<p>Not posting a link because I believe we are not allowed to here. But I just saw parts of it on the BBC website.</p>
<p>This is a 15 year old Canadian citizen boy at the time of interrogation, sobbing, asking for help. He is 21 now and has still not been charged with any crime.</p>
<p>As a parent of a 15 year old who I hope will be a college graduate by the age of 21, it made my stomach turn. On this college forum, I’m sure many of you also have children in this age group. Imagine for a moment if it was your child caught up in all of this.</p>
<p>Today I am not feeling so proud of my country.</p>
<p>That the teen was crying and complaining that his interrogator didn’t care about him, is not evidence of abuse. We’re at war, and our enemies would do much more than make our soldiers cry – their videos are snuff films.</p>
<p>The AP article states that the teen “is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.”</p>
<p>We’re at war–then let’s treat these people as prisoners of war. The US has chosen not to consider these people POWs so that we can isolate them and torture them for “information.” Every war leads to excesses that later generations will consider over the top. Japanese American internment in WW2 is now considered wrong. I suspect that Gitmo and torture will be one of the War on Terror excesses that will be decried in the future.</p>
<p>We may detain “enemy combatants” for the duration of the war. They are “unlawful combatants” w/o POW status because terrorists don’t meet the criteria for this definition as set forth by the Geneva Convention.</p>
<p>Giving all enemy combatants POW status is like giving every living creature “human rights.”</p>
<p>It is my understanding the interigation was done by a Canadian not an American.
It is also my understanding that the bombing he was responsible for (that resulted in deaths, including that of an American soldier) resulted in him being found in the rubble near death. He was rescued and treated. He is now accused of a war crime.</p>
<p>I support US action in Iraq and (mostly) around the world, but just present the evidence and convict him, or release him.</p>
<p>This “we have the right to indefinitely detain anyone we call an enemy combatant” thing is nonsense both from a consequentialist and a deontological view. You can for example, hold a large POW camp for the purpose of bargaining for other American POWs … but who would you return the boy to, if you were using him to ransom other American lives?</p>
<p>Indefinite detainment of POWs only makes sense if you actually have an enemy State to barter POWs with.</p>
<p>Convict? I think its absurd to spend that much time, money and attention on each individual combatant. Our troops are not on police operations, dusting for fingerprints, etc.</p>
<p>Or maybe there’s something wrong with the evidence??</p>
<p>How does such a young person have means to relink with a terrorist faction from overseas? Watch him. Tap his house. Probably even a less expensive affair than detainment without evidence.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court says that we have to give them some basic rights. Indefinite detention without the chance to fight that detention is not the American way…</p>
<p>I am afraid of writing anything bad about the Bush administration on this board, there are some people reading this blog (Bush can now spy on Americans without a warrant), and I’m afraid they will come for me in the middle of the night and ship me to a secret prison to torture me. They can keep me in this secret prison as long as they like (they don’t need a judge for this), and I wont probably see my parents again.</p>
<p>Our civil liberties are being eroded in the name of war.At what point are we going to scream enough is enough?</p>
<p>Folks, be careful of what you say on the phone, and what you write online, they are listening and reading everything, and they can come for you anytime and ship you to one of their secret prisons.</p>
<p>A “fair and speedy trial” is less costly than indefinite detainment.</p>
<p>One of the failures of Iraq policy is the failure to maintain a well-trained professional police force. The Iraqi police happen to be loyal to their diverse partisan factions (to the extent they fight amongst themselves). They are not loyal to the greater social welfare. Maybe there’s a need for Americans who will serve as police.</p>
<p>Instead of a crude troop surge, why hasn’t Bush thought of a police surge? It’s precisely because the US Army and Marines are not meant to be police that disorder reigns. Can you imagine trying to suppress crime and disorder in the United States with an army? Suppose if there were 50,000 Unabombers running loose in the country, would you think the security would be improved by stationing an armoured division in every American city? </p>
<p>Ah, counter-terrorist operations are no secretive. So secretive perhaps, that the entire programme is rife with incompetence. Do you think you can prevent hijackings and people sneaking weapons and bombs aboard planes by stationing guys with submachine guns at airports? </p>
<p>I don’t care if the boy really belonged to Al Qaeda. Present evidence, convict or acquit. So why do we want to spend more money on more Humvees as opposed to creating a functional law and order system staffed by police loyal to public order, and not the militias? </p>
<p>With an economy of scale, you could probably monitor every Iraqi home and every street. Hidden bugs are inexpensive. Currently the military has the capability to only detain people (and then, indefinitely and inefficiently) at the scenes of battle and by unreliable intelligence. Notably, all the mass arrests in Iraq have been conducted by local authorities for factionalist reasons. There has been a notable lack of mass arrests (not mere illegitimate detainments) by American authorities.</p>
<p>He was 15 years old at the time of interrogation. He is 21 now. If the evidence against him is so overwhelming then why has he not been formally charged.</p>
<p>Many of our prisoners in Gitmo were not associated with the terrorists at all, or were only peripherally associated with them, and many have been released after years of incarceration, with no charges ever being brought. </p>
<p>Lets assume the American version is true- he threw a grenade and killed an American soldier DURING an ongoing battle. It just means he was attacking our side when our side was attacking him. That is not a “war crime”.</p>
<p>How we treat our enemies says a lot about us. And this is not the way we want to be conducting ourselves. It does not help us. </p>
<p>I’m amazed that there are still people who defend Gitmo.</p>