# I just heard the USAF colonel who's prosecuting the Gitmo detainees **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 13, 2006, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215 "2006-03-13T19:37:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/81 "2006-03-17T13:22:14Z")
> [@glee](#): > > ‘Significant’ enough to lock them up for life without trial? > ‘Significant’ enough to never let them see their families again? See above statement, the siginicance comes in to play that they could not be proven guilty, not that they were innocent. > [@](#): > > Do you have a cite for this amazing claim? > Here’s the UK Foreign Minister, resigning before the war: > > Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. \*\* > It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions\*\*, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. > Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? > Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? > > [BBC NEWS | Politics | Cook's resignation speech](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm) Those would be WMD’s, the delivery method was still in play (they had some FROGS and SCUDS left that could launch them, though I WOULD agree that they would be worthless against a city target (as they were not accurate enough as modified)); and that was the report from every major intelligence agency. The rest of that statement is an opinion piece, not a bad one; but by his admission he believed they still had the weapons. > [@](#): > > You really don’t know the difference between a judge examining unpublished evidence in a trial (where the defence has a lawyer) and sticking innocent people in jail for life? 😕 They aren’t in jail, nor prision; though it looks the same. A better example would be an interment camp (which again; i’m against). Yes I know the difference, my point was that just because we have not SEEN the evidence (publicly published) does not mean there is NO evidence. I think Gitmo is the wrong way to handle things, but if we are to be truthful we don’t KNOW all of the information. Does that mean we can’t believe it is wrong? Of course not; BUT we can’t pretend we have a fully informed view. > [@](#): > > **Of course** we know why they are there. > Bush needed to pretend he was doing something about terrorism to get re-elected. That is speculation, though common enough. We don’t know WHY these people are there, nor any evidence against most of them. > [@](#): > > **Of course** we know why they are still there. > Bush would look like a desperate despot if they were all released. See you are just being dishonest with yourself, we don’t KNOW that; some ASSUME that is the case. There is certainly a difference between knowledge and speculation, even ‘strong’ speculation or ‘founded’ speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/82 "2006-03-17T15:03:06Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > That is my point, you can’t prove ANYONE is innocent (you can make a strong case for it, but you can’t prove a negative). It is SIGNIFICANT that they could not be found GUILTY, not that they weren’t proven innocent. Okay, maybe you could explain better. Seemed to me that you were saying before, basically, “They couldn’t be proven innocent. Therefore, we need to be safe and keep them detained indefinitely”. Or were you saying the opposite? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/83 "2006-03-17T15:27:28Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Okay, maybe you could explain better. > > Seemed to me that you were saying before, basically, “They couldn’t be proven innocent. Therefore, we need to be safe and keep them detained indefinitely”. I was pointing out sementics; mainly that release does not equal innocence. You can’t prove that someone is innocent merely because you can’t prove guilt. That does NOT make the situtation any better, but it also doesn’t ‘prove’ those that have been released were held for ‘no reason’ nor that they were ‘innocent’. Personally, I believe holding someone without enough proof to prove guilt is as bad as holding someone that IS innocent; but one does not prove the other. Does that clear it up? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/84 "2006-03-17T15:46:09Z")
Innocence is the default. Without proof of guilt each and every one is innocent. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/85 "2006-03-17T15:50:12Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > Innocence is the default. Without proof of guilt each and every one is innocent. There is a reason the term ‘not guilty’ is used in trial (as opposed to innocent), the determination of guilt has nothing to do with actual guilt, but rather proof beyond a reseasonable doubt. Not Guilty is the default, not innocent; you can’t prove a negative, you can fail to prove a positive. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/86 "2006-03-17T15:55:45Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > There is a reason the term ‘not guilty’ is used in trial (as opposed to innocent), the determination of guilt has nothing to do with actual guilt, but rather proof beyond a reseasonable doubt. Not Guilty is the default, not innocent; you can’t prove a negative, you can fail to prove a positive. They’re Not Guilty then. So no reason for a supposedly freedom-loving democracy to keep them locked up. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/87 "2006-03-17T15:59:20Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > They’re Not Guilty then. So no reason for a supposedly freedom-loving democracy to keep them locked up. Please go up a few posts, and read where I said I believe that holding people in such a manner is JUST AS BAD as holding innocent people. I also compared this to an interment camp, which I thought would be a pretty clear indication that I am against holding these people without trial. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/88 "2006-03-17T16:05:24Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > There is a reason the term ‘not guilty’ is used in trial (as opposed to innocent), the determination of guilt has nothing to do with actual guilt, but rather proof beyond a reseasonable doubt. Not Guilty is the default, not innocent; you can’t prove a negative, you can fail to prove a positive. Nothing so complex. Not Guilty reflects a failure by the prosecution to make an argument. Given the failure of that argument the person remains innocent. Just as each and every captive at Guantanamo Bay remains innocent. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/89 "2006-03-17T16:08:05Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > They’re Not Guilty then. So no reason for a supposedly freedom-loving democracy to keep them locked up. A beautiful syllogism is pecking its way into the world there. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/90 "2006-03-17T16:13:46Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > Nothing so complex. Not Guilty reflects a failure by the prosecution to make an argument. Given the failure of that argument the person remains innocent. Just as each and every captive at Guantanamo Bay remains innocent. If we are defining innocent as lack of legal guilt; then there is no arguement between us. If we are defining innocent as in lacking guilt (in an ethical or moral sense) then there is no proof to that (nor anyway TO prove it). There are many cases of people being ‘not guilty’ after trail, where they were guilty of the crime for which they were being tried. Release from custody does not equate to not commiting the act, but rather not being able to prove they were guilty of the act. IMHO holding someone you can not prove is guilt is wrong and **evil** , yet releasing someone (that unto itself) does not prove they did not commit the act of which they are accused. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/91 "2006-03-17T16:15:55Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > A beautiful syllogism is pecking its way into the world there. Well - I guess I don’t believe the USA as manifested today is either freedom-loving or a democracy in substance. It has the forms but it’s just a hollowed out shell that would have the Founders spinning like dervishes in their graves. Call me an idealist but getting to choose between Kang and Kodos isn’t a democracy. Plutocracy - maybe. As for 20/21st century foreign policy … It speaks for itself as to ‘freedom-loving’. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/92 "2006-03-17T16:32:17Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > I’m far cheaper, for a mere $30k a year I’ll move to Acrrington Stanley and exclaim, “Oh jolly bad show you Americans” For $25k a year I’ll move to Macon and mutter, “You damn Yankees get out of Georgia.” But not a penny less. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/93 "2006-03-17T22:50:39Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > If we are defining innocent as lack of legal guilt; then there is no arguement between us. If we are defining innocent as in lacking guilt (in an ethical or moral sense) then there is no proof to that (nor anyway TO prove it). > > There are many cases of people being ‘not guilty’ after trail, where they were guilty of the crime for which they were being tried. Release from custody does not equate to not commiting the act, but rather not being able to prove they were guilty of the act. > > IMHO holding someone you can not prove is guilt is wrong and **evil** , yet releasing someone (that unto itself) does not prove they did not commit the act of which they are accused. …how many people have had a trial? Can you explain what the [Badr Brothers](http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wobadr094492447oct31,0,1261397.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines) were charged with? The process to get to “not proven guilty” seems to miss a step, don’t you think? Like evidence? Like a charge? Like a trial? Your semantic quibling have no basis in reality. I see no reason why guilt should stain the reputation of the Badr Brothers because of your semantic games: they are innocent, unless the US want to present some evidence to say otherwise. I accuse **EEMan** of crimes against humanity. Are you innocent of those crimes, or have you just not been proven guilty? You talk about tbe evidence that hasn’t been released, the so called “secret evidence.” Its such a shame that people have to go around with the stigma of “not proven guilty” on the basis of evidence that they could never confront or disprove. We know in one particular case, that of the German national detainee [Murat](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3868-2005Mar26.html?referrer=email) Kurnaz, that secret evidence was accidentally released. What did that evidence show? > [@](#): > > “CITF has no definite link/evidence of detainee having an association with Al Qaida or making any specific threat against the U.S.,” one document says. “CITF is not aware of evidence that Kurnaz was or is a member of Al Quaeda.” > Another newly declassified document reports that the "Germans confirmed this detainee has no connection to an al-Qaida cell in Germany. The “secret” evidence is this: > [@](#): > > Only one document in Kurnaz’s file, a short memo **written by an unidentified military official,** concludes that the German Muslim of Turkish descent is an al Qaeda member. It says he was working with German terrorists and trying in the fall of 2001 to reach Afghanistan to help fight U.S. forces …the judge said this: > [@](#): > > The R-19 memo, she wrote, “fails to provide significant details to support its conclusory allegations, does not reveal the sources for its information and is contradicted by other evidence in the record.” Green reviewed all the classified and unclassified evidence in the case. …so the secret evidence against Murat is a short memo in his file that says he is a bad guy. And, despite nearly overwhelming evidence of “not being proven guilty”, Murat is still locked up. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/94 "2006-03-17T23:21:39Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > As did every major intelligence group in the world (yes here was a small minority in some groups who believed the ‘intel’ was wrong; but the groups themselves did not hold that to be the fact). …I note that you still haven’t responded to **Glee’s** request for a citation for this fact, yet you still stand by it. So…cite? ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2006, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/95 "2006-03-18T11:30:30Z")
> [@glee](#): > > ‘Significant’ enough to lock them up for life without trial? > ‘Significant’ enough to never let them see their families again? > [@EEMan](#): > > See above statement, the siginicance comes in to play that they could not be proven guilty, not that they were innocent. The Guardian today has an article about **Sabah Sunnoqrot**. He went to the Gambia in 2002 to set up a peanut processing plant. The Americans took him from there first to Afghanistan, then Guantanamo, where he remains to this day. Apparently the plant was a ‘terrorist training camp’. Naturally no evidence has ever been produced. **Sabah’s youngest child is three. She has never seen her father**. Don’t you feel ashamed to bandy words around? Don’t you feel ashamed to be an American? What would you say to his family? > [@glee](#): > > Do you have a cite for this amazing claim? > Here’s the UK Foreign Minister, resigning before the war: > > Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. > It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. > Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? > Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? > > [BBC NEWS | Politics | Cook's resignation speech](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm) > [@EEMan](#): > > Those would be WMD’s, the delivery method was still in play (they had some FROGS and SCUDS left that could launch them, though I WOULD agree that they would be worthless against a city target (as they were not accurate enough as modified)); and that was the report from every major intelligence agency. The rest of that statement is an opinion piece, not a bad one; but by his admission he believed they still had the weapons. You provide no cites for your ranting about ‘every intelligence agency knew’. What is it you know? 😕 **I’m quoting the UK Foreign Minister, who had seen the intelligence documents.** He resigned before the war even started. He knew. And of course Saddam **used** to have weapons. The US sold them to him, remember? > [@glee](#): > > Of course we know why they are there. > Bush needed to pretend he was doing something about terrorism to get re-elected. > [@EEMan](#): > > That is speculation, though common enough. We don’t know WHY these people are there, nor any evidence against most of them. > [@glee](#): > > Of course we know why they are still there. > Bush would look like a desperate despot if they were all released. > [@EEMan](#): > > See you are just being dishonest with yourself, we don’t KNOW that; some ASSUME that is the case. There is certainly a difference between knowledge and speculation, even ‘strong’ speculation or ‘founded’ speculation… Are you saying Bush **wouldn’t** look like a desperate despot if innnocent people were held for years without a trial, or ever being allowed to see their family - then were released without charge? As for being dishonest - when you, **without any cites** , make wild claims it’s: “my point was that just because we have not SEEN the evidence (publicly published) does not mean there is NO evidence.” But you’re not **speculating**?! Take the forest out of your own eye, please. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/96 "2006-03-19T05:48:41Z")
_Don’t you feel ashamed to bandy words around? Don’t you feel ashamed to be an American? What would you say to his family?_ **these people** have no shame. They have no morals. They have no heart. They are as beasts, rooting for decayed flesh in the graveyard of a once proud nation. Behold what we have become and weep… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215/97 "2006-03-19T09:26:22Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Well - I guess I don’t believe the USA as manifested today is either freedom-loving or a democracy in substance. It has the forms but it’s just a hollowed out shell that would have the Founders spinning like dervishes in their graves. > > Call me an idealist but getting to choose between Kang and Kodos isn’t a democracy. Plutocracy - maybe. > > As for 20/21st century foreign policy … It speaks for itself as to ‘freedom-loving’. > [@](#): > > The starry banner that once flew > O’er freedom’s bloody barricade > Now flaps and fades in foreign skies > O’er palaces that empire made > > So arise, Columbia’s sons, arise! > Arise and you might yet be free! > Cast off the forces that make lies > Of Jefferson and liberty! – “Jefferson and Liberty,” Leslie Fish [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-heard-the-usaf-colonel-whos-prosecuting-the-gitmo-detainees/348215.md?page=4)