Political Crossfire Forums

[David]

[David]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050828/D8C8J9UG0.html

Nearly 1,000 Released From Abu Ghraib


Aug 27, 11:52 PM (ET)

(AP) In this photo taken by the U.S. Navy and released by the U.S. Army, former detainees wait for their...
Full Image

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The U.S. military announced Saturday that it released nearly 1,000 prisoners from Abu Ghraib prison over the past few days in response to a request by Iraqi authorities.

The move, the largest prisoner release to date, followed appeals by Sunni representatives to start releasing thousands of prisoners who have been languishing in the jail for months without being charged.

After a meeting with President Jalal Talabani on Thursday, Sunni negotiator Saleh al-Mutlaq said the president agreed to release many detainees before the Oct. 15 referendum on the constitution. Al-Mutlaq said hundreds of detainees, most of them Sunni Arabs, were to be set free.

The U.S. command said the prisoner release "marks a significant event in Iraq's progress toward democratic governance and the rule of law."

"Those chosen for release are not guilty of serious, violent crimes - such as bombing, torture, kidnapping, or murder - and all have admitted their crimes, renounced violence, and pledged to be good citizens of a democratic Iraq," the U.S. statement said.

Abu Ghraib prison, built by Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1970s on the outskirts of Baghdad, was retained as a major detention center by U.S. occupation authorities after the dictator was toppled in 2003. It gained international notoriety after some U.S. military personnel were charged with humiliating and assaulting detainees.

Later Saturday, Iraqi police said they released an unspecified number of people arrested this week in the region of Madain, 12 miles, southeast of the capital.

Sunni politicians had complained to Talabani that the Shiite-controlled police picked up 132 Sunnis in the region to prevent them from registering for the constitutional referendum. The deadline for voter registration is Sept. 1.

[Demonic Spoon]

Good.


Although next time maybe we can give them, say, a FASTER trial?

[sLiPpY]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Good.


Although next time maybe we can give them, say, a FASTER trial?

I concur, and further: Why in the hell were they held in the first place? :?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

sLiPpY wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Good.


Although next time maybe we can give them, say, a FASTER trial?

I concur, and further: Why in the hell were they held in the first place? :?

Because they looked suspicious [which in some people's minds is anyone who looks like an Arab]!

[gprime]

Very bad decision. They can pledge what they want, but since they've all admitted to crimes, they ought to be jailed.

[Snow Patrol]

gprime wrote: Very bad decision. They can pledge what they want, but since they've all admitted to crimes, they ought to be jailed.
Quote: "Those chosen for release are not guilty of serious, violent crimes - such as bombing, torture, kidnapping, or murder - and all have admitted their crimes, renounced violence, and pledged to be good citizens of a democratic Iraq," the U.S. statement said.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050828/D8C8J9UG0.html

So you propose tying up resources that could be better used to combat and hold violent criminals and terrorists which pose the the real danger to the country, merely to keep a bunch of petty criminals in jail?

[morph]

Quote: The U.S. command said the prisoner release "marks a significant event in Iraq's progress toward democratic governance and the rule of law."

Doesn't it mark a "significant event" in the US' progress towards democracy and rule of law? I mean, a lot of those people were being held without charges, which goes against our judicial system. Just a thought.

I am glad they are being released, however.

[TwinkieDP]

Snow Patrol wrote: gprime wrote: Very bad decision. They can pledge what they want, but since they've all admitted to crimes, they ought to be jailed.
Quote: "Those chosen for release are not guilty of serious, violent crimes - such as bombing, torture, kidnapping, or murder - and all have admitted their crimes, renounced violence, and pledged to be good citizens of a democratic Iraq," the U.S. statement said.

So you propose tying up resources that could be better used to combat and hold violent criminals and terrorists which pose the the real danger to the country, merely to keep a bunch of petty criminals in jail?
Yes and moreover, many of them haven't even been charged with anything. Quote: The move, the largest prisoner release to date, followed appeals by Sunni representatives to start releasing thousands of prisoners who have been languishing in the jail for months without being charged.

[Gaea]

Quote: Sunni politicians had complained to Talabani that the Shiite-controlled police picked up 132 Sunnis in the region to prevent them from registering for the constitutional referendum. The deadline for voter registration is Sept. 1.

I wonder when these 1000 or so Sunni Arabs now being released from Abu Ghraib were "picked up" and if it happened to coincide with the vote they had in Iraq last January?

The article goes on to say that the Sunni politicians are complaining that another 132 were recently picked up to prevent them registering to vote. If these Sunnis were "picked up" and held without charge to prevent them from registering to vote, then what kind of democracy are they talking about?

[morph]

That's an interesting thought. The manufacture of consent it may be?

[Reverend_HellH0und]

Wrong move.....