US releases pre-pubescent gitmo detainee

2minkey said:
yeah you know it's really not all that compelling whatever you come up with now since y'all were all ready to say he was bad bad bad WITHOUT HAVING ANY IDEA AS TO FACTS other than he was afghani and he mighta done something.

facts - whatever they are - cannot save you now.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

The only people who will ever know for sure are the kid who got jailed and the ones who put him there. Even you're speculation is up for scrutiny. Tell you this much, though. The right to self-defense is always present in a war zone. Those soldiers who 'arrested' that kid had every right to shoot him as soon as the grenade left his hand...if he actually threw it. Even if he didn't, we can assume that the grenade came from the area where he was at, so there was still a reason to let a few rounds go into that area. Yes, some folks would've been hurt who may have had nothing to do with the grenade, which is why there was a pause and nobody fired their rifle, but the ROE, LOAC, and the GC all give soldiers permission to fire when these incidents occur. Of course...if they did open up on the crowd, you'd be singing a different tune about massacres and summat, which is typical of people who have 20/20 hindsight.
 
you're speculation?

i didn't realize that's what i was.

and i'd be singing what?

neil diamonds greatest hits?

you're rush to judgment.

don't fergit to click yer heels.
 
2minkey said:
you're speculation?

i didn't realize that's what i was.

and i'd be singing what?

neil diamonds greatest hits?

you're rush to judgment.

don't fergit to click yer heels.
Click to expand...


I can only guess, but I'm thinking that you'd be on that "US troops massacred some Afghani" bandwagon. As for my implied rush to judgement, you're the one who jumped first. ;)
 
spike, ever watch a football game? if the coach challenges, the ruling on the field stands unless there is concrete evidence that it was wrong. If there is reasonable doubt, but no incontrovertible proof, they will go by the ruling determined by the person who actually was there.

I think Gato has a similar stance on this. Obviously, there's no slow-motion replay of the event, so who you gonna believe, the kid or the soldiers who picked him up in the first place? I'd go with the soldiers.
 
Gato_Solo said:
I can only guess, but I'm thinking that you'd be on that "US troops massacred some Afghani" bandwagon.
Click to expand...

however you want to rationalize not thinking for yourself is fine with me. if you wanna use some bullshit about someone else being an anti-american pinko commie fag that wants to serve tea and crumpets to the enemy, so be it. you have a lot of company these days.

Gato_Solo said:
As for my implied rush to judgement, you're the one who jumped first. ;)
Click to expand...

you're right. i don't think pre-pubescent kids should undergo interrogation at gitmo, and that is what i reacted to. though, strangely enough, that part doesn't seem to be under contention, just the grenade thing, and you knew what happened there without even needing to investigate, right?
 
well situations change

I've been on board with gen. Petraeus, and his philosophical approach
from the beginning in Iraq, and I think it can work everywhere.

Was this instance wrong at the time? I don't think so.
An act of murder had been comminted.

Was the boy treated right? That's debatable.

Is it worth outing the cia? NO!
 
So, say your 17 year old is rebellious and gets involved with something stupid....You gonna be OK with the kid doing time in an adult prison?

Oh well of course, you have good brainwashed Christian brood that would never rebel?
 
jawad was much closer to 12 when they took him to gitmo. did you even look at the picture? obviously prepubescent. anyone saying he was 17 based on bones is utterly full of shit. i could tell the difference readily and that's not anywhere near my specialty.
 
2minkey said:
jawad was much closer to 12 when they took him to gitmo. did you even look at the picture? obviously prepubescent. anyone saying he was 17 based on bones is utterly full of shit. i could tell the difference readily and that's not anywhere near my specialty.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder if they're using numbers of bone density based on the diet and climate of first-world countries to compare Jawad's readings against.

Pubescence starts at different ages for different people. A friend of mine didn't hit puberty until she was 18.... gymnastics and dance slowed down that process, but malnutrition could easily have done the same for Jawad. He could very well have been 16 and pre-pubescent.
 
Afghan's hearing gets off on wrong foot
OMAR EL AKKAD Globe and Mail (Canada) March 13, 2008
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

The public got its first glimpse of Mohammed Jawad yesterday as he was led in shackles into a Guantanamo Bay courtroom. Mr. Jawad was 16 or 17 when he was captured in Afghanistan in late 2002. He is charged with attempted murder in connection with a grenade attack in Afghanistan and faces a possible life sentence if convicted.


Instead, Mr. Jawad went on a tirade against the court process.

"When I was arrested I was only 16," he said. "Is this in the U.S. Constitution, to treat a 16-year-old unfairly?"
Click to expand...
 
I'm sure his lawyers thought it would play better to contradict himself and say he was 12 when he was captured, bone scan aside.

In this recent picture is he 19 or 23?

capt.15a15e47f38a4e968a34df1f2a5db8da.afghanistan_guantanamo_prisoner_kab103.jpg
 
afghan-girl.jpg


Iconic image... in the first picture, she's 13, in the second, she's 30.

Does she look like any 30 year old that you know?
 
catocom said:
not right off hand
you got somebody in mind?
Click to expand...

She looks 50+ to me in the latter picture and at least 17 in the former. Speaks of a hard life. I'm using it in an example to show Cerise that what a person 'looks' like is often deceiving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top