ok I had posted this on a number of messageboards but no one seemed to appreciate the severity of it and even though it is a few days old I will post this here:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/gitmo/no-gitmo-records.htm

The following article from the Reuters newswire appeared in exactly one US media outlet, the New York Post. A search at Google News shows that across the world, only four other media outlets--none of them major--ran the story: Hi Pakistan, the New Nation (Bangladesh), the New Zealand Herald, and Khilifah.com. Because of the pitiful amount of coverage this revelation received, we're reprinting it in its entirety. (Source: NZ Herald. MemHole mirror here.)

US says it doesn't know how many detainees in Cuba
Reuters, 12 Aug 2003, 11:21 AM


SAN FRANSISCO - The US government said today it had neither an exact count nor all the names of hundreds of people captured in Afghanistan over a year ago and now detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

US government lawyers made the disclosure during a court hearing in a case on behalf of Falen Gherebi, a Libyan national believed to be in US custody in Cuba.

In May, a US District Court said it did not have the authority to consider whether Gherebi was being held lawfully and remanded the matter to an appeals court.

At the appeals court hearing on Monday, the planned debate over the government's right to hold Gherebi dissolved into a more basic discussion over whether the US government even had kept complete records on the people being held.

"They won't let him out and they also won't tell us if he's there," said Stephen Yagman, a lawyer for Falen Gherebi's brother, Belaid Gherebi, a San Diego resident, who has sued to get his brother legal representation. "This is crazy. This is just nuts."

Yagman complained that the government has stonewalled such requests on behalf of Gherebi and other detainees by maintaining ignorance as to who exactly it had in custody.

A panel of appeals court judges hearing the case on Monday expressed shock about the apparent lack of record keeping on a group of hundreds of people, possibly including some children, who have been in custody for 577 days.

"It strikes me as astonishing that the government says they have no idea whether this gentleman is or is not being held," one said. "Don't you even keep records?"

Government lawyers responded that while they had attempted to keep records, they were incomplete because some of those who were arrested had not co-operated with authorities. They said that translating the names from Arabic to English had created further problems with spelling.

After scanning a list for names similar to that of Falen Gherebi, the lawyers said: "We think we have him but we're not sure. We can't confirm it 100 per cent."

The US government, which maintains the people being held are all dangerous individuals with connections to terrorists, has argued that the court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the legal rights of these people, since they are being held on foreign soil, in Cuba, on land that is only leased to the United States.

How does anyone else feel about this?

Correction,

The US just ain't saying anything about the captured terrorists we have in Camp X-Ray. Its war and loose lips sink ships you know. If Al Qaida knew who was in Camp X-Ray, then they will know what information may have been gained by our side. If Al Qaida could know exactly how many of their guys we have, then they may take American and Israeli hostages for an exchange.

According to the Laws of Land Warfare, these terrorists are illegal combatants and they have no rights. They are the same as spies and can be summarily shot. Which is exactly what we should do once we get all the useful information out of them.

well after a day of thought and the above post I think I was over-reacting and assuming things that weren't even implyed. ehh it happens. it's been a long week...

So, could you direct me where to find these "Laws of Land Warfare"
then Six? And who wrote them?
I know the UN has never recognised "terrorists" as 'illegal combatants' - so I'm wondering what imaginery court system invented these "Laws" you speak of?

And oblivious to Six is the fine example of "democracy" taking place Guantanamo Bay... but then, is the US "still" a democracy?

Marxist Pig,

This is a subject where you are in complete ignorance. The laws of land warfare come from the Geneva conventions and the Hague conventions.

FM 27-10 THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE

Umm.. okay.. so I'm in complete ignorance apparently.
Well then can you point me to where it mentions "terrorists" ?,..
and more so, that terrorists are NOT entitled to a Military tribunal or civil court proceding ?

looks like the US is breaching the Human Rights Convention... (again.)
and don't worry Six, the US isn't alone in this.

Pig,

You were ignorant of the Geneva conventions and Hague Conventions prior to reading my post. Most people have some knowledge about the existance of the Geneva Conventions.

Right now the prisoners are being detained for questioning. Some Taliban fighters were released once it had been determined that they were not members of Al Qaida.

OK, I missed the part about the necessity of a trial when dealing with spies. Still, the terrorists lose their POW status because their standard operational proceedure is to conceal their status as combatants.

Technically, the United States is a republic, not a democracy...

Like the people`s republic of China? Well I`ll be jiggered.

Firstly, I doubt the passage about the necessity of uniform applies to everyone in Guantanamo.

74. Necessity of Uniform -
Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces lose their right to be treated as prisoners of war whenever they deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy

They don't wear uniforms because they don't own any, not because they want to 'deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy.' How many of these people were arrested after firefights? A fair few I would guess. None of them would fall foul of this passage if they're shooting guns.


Secondly, thos who have lost their rights to be a POW have not lost all their other rights. Where in this document is the part about 'illegal combatants' who have no right to go through the processes of law, and who can be detained indefinitely without trial?


I think it's pretty tragic when the US, of all countries, holds these people in Cuba and fudges the law for the specific purpose of depriving them of their rights.

as if the idea of being a republic wasn't obvious....."and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under god." the two worst lines in the pledge of allegiance but really the thing that is very obvious is that nothing can or will be admitted right now since there is sensitive information involved. That was what made me think this less important. It still makes the idea of Guantanimo bay seem very very wrong but it is on leased land from cuba and that is the loophole I guess..... maybe in the near future india will lease a part of sri lanka or something so they can do all the things that are wrong and in violation of international law to the pakistani people. It could very likely happen since this has proven so effective.

My Grandpa always told me there were two types of people in the world.

People who hate terrorist and terrorist lovers.

I find it rather funny that for once, I'm in complete support of our Government Lawyers duking and jiving, and making it extremely difficult for these terrorist individuals to receive any type of legal representation.

The other side of it is that it sounds like most people don't understand that we're at war and don't have the stomach for complete and total victory.

I wonder if that extends to their personal lives too?

Great. A half-arsed point followed by a snide-but-totally-groundless personal dig at anyone who is opposed to the treatment of the people at Guantanamo Bay.

Your argument falls down because you're calling people terrorists before they've had a chance to a trial. My personal view is that they are probably all terrorists and should be punished properly for it, but that's only my personal view. It's arbitrary and should count for nothing when it comes to punishment. That should be decided in a court of law, because those are the long established principles of the free world. As it is they are being held in prison, and therefore punished, without trial and without any attempts being made to put them on trial. Punishment without trial is a tool of tyranny and was abolished in the Enlightenment. It's a shame to see it back now. Your founding fathers would weep if they saw this. How can we claim to be defending the values of the free world from terror when we don't follow those values ourselves? We would just be defending medieval justice.

You characterize my comments as if the current status of security, terrorism and war in the world will never change.

I do like the fact that some tyrannical practices are being used at the expense of scumbags and that this situation sticks in the craw of some liberal do-gooders.

And in all reality, there must be both tactical and diplomatic concerns at work here. I don't expect the U.S. to hold these wonderful people indefinitley.

It's a ZEN thing.........see the forest through the trees.........

What if some of the people being held aren't really terrorists?

Call it friendly fire.


It happens.


It's war.

Is that what you would have told the families of the victims of September 11, 2001?

'It happens, it's war'?

But who can say authoritatively that they are worthy of punishment unless you try them in a court. It's completely arbitrary, because there is no line between this situation, and locking up someone you find at a murder scene with blood on their hands without a trial. They probably did it, but you have to give them a trial. Otherwise next time the line will slip further, and some guy who just walked in right before the police did would be put in the chair. You don't seem to appreciate how hard western society worked to establish these principles, because punishment without trial is one of the cornerstones of tyranny. However, as you are a fan of tyrannical practices you may not care about the erosion of the principles of freedom.