Life after Guantanamo: 'We are still in jail'
bbc.com
bbc.com
Not that we will, but it’s theoretically possible to do all sorts of things that won’t actually happen.
It's like trying to end the war in Ukraine while also saying that you're trying to depose Putin. Putting very powerful people in corners tends to be a really bad plan.
Was it fear of prosecution that kept Caesar from giving up imperium when returning from Gaul? It was certainly a factor. Would there have been no Roman civil war if there was such a non-prosecution policy in place? I'm less certain.
The risk you bring up must be carefully considered, but so is having an unaccountable sovereign, just four years at a time.
The US is dependent on its network of allies in many respects; most pertinently, much of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns would not have been possible without the support of its European and the Middle Eastern ones, providing overflight permissions, military bases, intelligence and often even hosting "black sites" where people from the target nations could be tortured far from the meddlesome eyes of journalists and NGOs.
China? Russia? With their spotless record on human rights?
Russia is weeks, perhaps days, away from consolidating the Donbas (area large than the entire UK) and have greatly reduced the NATO-trained and supported Ukrainian military's (second largest in Europe) ability to conduct offensive maneuver warfare in a time span of just a few of weeks. And that's with maybe using 20% of Russias military capacity. All according to western sources.
Let's not conflate how we feel about the situation with the reality on the ground. The sooner we're honest about whats going, the sooner we can have peace.
Ukraine's main problem is that they are not being supplied with enough heavy weapons. The sooner they are, the sooner we can have peace.
You might want to take some time off from reading Sputnik, comrade :-)
Also, I'd love to hear which heavy weapon systems the west has that could change the tide. Like what are the exact platforms and logistics of getting them there and the Ukrainian forces trained up on them?
Yeah, you don't actually have a clue, do you.
As for heavy weapon systems - literally any of them. Every day Ukrainians are successfully stopping Rashists' attacks, but they don't have the weaponry required to counterattack.
Let's not fool ourselves here: if there was a way for Putin to avoid looking like an idiot who struggles to take even parts of Ukraine he would take it.
Truth is he failed spectacularily and everyone who has the slightest idea can see for themselves that Russia is struggling mightily despite their initial backstab where they had a few hours to bomb Ukraine and insert troops at will despite their promises the night before.
They fail despite having multiple influential politicians who they had bribed in advance, multiple sleeper cells, and, on the paper, a much much stronger army.
He has already sent the troops that was supposed to protect the strategically important Murmansk area, proving 1.) The Ukraine invasion is massively important to him 2.) He also proved all the words about being afraid of Nato is just a waste of perfectly fine silence, as he knows perfectly well that Nato is mostly peaceful and has not intention of invading or nuking Russia. After all he removed these troops while Nato, Sweden and Finland was gathering lots of troops right across the border :-D
> All according to western sources.
Someone dubbed Heissentruths, truths whose exact value cannot be known until you open the box.
Russians and their friends has a lot of Heissentruths. Western media being a reliable source is one of these. In this case it is absolutely true and very reliable, in another case were they point out the Russian attempts at genocide they are of course absolutely unreliable and only fools would refer to them.
Edit:
If Nato joins the conflict, Russian authorities only hope is their strategic weapons.
And given what we have seen about how well the kleptocracy maintains their conventional weapons I am somewhat less worried about that then what I was in February/March.
I have a feeling they too have noted this as I hear less and less mentions of this option from them, so it is either that they have realized the red button won't work or they are preparing a surprise.
If Nato joins the conflict, they will very quickly get aquatinted with Kinzhal, Tsirkon & Avangard hypersonics (un-interceptable as of now) loaded with conventional warheads (non-nuke) followed by a barrage of their other (of larger variety and longer range than anything western) ballistic stand-off weapons. For now, Russia has the advantage in ballistics and layered air defense (S-300, 400 & 500, Pantsir + electronic warfare systems). They also have an advantage in field artillery (more variety & longer range than anything western). Even the US president had to admit the hypersonic complication.
Are you really sure that the Russian cleptocracy that sends sappers to the front line with wooden bricks wrapped up as TNT (yep) and styrofoam wrapped up as dry rations for "liberated" civilians are somehow capable of maintaining a fleet of strategic missiles at 1/100 of the budget that US spends to maintain theirs?
I'm not.
But I am afraid that if we give them 5 years they will manage to get something working.
And that scares me more than the thought of angering Putin right now.
Luckily I don't have to make this decisions, we have people in Nato who knows extremely much more than me. If they tell me to show up I do.
Do you have access to a computer and basic Google skills?
As for preciseness, the newer ballistics have precision of over 90% (thanks, US designed chips). Older ones probably 75%. Their biggest weakness is access to chips.
And the imprecise hits are coming from the Tochka-Us, an old system that mostly the Ukrainians are fielding - but maybe pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists forces some, too.
Check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Losing-Military-Supremacy-American-St...
Ok, so they are bombing civilians on purpose, is that what you say?
It is no secret that much of the good Soviet tech was produced in Ukraine, both tanks and missiles, and without maintenance they won't be as precise as they were supposed to be. And for some reason Ukrainians hasn't wanted to do maintenance on Russians tech the last few years.
That said we've also seen plenty enough evidence that Russians shoot civilians on purpose.
Thus far, Russian stuff that actually works is the one from USSR times.
Which toys, exactly? Like which specific weapons systems? Because that could be a game changer. From the research I've done, there are no capable systems as of yet unless there's some secret programs that we don't know about.
Early on, Russia hit the base near the Polish boarder used for mercenary intake and the incoming warning system didn't even come on. And those were supposedly not even hypersonic. Google up the pics, videos and interviews. It was devastating.
I've learned that mercenaries are the paid ones, people like Russian Wagner etc.
The ones on the Ukrainian side are "volunteers".
But sure, fair enough - a lot of those guys were volunteers. Either way, they got hammered as did the ones in the Odessa hotel (and likely others).
Here's another "English as a foreign language" tip:
Every time you come across a word you are not sure about, look it up.
You'll be amazed at how much your English improves, both reading comprehension and writing.
Or you didn't know that Ukrainian Foreign Legion unlike Russian Wagner and certain other aren't paid.
Either way it means you either don't master English completely, or you aren't up to snuff on what is going on.
Exactly how many of those missiles does Russia have in its inventory? I suspect it's only enough to get NATO mad. If it had enough to do serious damage, I'd have expected the Russians to have done better in Ukraine.
Also, the Kinzhal and Avangard appear to be nuclear capable, and the Avangard is ICBM-launched. It would be, to use a technical term, stupid-as-fuck to use those with conventional warheads against a nuclear-armed adversary.
Good question, it's hard to say - but probably enough to knock out most NATO command and control and sink all carrier groups in Europe. Remember, MSM said they would run out in just a couple days about two months ago. Considering they're launching a handful per day for the past few months, probably not any time soon. You can bet that their factories are working three shift right now.
What's your source on that? Because it sounds like a fantasy. The Russians haven't even knocked out most of Ukraine's command and control, and doing the same against NATO would be a much larger task.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Russia has to resort to anti-ship missiles, because it’s running out of cruise missiles.
If you are a westerner, sure. If you follow non-western sources, you'll see there's no imminent coup on Putin, you'll see many testimonials of Azov torturing eastern Ukrainians, you'll see Russia slowly advancing into Ukraine, you'll know about mass Ukrainian soldiers defecting, you'll know casualty reporting by western media is either wrong or pure propaganda... The GP is correct, it'd be better for west's supporters to pay attention to what's happening on the battlefield instead of the obvious (to non-westerners) propaganda that's being spread. To sum it up, Ukraine is not winning and the Russian army is not a pack of doofus.
https://pictures.reuters.com/Assets/V2/ChFSVFNTNTAwMDAwMDAwM...
^ Adorable unicorn-rainbow tattoo; probably just one of those temporary ones. Let's send him and his buddies more power weapons.
Because Russians, unlike Ukrainians still have plenty of Nazis fighting for them.
I'm telling you outright that Ukrainians got their nazi problem under control during the last eight years while Russia did not and in fact encourages groups like Task Force Rusisch.
You are showing me half a tatoo in an image out of context.
I'm giving you and everyone else here some pointers to look up whole nazi detachments of the Russian army.
> If you follow non-western sources, you'll see there's no imminent coup on Putin, you'll see many testimonials of Azov torturing eastern Ukrainians, you'll see Russia slowly advancing into Ukraine, you'll know about mass Ukrainian soldiers defecting, you'll know casualty reporting by western media is either wrong or pure propaganda...
I also follow (and get pushed info from) non western sources, and according to them the assault on Kyiv was on track until it was a feint. Moskva was not hit, but had minor damage due to an accident and was simultaneously sailing by its own power, towed and all sailors were saved until it suddenly sunk in a very local storm. According to them Russians are the smart and nice guys that somehow couldn't prevent [UK Snipers/Ukrainians/Voldemort] (ok, one of these is a joke but I have forgotten a couple too) from raping and killing civilians in Bucha while they were there. I've had pro Russians telling me that a plausible explanation for Bucha was a foreign sniper shooting the civilians just as the Russians happened to drive into the streets there.
And I hear a lot about all the nasty things Azov has done against Russian speaking Ukrainians, often accompanied by a mix of 8 year old pictures, some of them havily manipulated. But looking closer at it Donbas looked nicer after 8 years of supposed Ukrainian shelling than after a few weeks of Russian "liberation". And more Russian speaking Ukrainians have been killed by the Russian "liberators" than by the "evil" Azov.
Good for them.
Now think if Russians had did the same and fired the lying faces that lies every week on Russian TV.
But they don't.
Look: using cheap tricks against people who are smarter than you, more knowledgeable than you and doesn't care about persons, only truth, that is a rather sure fire way to get owned. Badly.
The US can bomb any country to pieces if it wants, they have shown that in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia can bomb a country to pieces (e.g. Syria) or massively impede any sort of progress (e.g. Libya). I wouldn't underestimate the UK and France either, both are nuclear powers and have sizable navies. Projecting power is not an issue at all for them, their weakness is nation building which is why Bosnia is on the verge of collapse, Afghanistan back into a hellhole and Iraq not too much better.
The wild card is China, they haven't done anything more than a couple of border fights with India and silently taken over Hong Kong so it's completely unknown how good their firepower and training actually is.
In any case, being "independent" doesn't really work either - if your resources are of interest to a major power, you will get fucked over eventually. Yugoslavia broke apart and most of its former parts allied with the EU/NATO, Cuba is deeply held back by US sanctions (which in my opinion should have gone years ago). Even the Swiss, the world's most prominent neutral nations, had to cave under US and EU pressure to open up their bank books. And now Ukraine, which was agreed to by both the NATO and Russia to stay neutral, was invaded by Russia on a pretext.
Speaking of Ukraine, it sure wishes it wasn't "independent" in the sense you advocate.
Event the minority rights situation in China is actually improving (https://twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1535797471581941761), not declining.
Sure, the last two elections were a confirmation that democracy is not perfect (with millions of idiots voting Trump in 2016 and still millions of freaking idiots voting Trump in 2020), but it is the best we have got so far.
When was the last time the Chinese people had a say in choosing the leading party?
USA tribunals should be capable to pursue violations of human rights inside USA territory.
Unwillingness to practice what you preach when people you don't like benefit is a huge problem with all sorts of institutions in the US and will not get better at least not for a generation or two. Broad acceptance of double standards is a necessary part of the currently depending ideological divide so we basically need to wait until the people peddling that are out of the workforce.
International law isn't really law in the sense we're used to. There is no world government. International relations are anarchic, and the "international law" that's binding on a country is pretty much what it agrees to abide by or can be forcibly compelled to abide by (through military action, etc).
I’m more inclined to believe that the people of the US military bureaucracy were acting in good faith, and had a legitimate reason to believe these people were working for the enemy vs hearing the same story you hear from 100% of unrepentant convicted felons. “I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, they have the wrong guy”
I’d also like to remind people who don’t believe the people of US bureaucracy were acting in good faith that it’s these same people who will be working in whatever new giant gov service you want created. Might want to consider that next time you argue for government mandated/required/etc anything. If you don’t trust them to do the right thing in this case, why do you think it’ll be different in your case?
Horseshit. Even the officials in charge don't claim this. Even if they did, you can't have a "secret" just trial. The task of keeping it secret makes it impossible for the defense to have any sort of decent representation, much less gather evidence in their defense. Any "secret" trail is inherently one-sided, but again literally no US official has claimed they've been granted that much, in fact the lack of any trail has been acknowledged and even cited as a reason they can't be moved to a facility in the US.
If you want to have a constructive conversation about real life events, you may want to have more evidence for your claims than "I’m more inclined to believe" and "There likely was..."
But I don’t think that’s what this forum is about. If his problem really is my lack of evidence he should say that instead of spewing obscenities.
?
Frankly it wasn't a good faith argument. Even if you somehow didn't know that one of the core issues with Guantanamo was that people were being held indefinitely without trial, a 30 second Google would've told you that, and a couple minutes of research would have told you that it was established specifically to avoid the need for a trial or anything resembling due process.
In other words the idea that Guantanamo Bay detainees "likely" got something resembling a trial is horseshit.
"Acting in good faith" isn't an excuse to torture people.
I wouldn't put too much into dismissing such things. Have you seen the how the US locks folks up using fake "science", and then refusing to reverse the charges when evidence proves them innocent? Sure, not everyone is innocent, but enough folks are wrongfully convicted, it seems, that anyone saying this might just be telling the truth. We (Americans) should be more prudent when locking people up.
Considering this, yeah, I think the US has locked up innocent folks for years on end without trial. Sure, some are guilty, but probably not guilty enough for a decade or so of actual torture.
But, I would invite you to spend some time in any US court house where criminal proceedings are being held. You will find that 99.999% of convicts are very guilty (with proof anyone in the room can verify and would agree is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt) of the crimes they’ve committed. While I agree that .001% is still too high a percentage when talking about convicting innocents. It’s truly the height of hyperbole to claim there’s a chance it might be true for anyone who says it.
Still, I think you’d be very surprised if you actually spent any time in a court house, those examples you bring are very rare and far from a daily occurrence.
Again, I believe even one innocent person behind bars is too many, but we need to weight that against creating a culture of lawlessness and violence (which is where it feels like many large American cities, mine included, are headed).
Given how poorly we do when it comes to the death penalty, you'll excuse me if I doubt your 99.999% guilty numbers for other crimes.
https://innocenceproject.org/national-academy-of-sciences-re...
Literally no one is claiming this. It's safe to assume some, probably even most are indeed guilty. That doesn't justify imprisoning them indefinitely, without trail. It definitely doesn't justify torture. It doesn't justify a black site in Guantanamo to skirt US and international law.
They probably had a reason, sure. But you can be mistaken, or the information may not be correct.
Some people really are just "in the wrong place at the wrong time", including at least a chunk of former Guantanamo detainees. I don't know how many of them exactly because everything is secret and classified, which makes demonstrating your innocence really hard (how can you provide an alibi if you don't know what evidence was used?)
That this is also used by some guilty people is besides the point. Taking denial of having committed a crime as being "unrepentant" is a really dangerous thing to do because of course actual innocent people will claim their innocence.
Even with the best legal system with all sorts of legal protections that are biased strongly towards the prevention of convicting innocent people even if it means letting some guilty people go free, innocent people still end up in jail. When you remove those protections and add the fog of war that number shoots up quite fast.
What is hard for me to digest is why for some people, things need to be black and white, one is the bad guy and the other needs to be the good guy.