have gladly gotten the treatment offered at Gitmo.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:18 pmIf robbar is really an Israeli, I want back every effing cent we’ve donated to that sorry ass country since I started paying taxes in 1965.
Comment by RUCerious — January 11, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
—
Same here.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:18 pmrobbar clearly states the fundamental difference between Israelis and Americans.
Comment by RUCerious
Well, except for our trolls…who are not true Americans.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:19 pmDoes anyone know if the Taliban ever signed on to the GC? If they did, THAT would be disingenuous - every woman who suffered under their heel would have gladly gotten the treatment offered at Gitmo.
Comment by Keltoi at Night
What and this justifies throwing away our morals. Real Americans do not torture or hold people without a trial….its unAmerican.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:21 pmRUC, do you *seriously* think the authors of the Genenva Convention would have bought this argument?
I couldn’t acutely give a crap. The ‘uniform’ of a mujhadeen are their robes.
Comment by RUCerious — January 11, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
So, the Geneva Convention is now a “living document”?
Surely, you are not going to side with those who see no moral or legal difference between a terrorist wearing civilian clothing and posing as one of the civilians he seeks to kill and a uniformed soldier of a sovereign nation?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:25 pmWhat and this justifies throwing away our morals. Real Americans do not torture or hold people without a trial….its unAmerican.
Comment by Fred — January 11, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
Yes, I regretted that last sentence after I posted it. I am curious if the Taliban were signatories of the GC, but we should follow it regardless. I still do not think the GC protections extend to terrorists. Mohammad Atta went to his death wearing jeans and a button up shirt, not robes. Anyone who thinks the GC was intended to apply to people like AQ does not understand the history behind the treaty.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:29 pmSuch a lovely image we now have the world associating us with.
Shackled, hooded men kneeling before their captors.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:32 pmComment by Keltoi at Night — January 11, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
These ‘combatants’ were supposedly caught on the field of battle without uniforms>?
Then why are there numerous reports that they were sold for bounty, after being caught by Pakistanis and sold to the police?
That’s not a battlefield capture.
And it’s not just one or two of the detainees, either.
The main point is that there is no recognizable judicial process at work here.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:35 pmPeriod.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 11, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Where’s the legal, not to mention moral, precedent for holding foreign nationals incommunicado, without charge or hearing? Show me the statute, State, Federal, or International which states, “Under these circumstances you are permited to hold Foreign Nationals in dire conditions including, but not limited to: heat/cold, shackles/restraints yada, yada, yada. and, by the way, you don’t have to tell anybody that you have them, why you have them, where you have them, and you don’t have to let anyone check on their welfare.”
It’s wrong. I don’t need a big bunch of legal banter to say so. And I dare anybody to find the law(s) which condone what the U.S. has done. The closest they may come is some obscure “signing statement” which promises “retroactive immunity”. However, I don’t think any interpretation which supported our treatment of prisoners would fly in an international court.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:36 pmThe main point is we are Americans…….
Americans are better than this….we do not torture…..we do not hold people in jail for any reason without a trial in a reasonable amount of time and they are entitled to a lawyer……This is America. We are different. We are better.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:38 pm#48 & 49 - I agree with you. See my post at 32. This limbo status is bad PR and bad practice. I do not think we should try these people in the civil courts, however.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:39 pmAnd anyone who does not stand against what the bush admin has done as far as detainees, including torture……well they are the 21st century “good Germans”
January 11th, 2008 at 6:40 pmThis is America. We are different. We are better.
Comment by Fred — January 11, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Careful, Fred, sentiments like that will get you in trouble around here…
January 11th, 2008 at 6:40 pmWell Fred,
At least we’re supposed to be a beacon of hope in a World of Darkness.
To bad Dumbya sold us out to the “terrrrrrrists.”
January 11th, 2008 at 6:41 pmDoes anyone know if the Taliban ever signed on to the GC? If they did, THAT would be disingenuous - every woman who suffered under their heel would have gladly gotten the treatment offered at Gitmo.
Comment by Keltoi at Night
This does not justify the criminal behavior of the bush admin. holding people in prison for years without even a lawyer or trial and torture…….
do I have to repeat myself? Do you really wish to destroy America? Why do you guys hate America?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:47 pmBefore bush…….just that short amount of time
before bush we were the greatest country in the world. Respected by all other nations of the world. Everyone wanted to be like us…
Now, since bush, we are the despised nazis of the 21st century…..what do you think can be our fate? Why do you hate America Keltoi and the rest of you trolls?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:50 pmI still do not think the GC protections extend to terrorists.
Anyone who thinks the GC was intended to apply to people like AQ does not understand the history behind the treaty.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 11, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
Very well. Who decides who is a terrorist? Because as of now, it appears that his Majesty El Busho can call whomever he dislikes a terrorist, sending people to be tortured in secret CIA prisons all over the world, or happily exported to be tortured in foreign countries.
“Well, we waterboarded the Al Qaeda unlawful enemy combatants (most of which we captured outside of combat) until they admitted they were Al Qaeda. See, we were right!”
January 11th, 2008 at 7:00 pmTo all those who want their American $$$ back. as far as i am concerned you can get any Dollar you put here.
I didn’t see a dime from it .
And yes - i think they should get a fair trial and if found guilty then - death penalty.
There are cases where people can’t be held in trial because you can’t show them your evidence . this are cases when if you reveal your evidence than you might put in danger the source of the evidence - it’s legitimate under the international law to put this kind of people in arrest without trial.
When I said i hope they shoot the prisoners i meant that this prisoners should get death penalty. we have here prisoners that helped put suicide bombers in buses that explode and killed many civilians- if the cost of giving them the death penalty is also giving you your $$- then you can shove your dollars up your ass.
As for the gitmo prisoners- if US can charge some of them there is no reason not to give them death penalty- and it doesn’t matter what they were wearing when arrested.
January 11th, 2008 at 7:14 pmI’m wearing orange!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pmUnder the radar and from about a month ago:
This ought to make the crowd that wrapped themselves in faded flags feel pretty good about what they have accomplished under the criminal bush administration. This is the world view of America that they have created and supported.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:50 pmYipee!
Does anyone know if the Taliban ever signed on to the GC? If they did, THAT would be disingenuous - every woman who suffered under their heel would have gladly gotten the treatment offered at Gitmo.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 11, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
I doubt the Taliban signed onto the GC — but WE did.
BTW, quite a diversion with the women being mistreated by the Taliban — what does that have to do with the fact that we are holding these people without due process, and torturing them?
Does that make you feel all safe? Maybe warm and fuzzy? I thought y’all were the ones with the “morals.”
January 11th, 2008 at 10:14 pmI doubt the Taliban signed onto the GC — but WE did.
Comment by Zooey — January 11, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
Exactly. What so many people fail to realize is that mistreatment of prisoners is not just against countless laws; it goes against every noble trait our society values and spits on the memories of countless American Patriots.
After one says one is against illegal detainment, there are no “buts”. It must stop! regardless of risk or perceived tactical disadvantage. Continuing to illegally detain prisoners will destroy what’s always been best about our country.
January 11th, 2008 at 10:27 pmContinuing to illegally detain prisoners will destroy what’s always been best about our country.
Comment by Impolitics — January 11, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
As well as allowing Republicans to hold office. they have done far more damage than the Taliban and Al Qaeda together.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:43 amI’m glad to see Gitmo getting some press…which would not have happened without the ACLU’s campaign.
How about this other news: yesterday, a US appeals court denied four former British detainees of their right to sue the Pentagon’s henchmen for their torture and mistreatment…great timing, huh?
January 12th, 2008 at 9:04 am“Does anyone know if the Taliban ever signed on to the GC?”
Actually, Keltoi, Afghanistan was a signatory to the Third Geneva Conventions prior to the US/NATO invasion of 2001. That is the Bush administration has given Taliban fighters POW status under the Geneva Conventions.
On the other hand, Al Qaeda is obviously not a signatory to the conventions. Accordingly, captured Al Qaeda terrorists are not entitled to POW status under the Third Geneva Convention.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pm