9/11 jihad plotter rants about withheld olives, honey in Guantanamo meals

ramzi-bin-al-shibh.jpgThe poor tortured soul

It’s a form of psychological torture! Deploy the human rights lawyers! Clive Stafford-Smith, call your office! And send out for some olives and honey for Ramzi.

“9/11 defendant Ramzi Binalshibh rants about withheld olives, honey in Guantanamo Bay meals,” by Joseph Straw for the New York Daily News, August 20 (thanks to Block Ness):

FORT MEADE, Md. “” A jihadist charged in the deaths of 2,976 innocents on 9/11 threw a hissy fit in court Tuesday “” over lunch food.

Ramzi Binalshibh had a meltdown because he believed the U.S. military withheld olives and honey from his meal.

He was the only one of five defendants who bothered to show up for Tuesday”s pretrial hearing “” but he did not last the afternoon.

“There are big problems with the food that was provided,” Binalshibh angrily told the judge, Army Col. James Pohl, through a translator.

“It is a form of psychological torture,” he growled.

After his rant, Binalshibh joined self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three other co-defendants in their Guantanamo Bay cells.

Binalshibh made the complaint to explain why he did not want to attend the afternoon session on the second day of a week-long pretrial hearing in the 9/11 terror case.

Navy Capt. Robert Durand, a spokesman at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the 9/11 defendants are being held, said Binalshibh received a “freshly prepared standard detainee halal meal” but “complained that his lunch did not include condiments such as olives and honey.”

After his rant, Binalshibh waived his right to be in court and left to join self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three other co-defendants in their prison cells.

Binalshibh provided the 9/11 attackers with money and help in finding flight training.

Binalshibh made the complaint to explain why he did not want to attend a session on the second day of a pretrial hearing in the 9/11 case.

He was supposed to be one of the 9/11 hijackers himself, on orders from Osama Bin Laden, but assumed a supporting role after he was denied a U.S. visa four times, authorities alleged….

29% of released Guantanamo detainees have returned to jihad
Gitmo guards brace for post-Ramadan attacks by prisoners: "There's been quite a few (urine) splash, assaults and stuff like this"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Black or green?

    Stuffed or not?

    Orgainic or not?

    Locally grown or not?

    Etc., etc., etc.

    It’s not that they will never be satisfied. It’s really the need to f with us.

  2. says

    If he wants honey and olives, fine. I don’t see what the fuss is about.
    Prison theoretically should be to help rehabilitate if possible. I don’t see any harm in this and more.

    However, we should not allow these prisoners access to the weapons that enable jihad violence and curtail any possibility of rehabilitation into apostate-hood.

    NO BEARDS, NO PRAYER MATS, NO QURANS
    and especially no more “Allahu Akbar”

  3. says

    Oh poor lil’ dear!

    I’ll send him a care package of prepared delectable treats; which will include one of my personal faves: honey-glazed bacon! Along with something I’ve never tried before, but it sounds super yummy: crispy olives stuffed with sausage!

    …mmmmmmm!!!

  4. says

    Notice that the “man” is wearing, not the Saudi kaffiyeh (red and white tablecloth), but the “palestinian” one.

    I wonder how these clowns get these things in prison.

    Let’s give him his damned olives, though – and hope he chokes on a pit.

    Jihadski

  5. says

    I don’t get it??

    If I was in prison, could I have special meals and treats? Not likely.

    WTF is wrong with the powers that be in this country? Or all Western countries, for crying out loud, stop catering to the whims of these clowns. Like a spoiled child, just say “No”.

    You won’t cater special treats for me, so zero for the clowns with the towels on their heads.

    Wait a minute, I’m going to grow a long beard, wrap a towel around my head and that is a game-changer in today’s world. It is not based on logic, fairness or any other reason other than FEAR.

    Grow a pair clowns!

  6. says

    9/11 jihad plotter rants about withheld olives, honey in Guantanamo meals
    …………………………..

    Oh, the humanity!

    I made Mexican food yesterday, and was unable to find any ripe avocados. I was disappointed, but somehow made do with a nice tomatillo salsa. Somehow, I failed to consider it a human rights issue.

    But then, I’m not a pious whining Muslim.

    More:

    Ramzi Binalshibh had a meltdown because he believed the U.S. military withheld olives and honey from his meal.

    He was the only one of five defendants who bothered to show up for Tuesday’s pretrial hearing ” but he did not last the afternoon.

    “There are big problems with the food that was provided,” Binalshibh angrily told the judge, Army Col. James Pohl, through a translator.

    “It is a form of psychological torture,” he growled.
    …………………………..

    Murdering Infidels”bombing them, slitting their throats, beheading them”is just fine, but it’s “psychological torture” if a devout Jihadist doesn’t get his olives and honey.

    They should just feed them bologna sandwiches and baked beans like the guys at the local jail get.

    More:

    Binalshibh made the complaint to explain why he did not want to attend the afternoon session on the second day of a week-long pretrial hearing in the 9/11 terror case.
    …………………………..

    Why should he have a choice?

  7. says

    The suspension of due process – for any reason – should concern every US citizen.

    It seems like if the evidence against this individual had the slightest bit of credibility, we might just be able to zap him and be done with it. I wonder why that doesn’t happen?

  8. says

    I forgot to add people tend to believe what they “want” to believe.
    Donald Rumsfeld had me convinced because I wanted to be convinced.

  9. says

    Well if he wants olives how about some nice olive loaf, I promise the hogs are slaughtered in strict accordance to Ḥal�l rules.

    Olive Loaf

    Select cuts of beef & pork are blended with imported Manzinella olives to make this top shelf Olive Loaf. Serve on a bagel spread with cream cheese or create hors d’ouvres by cubing with our Havarti Cheese.

  10. says

    Is it about olives and honey or is it about Islam?

    Are they guilty?
    Who is telling the truth?

    The enemy in Iraq was soldiers who became insurgents who became enemy combatants with the possibility of links terrorism with some common criminals mixed in.

    Taxi to the Dark Side on DVD

    An in-depth look at the torture practices of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, focusing on an innocent taxi driver in Afghanistan who was tortured and killed in 2002.

    MOVIE SAMPLER TRAILER at:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0854678/

  11. says

    Should detainees at Guantanamo be charge with specific crimes and brought to trial or should we just assume they are all guilty?

  12. says

    Every now and then a blog site must offer something easy
    to snack on to keep things interesting. Not everyone has
    the time and inclination to dig into a steady diet of long
    complex articles. There must be a good variety.
    I enjoy these types of articles as much as anyone else but,
    it is usually better to nibble at such low hanging fruit than
    it is to try and devour it in one gulp as the main course.

    MOVIE SAMPLER TRAILER at:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0854678/

    The movie trailer above should serve as added food for thought.

    Enemy combatant is by definition a bit vague and in hindsight
    it has become a much too convenient label to be trusted.

    Could we truly trust Cheney / Rumsfeld?

  13. says

    We are winning the ideological battle with Islam.
    All we need do is maintain the high ground

    Islam is rotting from within and is grasping to stay afloat.

    It can no longer defend Muhammad
    It can no longer hide stoning as easily it used to.
    Iran for example.

    Islam is grasping desperately as the internet age bears witness to its pathetic attempts at relevance.

  14. says

    This is the Christmas lunch menu in New Zealand prisons as published by the Dept of Corrections.
    NZ$4.50 is around US$3.70.
    The Christmas day menu is the same across all 17 prisons and the menu for the day costs about $4.50 per prisoner – this is the same menu cost as any other day. While it meets basic nutritional requirements, it is not lavish
    Lunch, the main meal of the day, will usually consist of a serving of vegetables, meat and a dessert. Dinner is cold meats and salads. A vegetarian option is also available.
    The day’s meals, around 24,000 of them, are prepared and cooked by the prisoners who work in prison kitchens who learn valuable skills while cooking the meals.

  15. says

    I went back and reread The Geneva Convention info by itself and it was helpful. Also, I will grant that Obama may be part of the problem. Regardless, the status of detainees needs to be resolved.
    A tribunal would make sense assuming we could trust the evidence.
    My link to the DVD and the information on this documentary leaves doubts whether this is possible though. This all brings up other questions but I will leave it as is.

    Peace

  16. says

    Don’t get me wrong – I love this website, and I am grateful to Robert for helping (along with you lot) for opening my eyes to what is going on with Islam and Jihad.

    But I’ve got to point one thing out: America’s reputation in the UK is being CRUCIFIED by the existence of Guantanamo Bay, and the practice of “extraordinary rendition”.

    Lets take this character Ramzi Binalshibh as a case in point. Firstly, he is NOT an ‘unlawful combatant’. He did not take up arms against US soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq; he was arrested by the CIA in Pakistan, In Karachi, of all places… about as far away from the Afghan border as you can GET without entering India.

    He was kidnapped by the CIA on suspicioun of terrorism. (involvement in 9/11). But WHY ? Acts of terrorism are already covered in various US laws, and backed by international treaties.. INCLUDING WITH PAKISTAN.

    The USA even has an extradition treaty with Pakistan ! But rather than take the legal path, they sent in the CIA special operations teams.

    The upshot is that Ramzi Binalshibh has been held illegaly for TEN YEARS without trial.

    Ten years WITHOUT TRIAL…. in conditions that – by many accounts – would not even be legal in a US prison. And THIS by America, the erstwhile beacon of Justice and Democracy ?

    William Gladstone once said that “Justice delayed is justice denied”. Well, ten years (and counting) is one HECK of a delay.

    I’m not SUPRISED that some of the inmates are refusing to co-operate with the current quasi-judicial processes going on in Guantanamo. Or grumbling about honey and olives. Or – for that matter – turning to anti-american Jihadists when they are released. If YOU had been held illegally for 10 years, beaten and humiliated by guards etc, how would YOU feel ? Full of love for America ? Impressed by Western Democracy and the Judicial System ?

    Somehow I doubt it.

    Stories like this may play well in the USA… I don’t know one way or the other. But please DO understand that in Europe, the general feeling is of abhorance with the Internment Prison, and possibly even sympathy with those interned.

    Warm regards,
    Roofgardener

  17. says

    Spoilt brats throwing tantrums.

    They need a no-nonsense grandma laying down the law.

    Perhaps they should put Judge Judy or ‘The Nanny’ in charge of Guantanamo Bay.

  18. says

    So there really is torture in Gitmo. No honey? No olives? How dare they. This must be the work of those evil Zionists we hear so much about. Only they could be this cruel. They have arranged a Paradise Hotel on Earth for these prisoners, without any virgins or boys pure as pearls…How cruel is that? Deprivation in the middle of splendor. Now ‘that’s’ torture.

  19. says

    Pride is the drug of choice for Mohammedans. And like all addicts, they prefer it even to food with real sustenance. They stuff their egos with their own self-satisfaction, particularly after manipulating others.

    Which is why this little non-entity looks full of himself.

  20. says

    This is obviously his way of laughing at the infidel Americans and spitting in our eye for being so soft. And we are soft especially with Obama as president. This terrorist should be dead by now.

  21. says

    “Who’s on first” (Known unknowns)
    I don’t dispute for a minute that Rumsfeld’s response was a diabolically clever way to avoid answering the reporter’s question with a simple direct answer.
    Later on he successfully danced around Abu Graham with poise until the truth finally tangled up his well-rehearsed two-step.

    Abu Ghahab (we agree it was disgraceful)
    A lack of oversight opened the door and deliberate policy decisions enabled it.
    The ends used to justify the means
    Iraqi suspects were presumed to be an insurgent then enemy combatant which becomes a synonym for a terrorist.
    Once the suspected terrorist label is applied then torture was used to extract “confessions.”
    What standard of evidence was used to rationalize abuse?

    Who were the suspects picked-up?
    Many were ordinary Iraqis and Afghans in the wrong country at the wrong time and got caught in a dragnet that focused more on “confessions” than truth.
    It is documented in video that I mentioned earlier.

    Analogy
    Obama walks into Walmart and an ambitious cashier claims he is a shoplifter and he is immediately sent to prison to be interrogated. It turns out that an angry neighbor of Obama named Rush turned him in to the cashier and once the process is set in motion it takes on a life of its own.

  22. says

    The point is that the left sees me are far right because I criticize Islam and wants to label me as a hate monger and yet most of my posts have been tolerant of Muslims themselves.
    Can’t please everyone.

  23. says

    I guess “Jihad Watch regular” is a rather vague and ragged term;

    though like Rumsfeld’s Wittgensteinian known unknowns (or

    like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s knowledge of

    obscenity), it became common knowledge when whatmecare made that

    ineffable transition from being a suspect upstart to being a

    Jihad Watch regular (though of late, rather irregularly so).

    From the Google page on this Lorem Ipsum character, we can see he

    has posted about 50 comments in the span of three years.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-

    cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=274

    (By comparison, I sometimes post 50 comments before my second cup

    of coffee…)

    Anyway, somehow I find it more disconcerting, not less, to see

    that Lorem Ipsum demonstrates in those 50 prior comments an

    unremarkably normal and healthy anti-Islamic animus (though in

    contexts where the real test of whether there’s an asymptotic

    Softism in his veins seemed never applied) — for that means (if

    he was not being a stealth Islamopologist pretending to be “one

    of us”), that even seemingly normal and healthy anti-Islamic

    folks can suddenly regurgitate the viscous bird vomit of PC MC

    spasms which Lorem Ipsum does on this thread here.

    (In that same spirit, it’s disheartening to see PhilipJihadski

    agree with JayBoo (speaking of dubious “regulars”) about Abu

    Ghraib being “disgraceful”. The importantly disgraceful thing

    about Abu Ghraib, on the contrary, was our preposterously

    hyperbolic handwringing about it in our news media, government

    and academe and elsewhere. (Even that bastion of political

    incorrectness, theater critic John Simon, succumbed to the PC MC

    spasm about it in his 2008 review of the play about Abu Ghraib, Palace of the End, on the website bloomberg.com, when he described what Reservist Private Lynndie England of the 372nd Military Police Company did thusly: “Lynddie [sic], in her benightedness, mistaking brutality for patriotism…” It pained me that a penman as impeccable as Simon would describe as “brutality” such punishments of Iraqi Muslim prisoners as “forcing prisoners to exercise until the point of collapse”as well as making them walking around wearing women’s underwear on their heads” in addition to forcing them to assemble themselves into a human pyramid while naked”. This may be “abuse” at worst, but it was not “brutality”; nor was it “disgraceful” but rather, perhaps, “regrettable” — if one is absolutely forced by the tortured logic of PC MC to have to waste one’s time having to give even a second thought to it.)

  24. says

    Your indulgence in handwringing anxiety and ethical outrage may make sense when abstracted out of the context that Jihad Watch regulars should be deeply familiar with. When that context is restored (or when it is mindfully present in the mind of a reader who has over the years been paying attention to the growing volcano of data), your outburst is not only preposterous and eerily surreal, it would tend to promote a reckless posture on our part. It is reasonable to suppose that the good men and women — beyond the all too easily scapegoated Pvt. England — who were responsible for the methods of Abu Ghraib, including officers, were not all strangely malevolent people (or, if not strange, one would have to cynically say, like our august Secretary of State would, that all US military personnel are malevolent) and that the horrible and extraordinarily dangerous nature of the enemy (dangerously indistinguishable from the Iraqi “people”), where 1) interrogations were crucial for saving lives not only of our personnel, not only of allied personnel and non-military, but also of those Allahdamned Iraqi “people” we were wasting our money and lives trying to protect; and where 2) the prisoners needing to be interrogated were Islamically fanatical and deadly such that normal interrogation methods were useless. Here’s the moral of Abu Ghraib: If our PC MC government wants us to be involved in the tragicomic farce of a COIN strategy to help demonic and deadly fanatics like the Iraqi “people” by wasting our money and time and lives involving ourselves on the ground, then you better let us use methods like Abu Ghraib, or get the hell out of Iraq altogether. A third alternative that tries abstractly while stemming one’s nosebleed of self-righteous moral outrage an imaginary “moral high ground” is not only insanely asinine, it tends to reinforce a downright reckless posture in our disposition vis-a-vis this uniquely dangerous and fanatical enemy.

  25. says

    It appeared that some of what happened at Abu Ghraib was unprofessional, and I do believe that our troops be held to the highest standards.

    But it concerned me from the beginning that what were largely frat-boy pranks were made to sound like something that would have happened at Auschwitz”the hyperbole was, and continues to be, absurd and over the top.

    Then there was the fact that such scofflaws were soundly punished”but this made no difference.

    Muslim apologists still bring up Abu Ghraib, as though putting panties on inmates’ heads not only put America and the West on a moral par with homicidal Jihadists, but actually *made us worse*.

    And from the story above, it is clear that it not just the actions at Abu Ghraib that elicit such responses, but even receiving meals lacking condiments, which the Jihadist above”who was involved in the horror of 9/11″characterizes with a straight face as “psychological torture”.

  26. says

    Reference to:
    [The suspension of due process – for any reason – should concern every US citizen.]

    ——

    It could the assumption that they are all guilty is fed by a fear of what might happen if they were to be released though I am not saying that is justified.
    It would seem reasonable to suspect that many may be guilty of something, but just as in civilian life being arrested does not necessarily mean guilty especially if one is poor. It has been said “in war truth is the first casualty”

    SO HERE IS THE STICKY POINT
    Who are they really?
    In the nastiness of Iraq and Afghanistan there are horrendous things taking place even today.
    Are we to trust someone who turns in their neighbor as reliable because a sergeant says “yeah that Afghan can be trusted give him a job” Many of these same “friendlies” are turning on US troops every day.

    Can we ignore due process?
    It is very tempting to say yes.
    Donald Rumsfeld had me convinced at first with his “known unknowns” response to a question.

    I tend to be extremely suspicious of documentaries with an agenda.
    What follows is not one so easily dismissed.

    NOTE SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED WITH CHILDREN IN ROOM.

    Taxi to the Dark Side on DVD

    An in-depth look at the torture practices of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, focusing on an innocent taxi driver in Afghanistan who was tortured and killed in 2002.

    MOVIE SAMPLER TRAILER at:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0854678/

  27. says

    “The suspension of due process – for any reason – should concern every US citizen.

    It seems like if the evidence against this individual had the slightest bit of credibility, we might just be able to zap him and be done with it. I wonder why that doesn’t happen?”
    ____________________________________

    It’s ignorant comments such as yours that really get me riled.

    1.) Why do you assume that due process has been “suspended”? It has NOT been. In fact, this man, along with KLM is scheduled (finally) to go before the tribunal, I think, next month. The only reason it’s been “delayed” is because Obama and his minions have slowed the whole process by seeking to have the Guantanamo prisoners tried in a Federal Court, and not a tribunal setting.

    2.) I assume you believe that the evidence hasn’t “the slightest bit of credibility”. That’s just plain nonsense. Along with KLM, he has admitted his guilt already. Yet, contrary to your uninformed view, we will give him his day in court, complete with the opportunity to recant prior statements.

    “Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the terrorist attacks, casually admitted guilt during a series of outbursts as the translators struggled to keep up and the judge repeatedly sought to regain control.”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28735610/ns/world_news-terrorism/t/co-defendant-we-did-what-we-did/#.UhVaC9K1G8A

    finally, you said:

    “…we might just be able to zap him and be done with it. I wonder why that doesn’t happen?”

    It is YOU who is being entirely irresponsible, here. We need to give the man his chance to be heard – just “zapping” him runs completely contrary to what I infer to be your stance on the issue – that the man has no, credible evidence against him and he is being held without access to a speedy trial. Aside from the incorrectness of that position, the man has no rights under our constitution. As an enemy combatant, he can be held without bail, though he does have to be provided lawyers, which he has been…he’s treated them with contempt.

  28. says

    It appears that some here seem to believe that the Jihadists in Guantanamo Bay”who were all picked up waging Jihad”may well all be innocent schlubs unjustly targeted by the mean ol’ ‘Mericans.

    It is dispiriting to hear this from long-time Jihad Watch readers.

    And this hardly explains the number of Jihadists released from Gitmo who who have gone right back to waging violent Jihad, often murdering Americans and other innocent Infidels in the process.

    I agree that there should have been legal proceedings against these Jihadists long since, but the fact that the justice system has been grinding with absurd slowness is *hardly* proof of their innocence.

  29. says

    Hi!

    If you’re the same Alaskaninfidel who had a lot of big dogs, and ran a pest control business, I’m glad to see you again: I was worrying a bit, when you weren’t posting for so long.

    So you were just taking a bit of a break, dropping in to read rather than post, every now and again?

    There’s a few like you that have jumped back into the fray, lately.

    Ice Star, for example. I’d not seen her around for ages.

  30. says

    Alaskan Infidel wrote:

    Wow…lots of folks I recognize.
    I hope all is well with you and yours.
    ……………………………..

    Great to see you posting again, Alaskan Infidel. How are your dogs?

  31. says

    “Enemy combatant is by definition a bit vague and in hindsight it has become a much too convenient label to be trusted.”
    ____________________________________________

    No it isn’t, except that it should be clarified that all combatants are “enemy combatants”. We’re concerned with UNLAWFUL enemy combatants.

    The Geneva Convention defined it very well a long time ago, and it was clarified in Hamzi vs. Rumsfeld and other Federal cases.
    ___________________

    “According to the articles of the convention, a lawful combatant must be part of an organized command structure; wear openly visible emblems to identify themselves as non-civilians; carry arms out in the open; and respect the Rules of War, which would include not taking hostages. President george w. bush and his administration maintained that the five hundred detainees did not meet these criteria. Therefore, they could be tried for crimes by military tribunals; moreover, the individuals could be held incommunicado for as long as the war lasted, with no access to the U.S. legal system.”

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enemy+combatant
    _____________________________________________

    Articles 4 and 5 of the relevant Geneva Convention define “unlawful enemy combatant” pretty well, I would say:

    Article 4[edit]
    “Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
    Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
    Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
    that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    that of carrying arms openly;
    that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
    Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
    Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
    Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
    Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
    The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
    Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
    The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
    This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
    Article 5[edit]
    The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
    Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”

  32. says

    Let me begin with saying that I can certainly understand why Guantanamo can be a sensitive subject.
    I remember after 911 how every unpatriotic liberal was only too happy to blame the 911 attack on US foreign policy and in the process
    show their disdain for President Bush at a time they should have reserved for respecting their fellow Americans who had lost their lives.
    They immediately criticized Guantanamo with wild unfounded accusations as soon as they heard about it. They had their own agenda and their alleged motives about justice were not what they claimed.
    I would be all too happy to send Rosie O’Donnell there and throw away the key.

    The reference you give would take a lawyer to sort out. It appears on first reading to leave open options to extrapolate from opinion.
    As I mentioned earlier neighbors turn on each other and the truth gets lost in the process.
    I used to be a 100% fan of Donald Rumsfeld a long time ago.
    Who else could say the following with a straight face?
    There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
    There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know.
    But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know. ”

    But as the details leaked out about Abu Grahib, I decided I needed to reevaluate.
    That was a disgraceful mess, let’s be honest about it.
    Our US service men and women are better than that and must be held to a higher standard.

    I don’t know all the details of every detainee at Guantanamo and I would guess that many are guilty rather than otherwise.
    Yet, I suspect that the process for taking some of the detainees into custody may have been based on questionable evidence. Some have been released and some not.

    Unlike the liberal fanatics I do not enjoy questioning our process but if the US is to maintain the high ground in the battle against the enemy, we will from time to time need to clean our own house as unpleasant as that may need to be.

    The following link sheds some light on this.

    Taxi to the Dark Side on DVD
    MOVIE SAMPLER TRAILER at:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0854678/

  33. says

    Forgot to hit reply

    I somehow got logged out by a pop up half way through and I forgot to hit reply after retyping my post.

  34. says

    Excellent analysis! War is not under the jurisdiction of a civil code, anyway.

    It is terrible that some innocent people are also killed – look at Syria! But we didn’t ask for 9/11.

    What is amazing is the tolerance of the American public. There have been very few reprisals against Muslims living here and it is not our fault that some of their own are such barbaric cretins.

    But they are constantly crowing about being discriminated against. It’s laughable! Especially as they are undertaking a very successful campaign of infiltrating the White House, the government, the education system, the media and suburbia with their mosques, their pernicious, anti-democratic ideology, disguised as a Religion of Peace. BS it is!

    They would do well to remember the Crusades because citizens are becoming fed up to the back teeth with the worthless values of PC which is enabling this Muslim invasion to roll out!

  35. says

    You’re right Phil. On paper the Guantanamo detainees have all the rights in the world.

    It may surprise you to know that people have admitted to things they didn’t do simply to stop intense interrogation. This has happened domestically (read: sans-waterboarding) in the US on several occasions.

    The war on terror is an utter failure. Our constant disregard for international law, the use of drones to attack civilians in sovereign nations, as well as the indefinite detention of -suspected- terrorists creates a feedback loop that stokes the fires of extremism.

    Is it right to bomb women and children indiscriminately? Absolutely not – that is pure evil, and I don’t endorse that behavior by EITHER side whether by radio controlled planes or by suicide bombs. For the sake of humanity, please take a step back for a second and forget all of this hawkish propaganda.

  36. says

    “Our constant disregard for international law, the use of drones to attack civilians in sovereign nations, as well as the indefinite detention of -suspected- terrorists creates a feedback loop that stokes the fires of extremism.”

    Proof please. Citations needed.

    “This has happened domestically (read: sans-waterboarding) in the US on several occasions.”

    Proof please. Citations needed.

    “Is it right to bomb women and children indiscriminately? Absolutely not – that is pure evil, and I don’t endorse that behavior by EITHER side whether by radio controlled planes or by suicide bombs. For the sake of humanity, please take a step back for a second and forget all of this hawkish propaganda.”

    What?! Give me one example, where the USA has bombed women and children “indiscriminately”.

    And propaganda. I think that’s what you’re spewing. The facts show that Muslims don’t need the excuse of Guantanamo to commit their horrendous acts – if you like, I’ll give you multiple examples that prove our involvement militarily in Muslim countries was non-existent, yet still the attacks on the USA unfolded. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing is a prime example.

    Your post is classic useful idiot pablum…and your screen moniker is oh so appropriate – “filler text”, or to translate the Latin – “without meaning”.

    Pfft!

  37. says

    “There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
    There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know.
    But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.”

    That makes complete sense to me, and it always has. It’s an extraordinarily insightful bit of words.

    “But as the details leaked out about Abu Grahib, I decided I needed to reevaluate.
    That was a disgraceful mess, let’s be honest about it.
    Our US service men and women are better than that and must be held to a higher standard.”

    Oh, the perps in that disgraceful episode WERE held to a higher standard. The principals are at Leavenworth, as we speak, doing hard labor.

    “Yet, I suspect that the process for taking some of the detainees into custody may have been based on questionable evidence. Some have been released and some not.”

    You don’t need to “suspect” anything, Jay Boo – HUNDREDS have been released, many under Bush! What was the upshot of that? An astounding rate of recidivism – if I remember correctly, it’s 45%.

  38. says

    “But I’ve got to point one thing out: America’s reputation in the UK is being CRUCIFIED by the existence of Guantanamo Bay, and the practice of “extraordinary rendition”.

    Firstly, I would have to be blunt and say, “Why the hell should we care what the UK thinks of us? You people have given up your guns and your homeland to Islam. You ban Robert and Pam, yet you allow in Terrorists!
    ________________________

    “Lets take this character Ramzi Binalshibh as a case in point. Firstly, he is NOT an ‘unlawful combatant’. He did not take up arms against US soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq; he was arrested by the CIA in Pakistan, In Karachi, of all places… about as far away from the Afghan border as you can GET without entering India.”

    Did you read the Geneva Convention articles I posted? I think not. To be an unlawful enemy combatant does not mean that you have to be on the battlefield, just as a person does not have to be directly involved in the commission of murder to be held to the same standard as the triggerman. I think if you had suffered the loss of a friend or family during 9-11, you would be more appreciative of the fact that our CIA was so good at tracking this scumbag down and bringing him to justice. And he was not “arrested by the CIA” without the consent of the Pakistanis – they cooperated because he needed to be nabbed along with KLM.
    __________________________________

    “The upshot is that Ramzi Binalshibh has been held illegaly (sic) for TEN YEARS without trial.”

    No he hasn’t – read the Convention before spouting inacurracies, and please do some research on your own – he had a hearing in Guantanamo. It’s only Obabma’s fault that he hasn’t gotten to trial yet.

    finally…

    “If YOU had been held illegally for 10 years, beaten and humiliated by guards etc, how would YOU feel ?”

    Oh, for God’s sake! Provide some proof that he was “beaten and humiliated by guards” before posting such blatant crap.

    Don’t try to confuse the issues here on our beloved JWatch. You say you “love this site”.

    Show your love by doing research, citing your research, and coming up with words that aren’t so far off in right-field…or should I say left-field? You guys in the UK need to clean your own house, before you go spouting off about the “dust on our furniture” here in the USA.

  39. says

    One more thing: you say he’s been held illegally for 10 years without trial? Did you bother to read the article?

    “After his rant, Binalshibh waived his right to be in court and left to join self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three other co-defendants in their prison cells.”

    PFFFFFT!

  40. says

    Roof Gardener wrote:

    Don’t get me wrong – I love this website, and I am grateful to Robert for helping (along with you lot) for opening my eyes to what is going on with Islam and Jihad.

    But I’ve got to point one thing out: America’s reputation in the UK is being CRUCIFIED by the existence of Guantanamo Bay…
    ………………………………….

    Oh, good grief. The idea that Guantanamo Bay is some sort of medieval torture chamber is ridiculous. The fact that the Jihadist in the story above is reduced to whining about the “psychological torture” of having a Halal meal without condiments should be indicative of that.

    Those up in arms over Gitmo”in Britain or the US or anywhere else”are largely dhimmi tools who don’t want to see *any* resistance against Jihad.

    More:

    Lets take this character Ramzi Binalshibh as a case in point. Firstly, he is NOT an ‘unlawful combatant’. He did not take up arms against US soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq; he was arrested by the CIA in Pakistan, In Karachi, of all places… about as far away from the Afghan border as you can GET without entering India.

    He was kidnapped by the CIA on suspicioun of terrorism. (involvement in 9/11). But WHY ? Acts of terrorism are already covered in various US laws, and backed by international treaties.. INCLUDING WITH PAKISTAN.

    The USA even has an extradition treaty with Pakistan ! But rather than take the legal path, they sent in the CIA special operations teams.
    ………………………………….

    Say”we have an extradition treaty with Pakistan! That means that that whole “cloak and dagger” thing with Seal Team 6 going after Osama bin Laden was completely unnecessary. After all, we could have just politely requested that the Pakistani authorities hand him over. They knew where he was, after all…

    Does anyone else here really believe that Pakistan is allying with us against Jihad?

    More:

    The upshot is that Ramzi Binalshibh has been held illegaly for TEN YEARS without trial.

    Ten years WITHOUT TRIAL…. in conditions that – by many accounts – would not even be legal in a US prison. And THIS by America, the erstwhile beacon of Justice and Democracy ?
    ………………………………….

    Certainly, these Jihadists should have been tried long since. But the idea that America has jettisoned justice and democracy because she has dared to imprison violent Jihadists is questionable at best.

    More:

    I’m not SUPRISED that some of the inmates are refusing to co-operate with the current quasi-judicial processes going on in Guantanamo. Or grumbling about honey and olives. Or – for that matter – turning to anti-american Jihadists when they are released. If YOU had been held illegally for 10 years, beaten and humiliated by guards etc, how would YOU feel ? Full of love for America ? Impressed by Western Democracy and the Judicial System ?
    ………………………………….

    *Good God*”this is the typical Muslim apologist argument”that Jihadists don’t really believe in Jihad, it’s just that Westerners (Americans in particular) have been so unjust that the poor dears had no choice but to turn to violent Jihad against the filthy Kuffar.

    I wonder why the 9/11 Jihadists waged violent holy war against us, since this predated Guantanamo’s being used to detain Jihadists? Coul it be that this might actually have something to do with Islam instead? Nah, couldn’t be…sarc/off

    More:

    Stories like this may play well in the USA… I don’t know one way or the other. But please DO understand that in Europe, the general feeling is of abhorance with the Internment Prison, and possibly even sympathy with those interned.
    ………………………………….

    Roof Gardeneer, has it escaped you how much sympathy there is for Jihadists in general in much of Europe? This goes *way* beyond Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

    Lorem Ipsum wrote, replying to Philip Jihadski:

    You’re right Phil. On paper the Guantanamo detainees have all the rights in the world.

    It may surprise you to know that people have admitted to things they didn’t do simply to stop intense interrogation. This has happened domestically (read: sans-waterboarding) in the US on several occasions.
    ………………………………….

    Someone else who seems to believe that these Jihadists are innocent little lambs, and just admit to waging violent Jihad due to the brutality of mean old Americans.

    More:

    The war on terror is an utter failure. Our constant disregard for international law, the use of drones to attack civilians in sovereign nations, as well as the indefinite detention of -suspected- terrorists creates a feedback loop that stokes the fires of extremism.
    ………………………………….

    Drone strikes *target* Jihadists, with probably less chance of civilian casualties that with troops on the ground.

    The idea that Jihadists are only waging violent Jihad in reaction to accidental civilian casualties is absurd.

    More:

    Is it right to bomb women and children indiscriminately? Absolutely not – that is pure evil, and I don’t endorse that behavior by EITHER side whether by radio controlled planes or by suicide bombs. For the sake of humanity, please take a step back for a second and forget all of this hawkish propaganda.
    ………………………………….

    I’m sorry”this is *grotesque*. We have *never* “bomb[ed] women and children indiscriminately”. In fact, we do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties.

    Drawing a moral equivalence between *deliberately targeting* innocent people with the possibility of ‘collateral damage’ is sickening.

    You apparently believe that it is better for the sake of humanity to let Jihadists have free reign.

    I have to admit I am dismayed to find that regular Jihad Watch readers are espousing such false moral equivalence, as well as abject surrender in the face of violent Jihad lest we forfeit the moral high ground.

    Standing against evil *is not* in itself evil.

  41. says

    Jay Boo wrote:

    Obama walks into Walmart and an ambitious cashier claims he is a shoplifter and he is immediately sent to prison to be interrogated. It turns out that an angry neighbor of Obama named Rush turned him in to the cashier and once the process is set in motion it takes on a life of its own.
    …………………………..

    Named “Rush”, huh?

    So, there really is no Jihad threat”just lyin’ informants and Americans randomly “torturing” innocent Muslims…sarc/off

    Don’t forget, those concerned about the threat of Jihad are “Islamophobes” and “racists”, as well…

  42. says

    And I see you didn’t respond to any other points that you brought up and that I was kind enough to parry.

    Is that all you got?

    Don’t waste my time anymore, lefty.

  43. says

    Lorem Ipsum wrote:

    I’m sure my fellow readers will appreciate this:
    http://www.livingunderdrones.org/

    Living under the constant fear of drone strikes sounds like an effective terrorism campaign to me. What’s the end game?
    ………………………

    Yes, and allied bombing of the Nazis was just a malicious “terrorism campaign”, as well, I suppose? sarc/off

    Why would we “appreciate” seeing this? And why wouldn’t you assume that any reasonably well-informed reader here had already seen this? I certainly have.

    For one thing, I believe the Jihadists’ claims that every other drone strike kills women and children”while landing on a school, hospital, or mosque, dontcha know”is suspect at best.

    Furthermore, if the average Pakistani were *really* opposed to Jihad terror, they would have at least a somewhat more nuanced view of drone strikes.

    That is, they would consider living among Jihad terrorists at least as disruptive as dealing with drone strikes”moreover, they would hold the Jihadists responsible. After all, it’s places like North Waziristan that are targeted, because that’s where the Jihad terrorists are.

    So far, all you’ve done is blast Guantanimo, any interrogation of Jihadists, drone strikes, and the very concept of the “war on terror”. (Yes, it’s a flawed term, but I don’t see you advocating for different phrasing).

    You appear to believe that Jihad is *caused* by heedless Americans.

    So”what do you propose, for the “sake of humanity”? So far, it sounds very much like giving Jihadists free reign, while condemning any attempt to stand against violent Jihad as “pure evil” morally equivalent to the savagery of Jihadists themselves.

  44. says

    [Lorem Ipsum] War is hell, gents. Use your imagination. It needs to stop on both sides.
    ——-

    To paraphrase a famous dictum applied to Israel vs. it’s hostile Arab neighbors:

    If the Jihadis put down their arms (e.g., suicide belts, IEDs), there would be peace.

    If the West put down its arms, Western Civilization would be at the mercy of Islamic hordes and every non-Muslim would be given the choice of conversion, death, or dhimmitude.

    ——-

    BTW, what is it today with supposed regular JW’ers becoming not just soft on Jihad in the LemonLime sense but actual apologists for the worst of the worst Jihadi Islamists, including the most blatant usages of moral equivalence and propaganda?

  45. says

    Lorem Ipsum wrote:

    American Exceptionalism at its finest.

    War is hell, gents. Use your imagination. It needs to stop on both sides.
    ………………………….

    Are you arguing that Jihadists need to stop waging violent Jihad, and we need to stop defending against it?

    See whatmecare’s apt paraphrase of the famous Benjamin Netanyahu quote, “The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs [Muslims] were to put down their arms there would be no more war”.

  46. says

    [Lorem] The flying of remote controlled aircraft over foreign lands hardly constitutes defense, except in the imaginary sense.

    ——
    You are right… it is only defense when we wait for them to take control of our planes over our airspace and use them to intentionally kill thousands of innocent civilians…

    Those terrible Brits during WWII who dared take the “offensive” action of bombing Hitler’s Germany rather than just snuggling up in their bomb shelters waiting for the wave to pass so that they could come out and sweep up the refuse and bury the dead.

    Why not just tell the terrorists that they can safely hide out in , spew their hatred, plot terrorist attacks, recruit and train homicide bombers, massacre local Christians, kidnap tourists or journalists etc. But don’t worry after they come over here and blow themselves up then we will be sure to wag our fingers really strongly while acting morally superior for not fighting back.

  47. says

    BTW
    I have a website (infidelphobia.org) that one of my former supervisors was baited into calling racist in order to appease PC fellow employees even though I make every effort to distinguish between Muslim “persons” and jihadists. He should have said Islamophobic but racist was more opportunistic.
    I know the difference.

  48. says

    whatmecare wrote:

    BTW, what is it today with supposed regular JW’ers becoming not just soft on Jihad in the LemonLime sense but actual apologists for the worst of the worst Jihadi Islamists, including the most blatant usages of moral equivalence and propaganda?
    …………………………………

    I was wondering just the same thing, whatmecare.

  49. says

    Oh for God’s sake, Mr.!

    “This may be “abuse” at worst, but it was not “brutality”; nor was it “disgraceful” but rather, perhaps, “regrettable”.”

    The nonsense that went on at Abu Ghraib WAS abusive. It was WAY out of line; it was unnecessary and sick and the principals who engaged in that stupidity were rightly and roundly punished for what they did.

    There’s no place in our military for such stupidity and sado-masochistic exercises.

    Sleep-deprivation, women’s underwear, dog collars…you seem to approve of all of that.

    I’m disappointed in you, LL. This shows a very dark side of your character that I hadn’t seen before ….and it’s very ugly.

  50. says

    You know what? I didn’t even bother to read past your first sentence. There’s no need, and no defense to your outrageous accusations, over the top hyperbole and plain, long-winded bullshit.

    Those men and women who abused those prisoners have no excuse for their actions, and neither do you!

    Oh, and by the way, I see you suggested that Salah has “psychological deficiencies”. What’s good for the goose is poison for the gander, huh?

    Done with you, Mr. You’re a divisive element here, and I won’t stoop to commenting on, or responding to any more of your garbage!

  51. says

    Well said Gravenimage! What happened at Aby Ghraib certainly violated military standards and tarnished the image of both the US armed forces and America itself. However, the violations were investigated, the perpetrators punished, and policies put in place to prevent recurrences.

    As Gravenimage notes there is no comparison between acts that are demeaning to the “human spirit” with the sadistic torture, maiming, raping, and dismembering of bodies that are carried out by Jihadis. Moreover, what happened at Abu Ghraib though obviously wrong and regrettable is no worse than the unfortunate types of abuse that occurs all too often at American prison. Just a few weeks ago, I read about prison wardens under investigation for promoting and betting on bloody fights between inmates. Wrong? Absolutely! An indictment of America and Western values? No, rather the rare exception that proves the rule.