Remember that not every one being held at Gitmo is in fact guilty. Some people being held there are there for no good reason at all.

Very true, Brittney.

Which is why they are treated humanely, given a Koran, provided with a bed, provided with three hot meals a day, interrogated to see if they have any actionable terrorist intelligence, and in many cases, released.

That's quite a statement Brittney. Who is being held there for no good reason at all? I'd say you are sitting on a huge story if that's true. Your source puts Deep Throat to shame. Do tell.

"Remember that not every one being held at Gitmo is in fact guilty. Some people being held there are there for no good reason at all."

Ain't it great! We release them and the next thing you know these poor misunderstood farmers and bead salesmen are back in Afgranastan trying to kill our men and women over there.

So are you guys saying that you are 100% sure that every single person incarcerated at gitmo is guilty of a crime? That seems to be the position of Bill and Lance, based on what they have written. If that's true, then what are we doing releasing some of them?

Many detainees at Gitmo have not been charged with ANYTHING. Almost a year after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees have the right to a lawyer, two-thirds of them still have no legal representation.

Under these circumstances it is almost certain that there are people being held who are not responsible for the crimes of which they are accused. Or not accused of, actually, since they are being held without being given a formal reason as to why.

It would be great if Brittney and Kevin could get this worked up about what Castro does in his jails on that island.

If our democracy and justice system work, then those being detained at Gitmo should be given some kind of a hearing to determine their guilt instead of being held indefinitely without being charged. If you think our system is not fit to deal with the detainees and that they can be held indefintely without being charged, then I fear for our future. Giving the executive branch a blank check to hold people in this way grants the federal government a huge amount of power that I thought conservatives would object to. I guess in this case, you believe our government is infallible and cannot possibly be holding someone who is not guilty -- and thus there should be no checks and balances.

Because we were attacked on 9/11, does that gives us the right to hold people without having to prove a thing? If that is the case, then the government can seize any one of us without any restraint.

where did that definition come from? Ask an expert, and you'll discover that what was described is in fact considered torture:

David Sheffer, a senior State Department human rights official in the Clinton administration who teaches law at George Washington University, said the procedure of shackling prisoners to the floor in a state of undress while playing loud music - the Guantánamo sources said it included the bands Limp Bizkit and Rage Against the Machine, and the rapper Eminem - and lights clearly constituted torture. "I don't think there's any question that treatment of that character satisfies the severe pain and suffering requirement, be it physical or mental, that is provided for in the Convention Against Torture," Mr. Sheffer said.

Also note that Rumsfeld's revised list of rules does not include loud music or lights as approved techniques, and specifically says techniques should not "constitute a substantial change in environmental quality."

Many detainees at Gitmo have not been charged with ANYTHING.

Brittney is correct about everything she says except the above. NONE of the detainees at Gitmo have been charged with a crime, not just many.

Lance says, "That's quite a statement Brittney. Who is being held there for no good reason at all? I'd say you are sitting on a huge story if that's true. Your source puts Deep Throat to shame. Do tell."

First, Lance, it's not only unreasonable, but also counter to American values, to say that everyone at Gitmo, or even most detainees at Gitmo, are "there for a good reason." They have not been charged with any crime, Lance. The military has not presented any evidence against them. They have not had trials. They have not seen attorneys. This being the case, in the eyes of the law, they are all innocent, every last one of them.

You should read "Inside the Wire" by Erik Saar. He spent six months at Guantanamo as a translator, and the second half of that time was spent translating during interrogations. He came to Guantanamo fully convinced, just as you are, Lance, that everyone at Guantanamo either was directly responsible for planning 9/11 or was involved in terrorist activity aimed at attacking the U.S. again. Before his time there was half over, he no longer believed that. He saw prisoners being mistreated, humiliated, and degraded, many of whom were guilty of nothing except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Saar is a deeply religious Christian, and he thought it was wrong to use people's religion against them, as interrogators did to detainees at Gitmo. By the time he left, Saar was convinced that most of the prisoners there had no intelligence value at all. Many of them hadn't even seen an interrogator in months. They just continued to languish there, even though they had no useful information to give. Saar is also convinced (and he said this on "60 Minutes") that Guantanamo has harmed U.S. national security immeasurably. This is someone who respects and loves the military. He is not antiwar.

Kman says the prisoners are "treated humanely,given a Koran, provided with a bed, provided with three hot meals a day, interrogated to see if they have any actionable terrorist intelligence, and in many cases, released."

This is a very misleading and inaccurate statement. Yes, the prisoners ARE given Korans and prayer mats, but at the same time their religious beliefs are routinely used against them to get "actionable intelligence," as you put it -- although using a person's religious beliefs as a weapon to humiliate and torture them never works, and it hasn't in the case of detainees at Gitmo. Erik Saar personally witnessed (and took part in, as a translator) an interrogation in which a woman removed her top, rubbed her breasts against the detainee, tried to get him to say he was aroused by her, told him (falsely) that she was menstruating and rubbed some of her menstrual "blood" (actually red ink) on his face. Then she told him that the water was going to be shut off in his cell that night so he could not wash what he thought was her blood off of him. That meant he could not pray. And that meant his connection to God was broken. That's what our men and women are doing. Using Muslim prisoners' religious beliefs to sever their relationship with God in an effort to break them.

And it does not work. It did not work in the above case. The prisoner was reduced to sobbing and spitting and screaming at the interrogator, but he did not tell her anything.

Gitmo detainees are not always treated humanely; in fact, they often are not. Is it humane to tell a detainee during an interrogation that he does not have the worth that a dog has, and force him to crawl, sit up and beg, bark, yelp, and lick like a dog in order to raise his social status to the level of a dog?

And it is not true that prisoners are released if they have no actionable intelligence. Some detainees have been released over the last 3 years, but there are still well over 500 detainees at Gitmo, none of whom have been charged with anything, and many of whom have not been interrogated for months.

Furthermore, the prisoners do not have "beds." They sleep on blankets or cots (this is according to Saar), but often are forced to sleep on the concrete floor with no blanket as punishment.

It is simply not open to question (at least not rational or reasonable question) that Gitmo detainees have been treated for the past 3 years and continue to be treated in a manner that is completely inconsistent with American ideals, values, and traditions of human rights. Those detainees are not being treated the way the Bush admin demands that other countries treat *their* people. In fact, those detainees are being treated without any regard for the most basic legal protections and humane treatment that anyone living in a democracy would expect to have.

I suppose I should stop now. I trust I have made my point.

A Clintonite law professor and someone who wrote a book with a bunch of lefty canards. That's enough proof for me.

Lance, it seems, is better at fighting wars than defending his initial points in a logical, non-dismissive manner.

Hard to be a death camp, if no one has died.

Very well then. You have provided no proof for your original statement that "some people being held there are there for no good reason at all." That's nothing more than a lib Dem talking point and it sounds like the way Dan Rather would kick off a broadcast if he still had his job. Defend your initial point.

Proof: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050201-122628-8338r.htm

"From the beginning of 2002 through at least June 2004, the majority of those being held but not charged had not been informed of the basis on which they had been detained, were not permitted access to counsel, were not given an opportunity to challenge their enemy combatant status and were held incommunicado."

But honestly Lance, it is obvious you aren't interested in the facts.

I think you are confusing an episode of Law and Order with the reasons for which we hold people in this war. Just because we haven't announced to the world or to a given terrorist what we know about him doesn't mean they are "being held for no good reason at all."

But honestly Brittney, it is obvious you are an extremely naive person.

Do we really have to resort to political mud slinging? All we all really want is peace right? And a little reassurance that we are not on the same level as the terrorist who are responsible for 9/11?!
Lance please don't call us naive, we realize you are on the inside track...

Just because we haven't announced to the world or to a given terrorist what we know about him doesn't mean they are "being held for no good reason at all."

It doesn't mean they aren't either. Can't you see that? Can't you see that there are likely a few people being held at Gitmo who are not guilty of what they are (not) being charged with? How is what I'm saying so impossible? How is it so "radical"?

Of course some of them are innocent. The white house doesn't deny that - in fact, they've admitted as such 22 times, as that's how many people have been released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Not really a big deal to most Americans, since none (supposedly) of those held are American citizens.

According to the English media, at least six of those held were "apprehended" at school - being that at least 18 of the detainees were under the age of 15 at the time they were brought to Guantanamo.

I don't really see how you can say they are all insurgents or that they're enemy combatants because they were apprehended on the battlefield - do you actually do any research whatsoever?

That said, I do believe that the vast majority of those being held will not be found to be innocent, and will be punished as they deserve. This does not necessarily make them all guilty, nor does it make their detention legal. But splitting hairs isn't really going to help anyone.

I'm not sure whether I believe or not that an "illegal" detention actually damages the individual freedoms of Americans. Not being an American, I don't have much investment in their invidual constitutional freedoms, and I think most non-Americans would agree that regardless of the justness of their current war and the war they are waging at home, the vast majority of Americans have lost a tremendous amount of their personal freedoms to their current administration.