Excuse me but...

[jaguar]

Why the FUCK does AMERICA have a base of al queda prisoners in CUBA???!?!?!!?!?
thankyou

[Nic Name]

The U.S.A. has had a Nava Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since American occupation in 1898. Why they have a base there is detailed in the official Gitmo website. Originally occupied by military invasion, the U.S.A. now occupies the naval base under a long term lease from the government of Cuba.

The reasons the Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are being kept there are several, including:

* it is a secure military facility under the unfettered control of the U.S.A. unlike the Kandahar air base, which is subject to the sovereignty of Afghanistan, where the U.S.A.'s occupation and conduct is subject to international law.

* although under American control, the naval base is not sovereign U.S.A. terrritory, so the detainees do not have the protection of American constitutional law, and the administration is free of any potential involvement of the other branch of government, the judiciary, with respect to the rights of any detainees.

Historically, the British had a similar detention island. You know the one.

The Guantanamo Bay base is, if I recall, leased from Cuba for $4,000/year. This was under an agreement with the pre-Castro government. The only way the lease can be terminated is if the USA agrees. Castro has wanted them out for quite some time, and does not cash the $4,000 checks, which we've been sending him every year.

[tw]

Originally posted by Nic Name
The reasons the Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are being kept there are several, including: ...

* although under American control, the naval base is not sovereign U.S.A. terrritory, so the detainees do not have the protection of American constitutional law, and the administration is free of any potential involvement of the other branch of government, the judiciary, with respect to the rights of any detainees.

Our government cannot even defined if we are at war because of this and other nagging problems. Putting those detainees in Cuba makes them subject to neither US nor International law. Does this thread suggest that Americans are finally hearing what has been headline news in Europe?

BTW, notice that John Walker is not in Cuba. Now that the emotion has left some peoples response, get ready for a surprise. If he did not kill anyone, then he has committed no crime. He is not guilty of treason and the case against him is fraut with evidence likely to be thrown out of most civilian courts. Since he asssociated with Al Qaeda, then many (ie Bill Mahr) insist he must be guilty and should be put to death. Fact and emotions are two completely different concepts.

Mariguana salesman get five years. Murders typically serve less time. Football stars and Rabbis serve nothing. At most, John Walker will get a year or two - and even that is probably too long a sentence.

[BrianR]

The free press will be there the day he walks out of the courtroom, broadcasting a current
picture of him into every home in America. Justice will follow in about five minutes.

Where's Jack Ruby when you need him?

Brian

[Nic Name]

With regard to Walker, I find it strange that the American public is almost universally confident in the President's administration to prosecute the war on terrorism, but can't seem to trust them to prosecute one citizen properly.

Every Tom, Dick and Harry wants to weigh in with a talkshow conviction and a sentence for John Walker, without any facts other than CNN soundbytes. If nothing else, any thinking person has to acknowledge that the FBI, CIA, DoD and President know quite a bit more than the man on the street about Walker from their interrogations, and have decided that this is the way to proceed.

If the government can't be trusted to make this decision flawlessly, then why should they be trusted to decide which nation to attack next?

For all anyone knows, Walker could be a valuable CIA operative, whose cover it is essential to preserve. Maybe the video interviews with CNN where he openly espoused support for the Taleban, and the interrogation filmed with CIA agent Spahn, in which Walker wouldn't talk or cooperate with American government interrogators, were staged CIA set-ups to maintain Walker's cover. Would the government delude the media to aid in a cover-up?

Maybe the only way to re-integrate Walker into Al Qaeda is to allow him to "escape" the American justice system. The man on the street wonders why the CIA can't infiltrate the Al Qaeda, if Walker can join up and even get a meeting with bin Laden. Did the American public expect that CIA operatives in Afghanistan would look like Men In Black?

Even in Pakistan, Walker was telling his friends in "the base" that he was from Ireland, to play down his American citizenship. Obviously, he was attempting to blend into the organization. If one were to develop an elaborate long-term plan to infiltrate Al Qaeda with CIA operatives, wouldn't an impressionable disillusioned youth, fluent in Arabic, apparently dedicating his life to Islam and the Taleban, be an ideal CIA operative if he could pull it off? Maybe he did. Many smart Americans would think that bin Laden couldn't be so easily duped ... all the while, believing themselves that Walker is a traitor.

Maybe Walker is much more valuable to the government if he eventually walks on all charges. Even if they have to retire him from active service, because his cover may have been compromised, it may be essential for the CIA to ensure that Walker's associates in Al Qaeda continue to believe that their security wasn't breached by association with Walker. A fair trail where he gets off on American constitutional legal technicalities, with an outraged public, may be the ultimate cover-up.

In Walker's only communication to his parents during his detention he told them not to worry, he couldn't say anything, but that he was safe in the custody of the American military. His parents wouldn't even know if he was a CIA operative.

The American public is generally very naive about the operations of the CIA. It's the CIA's core business to keep everyone in the dark about what they do and how they do it. They've done such a good job, over the years, the American public actually thinks they don't know anything. Perfect.

This may be too far fetched a conspiracy theory to believe. It's just easier to believe that the leaders elected and appointed to run the world's most powerful nation can't make the right decision what to do about Johnnie Walker.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by tw

If he did not kill anyone, then he has committed no crime. He is not guilty of treason and the case against him is fraut with evidence likely to be thrown out of most civilian courts.

Well, having a case "fraut with evidence likely to be thrown out of most civilian courts" and having "comitted no crime" aren't quite the same thing.

Based on what he's reported to have admitted, it sounds to me quite likely that he's guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, as are a number of the detainees at Gitmo. Unfortunately, there's a reasonable chance that everything he's admitted to since being captured will get excluded, depending on how well Mirandized the court thinks he was. If it isn't excluded, I think he's quite likely to be convicted on the conspiracy rap.

If he *is* a spook, his cover was *exceptionally* well-constructed.

[Undertoad]

<i>Now that the emotion has left some peoples response, get ready for a surprise. If he did not kill anyone, then he has committed no crime.</i>

And similarly, since Richard Reid's shoes were wet, and he couldn't light them, he has committed no crime. Right?

[Nic Name]

'Alphabet guys:' CIA, Special Forces wage secret war in Afghanistan

I was gonna say something like that, Tony, but you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

As far as him being in the US instead of Cuba - this has been explained numerous times. He's an American citizen. As such, he's granted the rights that all American citizens have - a trial with a jury of peers. Do you think we're going to get those in a military tribunal? No. Hence his trial in the US.

I haven't made up my mind yet - I am not one to judge his innocence. Though I do find it disgusting and absurd that he would espouse the hatred for the US that he has, that's still free speech. We'll see what happens. Signed affidavits may be difficult to refute.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
And similarly, since Richard Reid's shoes were wet, and he couldn't light them, he has committed no crime. Right?

If I am a wise guy in a room full of wise guys, and my wise guy friends at the other table shot the waiter in cold blood, then am I also guilty of conspiracy to kill that waiter? That same question must be asked of John Walker. Just because he associated with terrorists does not make him responsible for terrorist activities.

Richard Reid was in possession of a deadly weapon, was in possession of that weapons in violation of international security and transportation laws, was in possession (we think) of stolen property, was in possession of that weapon with intent to use it in the act of a crime, attempted to use that weapons to kill, attempted to use the weapon to destroy an international transportation vehicle (is that a violation of the Warsaw accords?), and how many more crimes is he accused?

John Walker's only crime, according to investigator leaks to the press, are the things only he claimed. Richard Reid tried to murder people. John Walker was just in a room of undesireable people. As Maggie notes, those facts against Walker may be thrown out as a violation of his constitutional rights. There is no other evidence that John Walker committed any crime other than be in a room with other criminals. Is that a crime?

I suspect Cheney is guilty of more serious crimes than John Walker. But, of course, Cheney is the VP and we know how politicians are rarely prosecuted for crimes; yet prosecuted for morality reasons. Do we now convict a man because we don't like his associates? In which case, Enron means a serious problem for George Jr and much of his staff.

A dirty little problem with John Walker's case is that he really commited no crime - just claimed to conspire - and then without a lawyer. John Walker appears to be nothing more than a dumb kid - a Symbonese Liberation wanna-be who could not even get that right. Patty Hearst is a bigger criminal than Walker. At least she could drive a get-away car successfully.

[jaguar]

some of the english-speaking prisoners liek the one form austrlaia have made thier position very, very clear and have therefore implicated themselves in terrorist activties but walker is an interesting case, we'll see.

Cherney should a: be foreced to relaose EVERY meeting tape from the energy bill, then absed on teh evidence i'm sure is on there, shot.

Similarly, because you're so far left, you should be hanged. Right?

Remind me not to vote for you as President of the World. Your domestic policy would be killer.

[MaggieL]

Funny how jag doesn't have a problem with US firearms when they're enforcing *his* policies. :-)

I *would* like to see Cheney have to FOIA the records of his energy task force, just like Hillary had to do for her health-care task force.

Cheney is guilty until proven guilty. I bet if the records totally exonerated him of any wrong doing, one of the far-leftist monkeys would find <b>some</b> reason to order a death sentence.