Children as young as 13 held at guatanamo.
 

I just heard this on abc's world news tonight, and havnet found a link on this yet, but they said that at least 4 kids ages 13-16 are being held in guatanamo bay prison w/o access to their family, lawyer, or trial.

i think that holding adults there in the first place is wrong, this is just out of my mind.

they kept quiet about this till now, and that's just WRONG!



in US justice system, we wouldnt even think about puttng a kid in the same facility w/ an adult.

this is just wrong!

And if a 13 year old gang banger holds a Lorinco .25 to your head that is wrong too.

Children are used as soldiers all over the world for a good reason. They have no concept of their mortality and are unafraid of death. They are also naive, a quality frequently shared by young people all over the world.

Fortunately, reality sets in as people get older.

If you'll look back at military history you'll find that any military would use 13-15 year olds if they had the choice - they know they are invincible and can't be hurt. Combine that inane belief with manical fanatic religious belief and you basically have created a pitbull with aids - Have you read the 'The Boys From Brazil"?

but that's not what i'm complaining about.

i'm complaining about the fact that the US is holding these kids w/ adults in a remote area.

and these kids have no access to parents, no reprenatation, no trials

...they also have no rights. They're not U.S. citizens, and they're not on U.S soil. If they're suspected of terrorism, then they belong where they are. And I really doubt these fuckers need mommy or daddy to hold their hands.

come on.......at that age, you really think they knew right from wrong?

so, as long as they're not citizens of a nation, and they're not on the nation's soil, they dont have any rights?

remember, the constitution say "all men" and never mentioned citizens.

When you join an organization that targets primarily, innocent people, women and children you forfeit your rights as far as I'm concerned. If you want to ignore the rules you can't expect to benefit from them when its convenient for you.

but look @ the age.

you really think a 13 yr old would in his right mind join a terroristic organization?

Who said they are in their right minds, not me. I think the lot of them are lunatics. They have been brainwashed their entire life. Would someone in their right mind blow themselves to bits. It's happening daily over there. Bunch of friggin nutcases.

ok, let's think about what we would do if a US child was in a situation like this.



hm.......how about a school shooter? this kid goes to school ,shoots some kids, and teachers. surrenders.

kid's gonna get a really good attorney, and everyone would be talking about how troubled he was. they'd send him to counseling. they'd send him to a juvy.

that's it. look @ what these kids are going thru, and as far as we know, they havent committed any crimes!

I wouldn't be talking about how troubled he was. I would be talking about how if he was old enough to take a life,hes old enough to suffer the consequences. Lock em up and leave him there if you can't get a death penalty.

Children are evil. Spend time with some.

Post removed.

Ummmm... yeah. Actually I do. Look at the statistics for inner city gangs for example-- Most of those kids are in middle school when they join. And no sense of morality? At 13 years old? Give me a break! I've been taught not to hit when I was about 2, much less -shoot- anybody.

There's a common misconception that 13-year olds do not know what they do, and cannot be responsible.

This *might* be true for kids growing up a nice, loving family in the middle of Nebraska, without anything to worry about... but it's not true for inner-city gang members, and certainly not for kids from Afghanistan, who have seen more war, bloodshed and destruction than you could possibly imagine. One grows up pretty damn quickly in those circumstances.

As for keeping them in the same facility... well, you might want to put them in a seperate area, all alone; I doubt they'd enjoy that idea.

(Oh, and last year, two kids disappeared; they were Dutch, from Moroccan descent, both about 15 years. They apparently tried to go to Chechnya, to fight in the holy war there. Of course, they failed - it was too cold for the poor kids. One of them still wants to go, though.)

I don't care about the age. The fucked up thing is that they are being held without any sort of a trial. It's possible that they are just kids at the wrong place at the wrong time but noone will ever find out because "those terrorist bastards have no rights".

One more thing I don't get is where the US are holding the regular army prisoners? There must have been an army in Afghanistan, they can't have been protected by Al Qaeda.

Actually, since some prisoners were already released a while ago, these people do have a chance of getting out if they're innocent. Just don't go assuming they are just because they're kids... If they are innocent, they'll probably tell the US investigators all they know, and they'll be released quickly; if they shut up, or don't cooperate, there's a good chance they're either stupid, or guilty. (And please remember that this is not a normal criminal we're talking about, with all the associated rights. They do *not* have the right to remain silent; well, they do, but it'd be stupid.)

And the "regular army" were the Taliban. They're either still imprisoned in Afghanistan, or were released after most of the fighting ended... or they're still fighting a guerilla war.

as far as we know, these people havent commited a single crime.

Do you even belive in any type of punishment?

Just read what BoCo said again if you want to know how I feel about it.

lol, so just cuz they're "SUSPECTED" of terrorism, we can hold 'em indefinately?

i dont think anyone has seen any proof of this suspicion


you know that foreign countries can use this same deal against americans right?

as long as they "suspect" an american of terrorism, hold 'em up w/o access indefinately? and release no proof of this "suspicion"

Probably be another one them from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Kuwait City thingies take place in about a Detroit minute.

On second thought Dude... Have you seen anything anywhere inquiring into their condition or asking for any of them back?

yup, pakistan has requested that it's citizens being detained be released into pakistan.

Dude... there *are* British and US nationals in jails all over the middle-east, suspected of terrorism. They're supposed to have blown up their fellow westerners, usually over illegal alcohol smuggling. Naturally, the evidence wasn't exactly good, but forced confessions (torture) got them convicted.

Now... do you believe that the US would do the same to these terror suspects? Pick up random Muslims and throw them in jail? Nope... to be send to Cuba, you'd need to be into some seriously suspicious shit. That you haven't seen any proof does not mean there is none.

Even if there isn't any firm evidence, it doesn't mean they are innocent: terrorists aren't really known for leaving lots of clues about their crimes, you know. That'd be stupid, and stupid terrorists would be dead, instead of incarcerated.

(oh, and I doubt these Pakistanis would like to go back to Pakistan. The conditions in Guantanamo bay are waaaaay better than in a Pakistani prison...)

You didn't answer my question.

Do you belive in any kind of punishment?

definately, but only once you are proved guilty.

so, are you saying that US should lower itself to the standards of these countries?

i'm pretty sure that there are lots of countries that have NOT done this to US nationals.

So let's just say these kids are terrorists and killed some people or were about to do something, but were stopped. Would you be fine with the fact that they are in Quantanamo?

depends.

1) they have a fair trial and they're guilty.

2) they're kept in area of the building seperate from where adults are being held

3) given all rights of a prisoner.

Then they should have stayed in their own country.

i agree with the_dude, if they're 13-15 then they shouldn't be holding them, they should be helping them get on track and giving them a trial. everyone should have a trial anyway, i mean, shit, how do we know these kids are terrorists anyway?

another thing that makes me sick is 13-15 year old kids being tried as adults. especially those ones recently that were bribed by one of their mothers to kill her boss. shit. punishment = good, tried as adults = bad.

i got off-subject, but come on!

Looks like they are being treated pretty good to me.http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/americas/04/26/gitmo.juvenile.detainees.ap/index.html

link's broken

Post removed.

The_Dude will still find something wrong with that. http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/icon_rolleyes.gif

ok, all of those things have been said by the US military, who didnt even admit holding these kids till now.

none of these have been independantly verified, no human rights workers have been present there.

and cant you see this, they're IN JAIL!

how can the US military say that they're better than they would be in afghanistan?

they dont have any friends here, no parents, no relatives, no social interaction.

Dude, what if I paid to ship your ass there and you saw it all for yourself? Then I'll pay to ship your ass to Afghanastan. Let you live there for about 6 months and tell me where you'd rather be. Would you stop your whining then? I can answer that myself. No you wouldn't. I sometimes wonder if you like anything that the US has ever done or if you even have an American bone in your body.

You cant save everyone.

Those conditions don't sound to bad to me, especially considering they -don't- have to be that nice to them.

"Amnesty International called for their immediate release. Spokesman Alistair Hodgett said the United States was violating the Convention on the Rights of the Child that states "every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance."

Hodgett said the United States signed the treaty in 1995, but Johnson said he understood it was never ratified. "

And they -are- proven dangerous--

"The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff defended the detentions, saying the boys "are very dangerous. Some have killed, some have stated that they're going to kill again.....The Toronto Globe and Mail this week identified a Canadian teenager at Guantanamo Bay as the attacker who threw a grenade that killed a U.S. sergeant in Afghanistan in July."

Still want a kid like that running around american soil, or in Afghanistan free to come back?

ok, this is just as pointless as saying "go live on the moon where there's no oxygen if you don't wanna live in afghanistan!"
shite. afghanistan has problems and while the us doesn't have as many by a long shot, the us still has them and, being us citizens, it's our right and responsibility to make them known and try to improve them.

oh, yeah, that's nice.

child [ chld ] (plural chil·dren [ chíldrn ])
noun

1. young human being: a young human being between birth and puberty

That's the definition from the Encarta dictionary. These are juveniles. A child is young and dependant on their parents. These boys come to a foreign country and throw grenades.

Sounds like they're being coddled. I love how it ends with;

"Hanks, after building a ramshackle raft, escapes and is rescued. "


Shutup bitch, rescued from learning math and watching movies? I want to kick that journalist in the nuts.

I say we take all these 13 year old terrorists--ooops, I meant, completely innocent children who miss their mommies and daddies--and send them to live with The_Dude indefinately.

Heh :p

Great idea Boco. By the sounds of it he won't mind if they blow him up.

Let me say something about these little shits, if they were old enough to hold a rifle and get caught between my sights then they would have died....
Where they are is a much better fate dont you think?

if y'all are so certain of their guilt, why not give them a proper trial?

instead of holding them indefinately

Read the article, Dude. They have -admitted- to guilt. One of them was identified by a newspaper. At Guantanamo they're outside normal US jurisdiction. If they were in the US, they'd likely be coddled by a jury cuz "they're just kids", released to afghanistan, and the whole thing would start all over. At Guantanamo they're being rehabilitated by psychologists and educated by former jr. high teachers. Sounds like they're better off where they're at.

i dont think the article said anything about any admission of guilt.

"The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff defended the detentions, saying the boys "are very dangerous. Some have killed, SOME HAVE STATED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO KILL AGAIN.....The Toronto Globe and Mail this week identified a Canadian teenager at Guantanamo Bay as the attacker who threw a grenade that killed a U.S. sergeant in Afghanistan in July."

Check the article. These kids are hardened.

In alot if other cultures, you're an adult when you reach puberty. These boys acted as adults, and I see no reason to treat them like kids.

wow, just just cuz they threaten to kill doesnt mean they have killed

The Dude, I am trying so friggen hard not to flame your very young and naive self.

Get a grip, when you get into the real world..(notice I said when)
you will see it is not as peachey keen you think it is, there are some very bad people and some of them are children, I would be willing to bet in your great homeland that there are some kids just across the border in pakistan that would love to waste your Hindu ass.

"The Toronto Globe and Mail this week identified a Canadian teenager at Guantanamo Bay as the attacker who threw a grenade that KILLED A U.S. SERGEANT in Afghanistan in July."

Again, read the whole article. Get the facts, don't just jump to conclusions.

dude, there's a difference between deserving punishment and deserving to go to guatanamo... personally, i'm not bitching about the kids being punished, i'm bitching about how they're being punished.

personal insults now huh?


anyway i'm not saying they shouldnt be punished.

i'm saying what darksparkles said.

this is not the punishment they deserve.

put 'em on fair trial (on any real court) and let the judge decide the punishment.

as if i could catch any pakistani kid doing this, i would NOT hold him/her indefinately w/o rights in a territory like guatanamo.

i'd send 'em to international court of justice or whatever it's called.

war crimes court maybe even if thta's called.

So what is appropriate for lobbing a grenade and killing a human being???????????????????????????????????????????????????


(EDIT) if it would have been one of my troops that he killed it would have been death on the spot.

Did your finger get stuck? If you step back from the keyboard and take a deep breath (I've noticed that's been hard for you to do in the past) you would notice that The_Dude and darksparkles are saying a judge (or jury) should decide the appropriate punishment. Since you scream about your patriotism so often I wonder why you seem to be so adament against such a concept.

Uh huh. I think Smooth has the right idea. Why don't you step back, and remind yourself of the rules of TFP. And of Tiltled Politics.

It's so easy (and must be fun?) to get righteous and declaim that others are "naive" or "young" or just plain wrong. It's much harder to slow down, read what the other person writes, try to understand where they are coming from, and respond in kind.

Give it a whirl sometime.

While I agree that personal insults should be left out of this discussion, (and those were way too many question marks,) naive is a pretty good adjective. Read the article, the -WHOLE- article. These are youth that have been essentially brainwashed by their culture since they were kids, came over here, and killed a person. The american court system isn't prepared to deal with something like this-- if they are found guilty, they are thrown into ju-v somewhere until they're 18, then released as "martyrs". They go back to their country hailed as heroes, get a few more grenades, come back, and kill somebody else. That time, since they're now "mature", they'll get a death sentence or life in prison. Or they're found innocent and released, go immediately back to their country hailed as heroes, get a few more grenades, come back, and kill somebody else, and repeat the process until they're found guilty or 18. At Guantanamo, these youth are being dealt with by professional psychologists. They learn to read and write in arabic. They even get to watch movies and play soccer! This isn't jail-- this is rehabilitation, which is exactly what these kids need and won't be able to get in the american court system.

Yeah, 13 year olds are smart enough to know what's going on, I agree with that logic. There are tons of streetgangs in America to prove that. But holding people indefinately violates so many international laws, while we give everyone else shit about breaking laws.

They held a portion of the US population in internment camps during World War 2, although none of them were guilty of any crime but looking like the enemy.

And I think everyone should lay off the personal insults. This whole "when you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your bestfriend's face" rhetoric is way too dramatic for a discussion on TFP.

Who ever said it was indefinite? They're being held for a purpose-- rehabilitation. Presumably once that goal has been accomplished they would be released.

Does a judge and jury get to decide what family they kill too!? :eek:

"Rehabilitation camps." Still doesn't sound that appealing, indefinite or not. I figured they were indefinite since so far everyone else they have down there hasn't had a time limit.

Nice that the Japanese internment camps were mentioned. That goes to show that during times of war, the US government does some things that might not be good for *some* people, to protect the rest (be that protection real or imagined).

As the US has technically declared war on terror, suspected terrorists have to suffer along with real ones, just like innocent US-Japanese had to suffer along with "real" Japanese during WW2. It may not be totally legal, nor very nice, but so be it.

There's another option, of course. We in the Netherlands do not have specific anti-terror laws. This has meant that a couple of suspected terrorists were put on trial and *released* because the secret service had used unauthorized phone-taps to get evidence. This evidence was ruled illegal, and the case was thrown out...

Now, if these guys were indeed terrorists, their release would suck big time. I don't think they could be trusted - they had some serious interest in Muslim extremism, they had suspected links to Al-Qaida, and on the whole, most Dutch people agreed they should have remained in jail... But because of legal technicalities, they were released. In fact, because of this legal precedent, prosecutors have complained that they cannot arrest terrorists until *after* they blow people up. How fucked up is that???

I can see how these people being held without trial by the US makes it easier for terrorists to justify killing US-civilians. What goes around comes around, and that goes boath ways. The side that can claim moral superiority is the side that manages to stay with their standards of justice even during hardship, in this case clearly no-one can.

Post removed.

I too agree that the 'detainees' should be charged and prosecuted for their crimes.

Not just held in limbo indefinately.

Give them due process. Its the (north) American way and what makes us better than them.

I have no problems at all if they were treated as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war are subject to rules. The US govt. has thrown the rulebook out the window and are holding these people without any due process, without any representation, and without any access to freinds, family, their own governments, etc.

Post removed.

how certain are we that all of the people (including the kids) are guilty of their crimes?

they could be innocent, and just have hardline political views. (which is not illegal btw)

i'm not saying that they be tried in the US courts (i dont think they'd have jurisdiction over something like this).

some special court (an international court w/ legitimacy) should try a case like this.

For one, you could take their word for it. If they say they've killed before and plan on doing so again in the future then I have no reason not to believe them. How are you so certain they aren't guilty, and that guantonomo is such a bad place? Sure it's a prison camp outside U.S. jurisdiction, but it's also a place where everyone says they're getting treated better than they deserve.

The military will do it's investigations, hold a military tribunal, and give them a sentence, one that I trust will be more just than the crazy judges here hand out.

are you telling me that every single detainee has confessed to their crimes?? oh wait, nobody knows for sure.

there is a pretty good chance that an innocent person is being held there.

and y'all are saying that guatanamo is a better place than where they're from, i just dont get this.

so we throw all our homeless downtrodden people into jail since they're better off there?

I'm saying the children have admitted to it, the evidence against everyone else you're right, you don't know, so you can't really bash the military for imprisoning innocent people. You can't tell me Guantonomo has oppressive, horrible conditions either, they have proper shelter, 3 meals a day and watch movies. These are better conditions then where they come from. Homeless and downtrodden is one thing, homeless and downtrodden whilst shooting at people is another. There's not much to get, they aren't random hobo's, they're terrorists.

so, it's guilty till you are proved innocent?

Yes, of course that's just a saying here, you still get detained in the United States under these kinds of charges. It's only logical, you don't want them killing a U.S. soldier do you? They have now, and will continue to have basic human rights while being detained, and will retain these while being imprisoned if found guilty. This is more than adequate treatment to these people, we can't leave them go in Afghanistan or wherever they come from, and we don't do international crime courts, so Guantonomo and a military tribunal will do just fine.

quit saying that they're better off here!

they dont have their family/friends w/ them.

just material surroundings is not everything here.


and btw, i still operate by the innocent by guilty thing.

You have got to be kidding.

are you justifying that what they did w/ the internment camps was right?

You're the only one saying they're better off there. I'm saying they are being properly handled in Guantanomo Bay. And you can think you're innocent until proven guilty all you want, you're still detained in jail under these circumstances.

They're being held in a separate area I thought. Is this not so?

i really think that they're better off w/ people that love 'em .

They probably don't have people that love them. Even if they do these people probably taught them how to be a terrorist. Do you really want them with these people?

Too bad, they should have thought about what's best for them before they became a terrorist. And again, I didn't say they are better off in Guantanomo!!!

Maybe the people that love them got blown to pieces by a US bomb.

But on a more realistic note (maybe not more realistic, because Afghanistan has been a violent place for decades and their parents could very well be dead). To a certain extent I agree with The_Dude, if these kids are getting rehab... they can get rehab anywhere.... they dont need to be shipped thousands of kms away from their home. Also, I dont think these kids need THAT much rehab - they're children, with impressionable minds... The US can brainwash them as easily as the Taliban (or AL Quaeda or whatever) did originally. I mean, I dont think that these kids did these actions acting on their own judgement, so they're not really 100% to blame.

agreeing with killeryoda here ...


and on the being with people that love them ... i agree with that, but to me that doesn't mean their families because honestly i can't believe they got a whole lot of love at home. i think they just need to be treated with a bit more love, and being shown movies doesn't equal love. but love doesn't equal support groups with hand-holding and free teddy bears nessicarily, either. it just sounds like love isn't what they're getting and maybe they need some in their lives while they're still at least a <i>bit</i> young and impressionable.

They could get rehab anywhere, but they couldn't also be detained and questioned by the United States military in addition to their rehabilitation. They're our responsibility now.

Er... how would I be kidding. My statement was just a summary of the facts. During times of war, the US government does things to protect their country. It might imprison some of it's citizens in order to protect the rest, be this protection real or imagined.

Simple historic facts.

Good! Those are probably the same people who helped them become terrorists in the first place.

Comparing Guantanamo to the WWII internment camps isn't really fair. The internment camps held US citizens simply based on their race. These are non-citizen terrorists, some suspected and some admitted. This would only be a fair comparison if we began sending all Americans of Arab descent to Guantanamo.

As for the age of the detainees, as long as they're kept separate from the other inmates, and given food, water and shelter, I'm fine with it. It's no different from a gangbanger in juvenile hall, except for the fact that there is no trial, only an interrogation process. The relatively low number of prisoners hints to me that we're not just locking up every brown-skinned person we bump into over there.

What you dont realize is that the US bombs towns and villages full of innocent people because from a satellite's point of view a shanty town looks just like a terrorist camp.

And what you don't realize is that the US military doesn't just bomb any old village because a satellite picture makes it look like a terrorist camp (which is bullshit, by the way - satellites are quite a bit more advanced than you seem to think). They *check* the target first, using as many sources of information as possible.

I'm glad I have remarkable flame control because that justification...boggles the mind.
I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that if the US decided to march through the Netherlands tomorrow to protect us from an "imagined threat."

What the hell is your problem with my statement?

It is a FACT that the US government has the legal power (on a national level) to detain certain suspect individuals in times of war, and it is a FACT that it has used these powers in the past, whether it was justified or not. I was JUST STATING THE FACTS.

It is true that I support the internment of selected terrorist suspects, but that's quite irrelevant to this sub-discussion.

And your statement about the US marching into the Netherlands is also irrelevant, because that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You know full well that I wouldn't support that. You also know that this discussion is about the US imprisoning terror suspects, not about the US invading another country.

It was more a problem with your first statement that seemed to support the use of internment camps so that "the majority" are safe, even though the people imprisoned did no wrong. You're follow up statement, while apparently "FACT" did not say otherwise. So by saying "Nice that internment camps were mentioned" in the begining, you seem to hint at "Boy, I'm glad the US is looking out for their citizens by imprisoning people that look like the bad guys."
And my bad, we invade the Netherlands, then imprison you. I forgot the imprison part. Sorry.

everyone cool down for a sec.



ok, and how would you know this?

This is the Tilted Politics board, we're not supposed to.:D

yeah... look at the palestinians that want to blow up israelis... some of them are as young as 13.

and I'll get NIMBY on this one. You want to see how much 'love' they need... bring them up yourself. you feed them you house them you love them but not in my backyard.

it's not about just age it's about ideology.

ok, i for one have changed my views VERY RADICALLY (for teh better!) from when i was 13.

when i was 13, all i knew was what others had told me, i didnt really have an opinion of my own.

Can you prove me wrong? Nope. You can't. I trust that the US won't just throw every little innocent kid there. I'm 100% positive that there was enough evidence to do this. They are little monsters. Period. I could care less if we killed them. I don't think we should waste the time and money trying to help them. I guess it's a good thing I don't run the country huh? :D

then why dont they release some of this evidence?

and if they have all this evidence, why not a trial and convict them? if they have all this evidence, it should be easy to get a guilty verdict

It is pointless arguing with you Dude. I sometimes think you're a commie. Can you tell me 5 things that you like about our government.. Our country... The best and greatest country on the face of the planet. If you can't then I think it's obvious that you are a commie. Please prove me wrong, but I'm not sure if you can. You have NEVER said one positive thing about the US in all the things that I've ever read that came from you.

*waits anxiously*