Print 24 comment(s) - last by boeush.. on May 28 at 6:14 PM

Anonymous launched a global online protest to mark the 100th day of the hunger strike by Guantanamo Bay prisoners

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is losing all access to wireless internet and social networks due to hacking threats

U.S. military officials have blocked access to wireless internet and social networks like Facebook and Twitter at Guantanamo Bay because it fears that international hacking group Anonymous will launch an attack to disrupt services at the naval base.

Anonymous launched a global online protest to mark the 100th day of the hunger strike by Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The detainees have been protesting their living conditions and indefinite detention at the base. 

About 103 of the 166 prisoners are on strike.

The U.S. military said it has been receiving online hacking threats amid the hunger strike, which were allegedly from Anonymous. 

The hunger strike has captured a lot of attention on networks like Twitter and Facebook. Many, including human rights activist groups, are calling for the closure of Guantanamo Bay.

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a prison and interrogation facility placed within the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. It is ran by the U.S. military, and was established in 2002 by the Bush Administration to hold those connected with the Global War on Terror including Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa and Southeast Asia.

Sources: RT, Associated Press

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Let's see here...
By boeush on 5/22/2013 2:34:59 AM , Rating: 0
Well, I suppose you wouldn't mind then if you were one of those kidnapped after being anonymously 'denounced', and are now indefinitely confined without trial as a "terrorist" assumed guilty until proven innocent. (Or is it all fine just as long as it's happening to those "other" people, and not you personally?) Yeah, I know, I know all of those 'prisoners' are guilty by default, because our totally trustworthy, error-free, all-knowing, and utterly un-corrupt government says so...

RE: Let's see here...
By inperfectdarkness on 5/22/2013 12:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
It has very little to do with the guilt or innocence of said parties. If innocence could be established beyond a reasonable doubt, those detainees would have been released; and many already have (including some of which were known to return to terrorist camps).

The issue has--and has always been--a lack of legal precedent dealing with individuals who are not native US citizens (read: fall under US laws) and are not legal combatants (read: fall under geneva conventions). This "gaping hole" in legal code is the ongoing reason for detention.

I don't like it one bit. It needs to be fixed. In the meantime, granting the bill of rights to said detainees (who are NOT U.S. citizens), or trying them under military tribunal (which is operated by geneva conventions) would be incredibly bad. In the former case, we'd be giving rights to individuals who demonstrated such a lack of respect for human rights that they sought to bring down the very country which grants them. In the latter case, the detainees would almost assuredly be found guilty of war-crimes, as they do NOT conform to the ROE of uniformed combat.

It's so easy to armchair QB this one when you don't have all the facts.

RE: Let's see here...
By Captain Orgazmo on 5/23/2013 4:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
There is plenty of historical precedent on how to deal with unlawful enemy combatants. Solutions range from summary execution to gibbeting. When dealing with murderous jihadi scum, I lean towards gibbeting.

RE: Let's see here...
By inperfectdarkness on 5/23/2013 2:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
if there is a law espousing gibbeting, then i'm ok with that. without a law to back things up, we are no better than the enemies we fight.

RE: Let's see here...
By DT_Reader on 5/23/2013 1:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
According to the Supreme Court, the entire planet falls under U.S. laws, so don't give that argument.

The only disagreement is over where to hold the trials - civilian courts or military tribunals, where to imprison those found guilty, and what to do with those found innocent. Since Congress and the President can't come to any agreement, they kick the can down the road...

RE: Let's see here...
By boeush on 5/24/2013 7:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
we'd be giving rights to individuals who demonstrated such a lack of respect for human rights that they sought to bring down the very country which grants them.
Demonstrated? Really???

Says who?

Proves who???
If innocence could be established beyond a reasonable doubt
That's exactly ass-backwards with respect to the principles of guilt and innocence that govern MODERN Western culture. Here in the civilized world, we're supposed to presume people -- ALL PEOPLE , regardless of citizenship -- innocent until proven guilty.

On the other hand under your standard, what you get is Stalinist-style "disappearances" and "gulags", as all it takes for someone to "disappear", is that their neighbor simply goes and 'denounces' them to some appropriate authority. No proof of guilt required: a mere suspicion is enough to effectively end a life.

If that's the kind of regime you'd prefer to live under, good luck to you. I'd be absolutely horrified to share your country of residence, however...

RE: Let's see here...
By inperfectdarkness on 5/27/2013 8:04:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'm game to hear how YOU would handle the situation.

Everything I've studied on the issue says that the shortcoming has to do with international laws which apply to these cases--not unilateral actions on behalf of any one state actor.

RE: Let's see here...
By boeush on 5/28/2013 6:14:57 PM , Rating: 1
You wrote that granting the bill of rights to these "demonstrated" enemy combatants would be "extraordinarily bad".

I submit that we grant the bill or rights to monsters like Timothy McVeigh and James Holmes, and we do so on principle. What could possibly be so fundamentally different about these creatures, other than the fact that they were born on U.S. soil?

On the other hand, you can't just assume someone is an "enemy combatant", never mind "terrorist", because they were forced to confess under torture, or they're claimed to be guilty by some warlord who probably sought reciprocal advantage, or because some field agent said so with no further proof, or because they just happened to be at the wrong place, at the wrong time, or maybe because they just happen to look like someone or have the same name as someone else.

And it's not as if any of this is really new. Britain was dealing with the IRA for decades, long before 9/11. This stupidity about "war on terror" has to stop. These people, when they are not in fact soldiers on a field of battle, are nothing more or less than criminal thugs conspiring to commit crimes. They must be investigated, arrested, and put on trial as such. It's really very simple.

AFAIK, there are a handful of reasons why this isn't being done with the Guantanamo detainees. First reason, is pure political grand-standing, a.k.a. pure bullshit. Second reason, is most (if not all) of the evidence is fatally tainted because it's obtained via torture or other invalid methods -- so no sane and lawful court would admit such evidence into the proceedings. Third reason, is there is actually no evidence at all, and we're only holding these people to save face: releasing them would be tantamount to admitting we made a series of horrible mistakes, and ruined these peoples' lives and heaped injury upon insult upon injury for no good reason only because we were panicking and losing our heads precisely as Bin Laden hoped we would. All of these reasons, I'm absolutely certain, play some part in the cases of most of the detainees still being held; all of them are unacceptable.

There's only one actually valid reason, and that is classified intelligence gathering methods and sensitive intelligence information that would come to the light of day in a trial. However, I think that's easily dealt with, in closed court proceedings, by swearing the jurors, the advocates, the judge, and all attendant clerks and officers, to secrecy under penalty of treason.

"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki