MovieChat Forums > The Road to Guantanamo (2006) Discussion > Let's see here...

Let's see here...

posted 17 years ago by wmeekin
68 replies | jump to latest

you and your pals traveled to Pakistan to attend your friend’s wedding. Lacking money for a hotel and electing not to stay with family, you crashed at the local youth hostel, er, mosque, where the faithful held regular anti-American rallies. With a couple of weeks to kill before the wedding (No job to get back to in England? Ah yes, convicted petty criminals with limited education and dim prospects, your time was your own.), you decided to travel to Afghanistan “to help.” Now, by “help” do you mean “provide aid and comfort?” And to whom exactly? Never mind.

So, when you found yourself doing a lot of sitting around and not much “helping,” you asked to be driven back to Pakistan. Did you offer any resistance when your driver took you deeper into Afghanistan to the city of Kunduz? And is this the same Kunduz that was the last major city held by the Taliban before its fall to US-backed Afghan Northern Alliance forces on November 26, 2001? The same Kunduz from which witnesses reported a Pakistani airlift of as many as five thousand Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters? But you were only there to help. And, like an errant Harold or Kumar, to find “really big naan.”

The simple fact is I’d be stunned if you’d been renditioned off to Cuba after, say, taking a leak on a Louisiana State Trooper’s leg during Mardi Gras. But captured retreating with foreign fighters deep in Taliban country? In late 2001? With no passport? Sorry. I’d be outraged if they’d let you go.

Shameless plug. You can read this and more movie commentary on my blog:

http://netflog.blogspot.com/2007/05/road-to-guantanamo.html

[–] procletnic 17 years ago

It's quite obvious that you would call the black - white in order to justify the actions of your country. The simple fact is that no one is guilty unless proven to be. Where are your proofs? You don't have any and yet you come to tell us that - YES these people SHOULD be treated like *beep* just because they COULD be guilty. *beep* u man. We don't need this war. Innocent people are dying there many of them killed by the US soldiers. Other innocent people are being held in prisons, tortured.. Ask yourself what will all this violence bring you. This is not "War on terror" this is war that generates terror. Everybody hates the US now and you just don't want to know why this is happening. It's right before your eyes but you just don't want to see it.

[–] wmeekin 17 years ago

Proof? These men were irregulars captured during wartime in the last Taliban stronghold among Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. They weren't NGO workers in the wrong place at the wrong time. And if they were simple tourists, as you and the filmmaker naively seem to believe, well, bless your soft-headed souls. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Your estimation of the efficacy of the "War on Terror" notwithstanding, without credentials or good reason to be in country, there is no surprise that they were treated as enemy combatants until due process, rough as it is, determined they were harmless. Not innocent. Harmless.

[–] mschenker 17 years ago

But the other issue is how we treat the detainees. Suppose they were guilty of fighting with the Taliban (and clearly, they had not been doing it for very long, given their prior lives in Britain). Would chaining them to the floor, keeping them in cages, humiliating them for their religious beliefs, treating them like animals, etc get us anywhere? Any such "confessions" would be useless. We completely lose any pretense of being a higher moral authority when we behave this way. Nor do we engender any goodwill among any potential allies in this fashion.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dragosu 16 years ago

Yes, proof.
You need that to arrest or convict someone under any law. In civilised countries, anyway. Seems it doesn't apply to yours. By the way, didn't the US Secretary of Defence at that time indirectly upholded torture in an internal memo, altough the Geneva conventions is quite clear on it?... It was on all TV channels a few years ago.

I'm sorry, but I don't think someone needs to have "credentials" or "good reasons" to be in a country. It goes against the basic principles of democracy and free movement. This does however reminds me of the communist regimes that I had the "opportunity" to witness in action.

You make a lot of assumptions. It is obvious these 3 people were not angels. They had problems with the police. So what? That doesn't makes them terrorists.
Guessing on one's intentions doesn't mean you're right and it doesn't allow someone to take action based on what it would might have been their intentions. Anyone is entitled to a fair trial. Period. Even in war zones - there they are called martial courts. But it wasn't the case here, it seems...

I'm not sure if what was presented in this movie is 100% accurate, as any film maker have the tendency to "bend" a little the reality towards what he/she likes, but it does seems in line to what we have all seem on TV, despite the rigurous censoring that the Irak wars were under. Torture in US prisons, prisoners being detained illegally - if I rememeber correctly the expression for the Guantanamo bay detainees is "non-persons", the Geneva convention being challenged by the highest US officials an so on are unfortunatelly the reality of these years. And I fear these are not isolated incidents.

As for determining that "they were harmless. Not innocent. Harmless.", would you give me a break... if they were not innocent, after all that circus, would you reasonably believe that they would have been released? I don't think so.

So sorry man, but this it seems real... and it does represent the US today...

[–] oFrancis 16 years ago

wmeekin, you´re really a very mentaly sick pearson, you should try to get some serious help before something really bad happens, god bless you, i pray that someday even you will get salvation. it´s terrible what people like you do to other people who happens to be muslims or otherwise just someway different than your all-american-ass. narrow minded fools.

PS. Im not really a religious pearson so im not praying, but good luck.

[–] jomay-1 17 years ago

And the hatred rolls on.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Yargg 17 years ago

I just started hating you, wmeekin. Well done.

NOTHING justifies torture.
America is fast becoming a police-state with no sense of justice or human rights, and when it's inhabited by people like you, actually defending actions like these, you are doomed...

Go eat your f**cking hamburger while descending into fascism. Cretin.

- The keeper of the city keys put shutters on the dreams.
King Crimson

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] crick-9 17 years ago

Let's see, Would I rather hold these "innocents" while we find out if they are or not.
Or take their word that they were a peace keeping mission gone astray.

What outrage would happen if we released them prematurely and they car bombed the london parliment three months later. Would those here who say the U.S. treated them badly, be here yelling that the U.S. didn't do their jobs?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] soujiro27 17 years ago

Hold them? Definitely.
But torture them, based on assumptions? No.
The USA is in fact descending down into fascism, if the US population actually find it correct to defend such actions.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] crick-9 17 years ago

2007 two members of the Tipton Three - Ruhal Ahmed and Shafiq Rasul - agreed to participate in the Channel 4 documentry Lie Lab in an atempt to prove their innocence of allegations made by the US Government. The technology used on the show was developed by Professor Sean Spence from the University of Sheffield. It uses Functional magnetic resonance imaging to look at the activity in the pre frontal cortex to determine the truthfulness of statements[13]. Having previously claimed that he had entered Afghanistan for the purposes of carrying out charity work, Ruhal Ahmed admitted on the programme that he had visited an Islamist training camp, where he handled weapons and learned how to use an AK47. Rasul refused to go through with the test.[14]

[–] iluvnp 17 years ago

you're a typical ingorant american.. enough said.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flylice319 17 years ago

Galilleo 2005 do u just come on these boards and talk crap about people who don't agree with you, cuz you really don't have an arguement other than that terrorists are bad people and we should kill them. WE UNDERSTAND UR PISSED! i dont' think anyone disagrees with you that terrorism is bad. but you can't friggin comprehend the idea that killing innocent people is wrong, just because their the race you hate.

Finially your here arguing with an 8th grader, and apparently you haven't made any great points either, ur just pointing out that he's an 8th grader, now your trying to sound all smart because your older. just admit to it, not everyone agrees with you, and personally i think this 8th grader is much smarter than you are.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flylice319 17 years ago

"You and UMR never say anything about insurgents in both Afghanistan and Iraq hiding behind civilians --- mostly women and children."

r u saying that, that gives the right for Americans to kill the women and children to get to the terrorists?

it seems that you and gallileo cant understand that killing innocent people on your enemies side is also wrong. you are only mad that the insurgents came and killed people in America, but you don't care to think that the same thing is going on over in Iraq also, they too are being bombed by America and a bomb might "accidentally" misses the target therefore killing the civilians that live there.

this is how i see it in a nut shell, you feel sorry for the people who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and thinks that the insurgents deserve to die, and the people in iraq is mourning over their dead relatives or family members because the U.S. bombed their cities. Basically you and the Iraqi civilians are thinking the same way both of y'all hate ur enemies.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flylice319 17 years ago

WHY??? r u saying that killing Kurdistan civilians is right? or did you think that all iraqi kurds are evil.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flylice319 17 years ago

When did i ever say they were monsters. the way you phrase ur sentences is like trying to prove to me that killing their civilians to free them is a right thing to do. if you think that way fine. but think about what they are doing in iraq, we had no business going there in the first place, now we have liberated them from Saddam and guess what they in a much worst position than they were in the first place. you think that the U.S actually went over there for WMDs? now we find out that they don't have any. maybe it's you that's being brainwashed by your government/bush thinking that everything they do is right and full of justice. the exact same justice they used to treat the prisoners at Gitmo.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flylice319 17 years ago

"how can i be racist about islam, when islam isnt a race?"

ohhh i get it, you don't hate the Iraqi people, you just hate their religion. that definitely makes you sound like a much better person.

"come back down to earth and realize it WAS insane Muslims that did 9/11"

i don't know if i can reason with you on this subject because i told you my view on this probably on every post i made. you only repost this to try to show what a rational person you are and make everyone you argue to sound insane. you know what i'll repost this again and i hope you can get this through the thick skull of yours, and into that little brain. how about this I'll put it on caps for you to see clearer I AGREED WITH YOU THAT TERRORIST PLANNED THE 9/11, TERRORISM IS BAD AND THAT THE MUSLIMS WERE INSANE. please don't try to make me sound like I'm on the terrorists side again because i don't like to be redundant.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flylice319 17 years ago

Ok could you and I agree to end this debate? it seems like i been arguing to a rock, i feel stupid just talking to you. I understand now that no matter what i say, you'll never come to an agreement, even if you know you've just been proven wrong. please wander your ignorant mind to somewhere else, i don't want to deal with it anymore.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] movieLoader 17 years ago

...But captured retreating with foreign fighters deep in Taliban country? In late 2001? With no passport? Sorry. I’d be outraged if they’d let you go.

Your argument for their guilt is flawed. You have defined their movement as "retreating" which supposes they were previously "advancing" or attacking. An argument based on assumptions never holds up too well, so you're nailing your own coffin.

Secondly, "Taliban country" is questionable. Were they inside a gated region with high walls? No, they drove in on the back of a truck along dusty open roads in the middle of nowhere... yet you've decided to call this "Taliban country". Another hole in your argument.

"In late 2001?" .... Um... yes, in late 2001. You have a problem with that? Should they have checked the Pentagon bombing schedule in advance?

"With no passport?". Their only mistake. They should have hidden their passports up their rear ends.

"Sorry. I’d be outraged if they’d let you go." Apologise you should, for such a pathetic attempt at justifying the shameful acts of U.S. authorities.

Personally, I don't much like mainstream religion... it's causing too much trouble in the world. It's supposed to help people connect with themselves and the great mysterious universe beyond knowledge, rather than divide and cause fighting and hatred. Basically, religion isn't working. But if these kids want to pray, and be "good Muslims" and stay in a Mosque etc, then that's their business.

And when young and travelling, you never need much of a reson to go to a particular place.. you just go for the experience. They intended to help out, ok.. so that didn't work... they tired to leave, but caught up with eager Taliban recruiters - who wouldn't think twice about deceiving to enlist more fighters.

Your argument is hereby layed to rest.

[–] faraaj-1 17 years ago

wmeekin....about 150 years ago, people used the same logic you did above and found people guilty and hanged them. It was called lynching! The entire criminal justice system is based on the maxim "innocent until proven guilty...". I too find it 'fishy' that the Tipton 3 were in Afghanistan (Taliban territory) so soon after 9/11 but its not inconceivable that they were irresponsible youngsters looking for adventure, a cheap thrill and maybe a "really big naan". At that age, appetites are quite healthy and I know from experience Afghan naans are delicious!

Since you're on a film website, may I recommend you watch 12 Angry Men (1957) and The Ox-Bow Incident - both classic films that every American should be proud of.

Along these mean streets walks a man who is not mean himself - neither tarnished, nor afraid...

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] faraaj-1 17 years ago

I believe 9/11 was a crime against all humanity - not just Americans or Christians or New Yorkers. You'd be surprised at how many muslims would agree with this sentiment. But blind rage, mob law and the war in iraq are definitely not the solution to a safer world where we are all brethren regardless of ethnicity or religious affiliation.

I think Road to Guantanamo does suggest that the Tipton 3 were irresponsible, reckless youngsters out on an adventure who paid a terrible price at the hands of what was believed to be a civilised government. If there is no system of legal justice to deal with inhumanity, we would descend into an Orwellian nightmare world....

Along these mean streets walks a man who is not mean himself - neither tarnished, nor afraid...

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] faraaj-1 17 years ago

My name isn't Mohammad and your tone is quite offensive and unnecessary.

I'm on a film website and there are plenty of other films to discuss. I don't intend to get into a political debate with you and will leave you to your narrow views.

Along these mean streets walks a man who is not mean himself - neither tarnished, nor afraid...

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Depoc 17 years ago

You are pathetic dwendt. One day (hopefully), you will open your eyes and realise a few things. This will probably happen a little after you reach puberty, so you may have a little while to wait.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Depoc 17 years ago

i rest my case...

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Depoc 17 years ago

find those responsible while following the geneva convention and basic human rights...

obviously that is too much to ask...

otherwise havea good look at why 4 billion people feel aggreaved with the US and look at ways of fixing it.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Depoc 17 years ago

Well, actually they should fall under the geneva convention even though they are not in an "official uniform" of an enemy army. That is a pretty poor excuse to hold people forever and torture them. There is no such thing as a war on "terror" . It is technically not possible to do so because you can not fight a methodoligy. But I guess you probably don't care because you are happy to have people tortured in your name whether they are innocent or not. That innocent blood is on your hands.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Depoc 17 years ago

Grow up. I think a lot of them would rather not come out alive after what they are enduring. And if they do get out, it means they were innocent to begin with so everything they endured was a crime. I would be interested in seeing your opinion if somebody you knew was caught up in that camp. I am sure your tune would quickly change....

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Depoc 17 years ago

No.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ObscureAuteur 17 years ago

None of your comment mitigates the following:

1.
What goes on at Guantanamo is torture by any un-tortured definition. Check out the documentary Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook for a live demonstration of Guantanamo "Lite". ("Lite for being only 48 hours with the most exotic services such as waterboarding omitted for safety reasons.)

The Bush administration's line on torture and adherence to the highest international standards of conduct in such matters, the only ones that the U.S. should even consider, have been the most appalling examples of lies and clumsy attempts Orwellian doublethink outside of North Korea. Did you catch the press conference where Bush quibbled over the Geneva Convention as being subject to "terpretation". Nothing like taking that moral high ground in a crisis!

2.
This torture is sponsored by the U.S. government. That is my government, in my name.

3.
This torture is lied about openly and repeatedly by the U.S. government.

4.
This torture is being performed offshore by U.S. personnel (and other and likely less restrained torture is performed by surrogates in other nations cause my government is afraid of the legalities and spin issues involved in doing it on U.S. soil. If it is legal and it is not torture in can be performed within U.S. borders.

5.
These admittedly dodgy detainees had alibis for the alleged attendance at al-Qaeda rallies etc that could be confirmed easily by the British Government. The entire exercise, especially presenting false evidence pressing for false confessions was gratutious and abusive.

It appears that at least one of these detainees is a fine candidate for eportation, but members of the U.S. government are now a fine candidates for a trial at the Hague. The late Milosevic's cell may be available for Rumsfeld by now.

6.
It is a documented fact that many were detained by mistake, for example because of a resemblance in name, have been given this treatment and held long past the determination that detention was an error and the person in question need not be detained for any other reason.

7.
Most confessions obtained in this way are worthless. In the glory days of Josef Stalin it was routine for the police to round up 50 suspects for the act of a single person and get 50 confessions. Is this the model the U.S. should adopt in the name of the "War on Terror"? The administration seems to be to willing to go to great lengths to preserve it as an option.

I invite Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Rice (and you for that matter) to try out the same weekend in and out of cages and endorse it afterward. This is assuming that any of them can go the distance as only four of the seven in Guantanamo Guidebook were able to do.