Left in the Dark

Yep, and "Guantanamo" is still not closed...

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Beginning in 2002, a small portion of the base was used to detain several hundred alleged combatants at Camp Delta, Camp Echo, Camp Iguana, and the now-closed Camp X-Ray. The US military has alleged without formal charge that some of these detainees are linked to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. In litigation regarding the availability of fundamental rights to those imprisoned at the base, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the detainees "...have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control."[49] Therefore, the detainees have the fundamental right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. A district court has since held that the "Geneva Conventions applied to the Taliban detainees, but not to members of Al-Qaeda terrorist organization."[50]

On 10 June 2006, the Department of Defense reported that three Guantanamo Bay detainees committed suicide. The military reported the men hanged themselves with nooses made of sheets and clothes.[51] A study published by Seton Hall Law's Center for Policy and Research, while making no conclusions regarding what actually transpired, asserts that the military investigation failed to address significant issues detailed in that report.[52]

The closing-down of the Guantanamo Prison has been requested by Amnesty International (May 2005), the United Nations (February 2006) and the European Union (May 2006).

On 6 September 2006, President George W. Bush announced that alleged combatants held by the CIA would be transferred to the custody of Department of Defense, and held at Guantanamo Prison. Of approximately 500 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, only 10 have been tried by the Guantanamo military commission, but all cases have been stayed pending the adjustments being made to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

President Barack Obama said he intends to close the detention camp, and plans to bring detainees to the United States to stand trial by the end of his first term in office. On 22 January 2009, he issued three executive orders. Only one of these explicitly deals with policy at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and directs the camp's closure within one year. All three could possibly impact the detention center, as well as how the United States holds current or future detainees. While mandating closure of the detention camp, the naval base as a whole is not subject to the order and will remain operational indefinitely. This plan was thwarted for the time being on 20 May 2009, when the United States Senate voted to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States. Senator Daniel Inouye, a Democrat from Hawaii and chairman of the appropriations committee, said he initially favored keeping Guantanamo open until Obama produced a "coherent plan for closing the prison."[53] As of 26 September 2009, policy was being drafted with an aim toward compromise. As of 23 January 2013, the detention facility remained open, housing roughly 165 detainees, and with military trials for five men accused of plotting the 11 September 2001, attacks due to resume early February.[54]"

 

So wait, are you saying the pregnant women were tortured before they were shot by snipers? You need to separate out your vitriol so people can better understand you.

Then, you say it was a mistake, that they raided the wrong house. Mistakes happen in war. Personally I would have the soldiers serve a prison term for trying to cover it up, not for having performed the operation to begin with because I'm sure they didn't do it without orders and based on someone elses intelligence.

As for their never forgiving America, that's a two way street, WTC. I imagine there were some pregnant women in the World Trade Center, or don't they matter? Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

 

When one so heavily edits something from it's original form, it becomes theirs, the report you drew from was about 20 times what you posted. If you don't want it to be identified as yours, why didn't you just post the link? I also wonder why you are now trying to back away from it and say it was not yours? Did someone post it in your name?

 

Of course I saw the link, I was wondering why you posted anything else. Did you not read where I said you highly edited? If I did not see the link to the article, how would I have known that you were editing? Do please try to keep up. Since you didn't post anything new in your post that was not edited copy of what was in the article, I wondering why you didn't "only/just" post the link.

 

Miguel, did you ever stop and think, it could be, a serious lack, of writing comprehension, that is happening.

Always two sides, to a coin my friend.:D

 

So Amnesty has it all wrong. This never happened.[/QUOTE] I am glad to hear you say this. For a little while there I thought we were not in agreement.