NationStates Jolt Archive

Read this in today's paper....

Torture Chicks Gone Wild
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: January 30, 2005


ASHINGTON

By the time House Republicans were finished with him, Bill Clinton must have thought of a thong as a torture device.

For the Bush administration, it actually is.

A former American Army sergeant who worked as an Arabic interpreter at Gitmo has written a book pulling back the veil on the astounding ways female interrogators used a toxic combination of sex and religion to try to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba. It's not merely disgusting. It's beyond belief.

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Torture Chicks Gone Wild
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: January 30, 2005


ASHINGTON

By the time House Republicans were finished with him, Bill Clinton must have thought of a thong as a torture device.

For the Bush administration, it actually is.

A former American Army sergeant who worked as an Arabic interpreter at Gitmo has written a book pulling back the veil on the astounding ways female interrogators used a toxic combination of sex and religion to try to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba. It's not merely disgusting. It's beyond belief.

The Bush administration never worries about anything. But these missionaries and zealous protectors of values should be worried about the American soul. The president never mentions Osama, but he continues to use 9/11 as an excuse for American policies that bend the rules and play to our worst instincts.

"I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case," the former sergeant, Erik R. Saar, 29, told The Associated Press. The A.P. got a manuscript of his book, deemed classified pending a Pentagon review.

What good is it for President Bush to speak respectfully of Islam and claim Iraq is not a religious war if the Pentagon denigrates Islamic law - allowing its female interrogators to try to make Muslim men talk in late-night sessions featuring sexual touching, displays of fake menstrual blood, and parading in miniskirt, tight T-shirt, bra and thong underwear?

It's like a bad porn movie, "The Geneva Monologues." All S and no M.

The A.P. noted that "some Guantánamo prisoners who have been released say they were tormented by 'prostitutes.' "

Mr. Saar writes about what he calls "disturbing" practices during his time in Gitmo from December 2002 to June 2003, including this anecdote related by Paisley Dodds, an A.P. reporter:

A female military interrogator who wanted to turn up the heat on a 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly had taken flying lessons in Arizona before 9/11 removed her uniform top to expose a snug T-shirt. She began belittling the prisoner - who was praying with his eyes closed - as she touched her breasts, rubbed them against the Saudi's back and commented on his apparent erection.

After the prisoner spat in her face, she left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist suggested she tell the prisoner that she was menstruating, touch him, and then shut off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.

"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," Mr. Saar recounted, adding: "She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee. As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred. She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward," breaking out of an ankle shackle.

"He began to cry like a baby," the author wrote, adding that the interrogator's parting shot was: "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself."

A female civilian contractor kept her "uniform" - a thong and miniskirt - on the back of the door of an interrogation room, the author says.

Who are these women? Who allows this to happen? Why don't the officers who allow it get into trouble? Why do Rummy and Paul Wolfowitz still have their jobs?

The military did not deny the specifics, but said the prisoners were treated "humanely" and in a way consistent "with legal obligations prohibiting torture." However the Bush White House is redefining torture these days, the point is this: Such behavior degrades the women who are doing it, the men they are doing it to, and the country they are doing it for.

There's nothing wrong with trying to squeeze information out of detainees. But isn't it simply more effective to throw them in isolation and try to build some sort of relationship?

I doubt that the thong tease works as well on inmates at Gitmo as it did on Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.



That just sickens me. I feel terrible to be American.

Personally, I don't think it is torture, or even abuse, even if it is religiously offensive.

Deception and things of an offensive, yet physically harmless nature, are not torture.

If we convinced a prisoner that people in the other room were being flayed alive (through interesting special effects), and he talked, none of that would be considered torture. Deception, yes, but not torture.

We don't pull people's fingernails out these days. We send those boys to Hooters.

i feel worse that you beleive all of that. i feel EVEN worse that you think bush has control over that. apparently, never heard of red tape and secrets have you? the pres is an easy scapegoat. i suggest you find a better one.

that is incredibely sickening

It is shitty to fuck with a person's head and beliefs that bad, but it is ignorant to equate that with American behavior.

Its attacking their politics, not their physical being.

Even if it was, I say let 'em yank their fingernails out if it keeps our boys alive.

It is shitty to fuck with a person's head and beliefs that bad, but it is ignorant to equate that with American behavior.

Well, it's traditionally considered OK to deceive someone and fuck with their heads.

I'm not so sure how effective the thong would be. I would be pretty recalcitrant, as it would probably be the only woman I'd see for the rest of my life in Guantanamo. She would have to work me over every day.

Sexual temptation isn't torture. That kind of interrogation is a great, humane alternative to actual torture in my opinion. It doesn't cause physical pain or damage, and it's probably effective at extracting information. As long as the people undergoing it are genuinely suspected of some kind of terrorism or crime, it seems a nicer alternative to actual flaying or torture.

Well, when I was in a POW camp inVietnam, I would have welcomed this kind of "torture". It is awfully nice to have hookers with g strings rubbing menstrual blood all over you, instead of having your limbs dislocated on purpose!

Well, when I was in a POW camp inVietnam, I would have welcomed this kind of "torture". It is awfully nice to have hookers with g strings rubbing menstrual blood all over you, instead of having your limbs dislocated on purpose!


Amen!

Read this in today's paper....



That just sickens me. I feel terrible to be American.

Oh guys like you that feel sorry for the crimes of their regime are OK, it are the badass neocons that belong at The Hague and should excuse and pay for it.

Sexual temptation isn't torture. That kind of interrogation is a great, humane alternative to actual torture in my opinion. It doesn't cause physical pain or damage, and it's probably effective at extracting information. As long as the people undergoing it are genuinely suspected of some kind of terrorism or crime, it seems a nicer alternative to actual flaying or torture.

Alright, now imagine the sexes were reversed: imagine it was a female detainee and a male guard were rubbing his penis and sperm on her. I think most Americans would agree that qualifies as a turtuous practice.

And this kind of sexual torture is particularly terrible for Muslims because of what their culture dictates.

It would be pretty funny if it wasn't such an insult to the prisoners religion. Interesting that a good Christian boy like Bush would allow the use of these women with the prisoners.

Well, it's traditionally considered OK to deceive someone and fuck with their heads.

I'm not so sure how effective the thong would be. I would be pretty recalcitrant, as it would probably be the only woman I'd see for the rest of my life in Guantanamo. She would have to work me over every day.

Yeah, I usually have to go to a strip club and pay to get the treatment these individuals consider torture.

But this goes beyond fucking with someone's head, this is breaking down their most firmly held fundamental beliefs. Although I find it hard to have sympathy for someone who can be broken down by such ridiculous tactics.

As sick as it may be. It makes me laugh.

Oh guys like you that feel sorry for the crimes of their regime are OK, it are the badass neocons that belong at The Hague and should excuse and pay for it.

You'll have a hard time proving it as torture under the Conventions. That, and you won't ever bring them to the Hague.

It is awfully nice to have hookers with g strings rubbing menstrual blood all over you..
:confused:

But this goes beyond fucking with someone's head, this is breaking down their most firmly held fundamental beliefs. Although I find it hard to have sympathy for someone who can be broken down by such ridiculous tactics.
Habib says they tried Physical Torture on him...when that did not do it(months)...they tryed the fuck his head with his Family and Religion taboos (Mods forbid me to say "Menstruated in his face"...ooops did i say that out loud)...when all that did not work...they figured maybe he was telling the truth all-along...at that point they sat him free.

You'll have a hard time proving it as torture under the Conventions. That, and you won't ever bring them to the Hague.either way...It is still very-very-wrong...
and If there is any justice...Bush and all involved shall burn in Hell.

It is still very-very-wrong...
and If there is any justice...Bush and all involved shall burn in Hell.

As Clinton taught us, it's not wrong as long as it's legal.

Funny thing is, I'd probably get a huge erection and poke her eyes out. Then I'd make my escape!

As Clinton taught us, it's not wrong as long as it's legal.
adultery is not like torture...unless you have to do it with the MoLewinsky.

Quite frankly, if they're terrorists they deserve it. They should feel lucky we haven't got out the thumbscrews.

Quite frankly, if they're terrorists they deserve it. They should feel lucky we haven't got out the thumbscrews.Who says we havent?

If the story is substantiated it is pretty disgusting. Of course right now all we have is one guy trying to sell his book about it, not exactly an unbiased source.

Who says we havent?
That's good. So we should believe they have been tortured with thumbscrews until it is proven otherwise?

I see. We should assume that everything Bush does is evil and stupid until proven otherwise, and that he and his crew have done everything evil and stupid in the book until proven otherwise.

That's really logical, that is. Probably the stupidest thing I've heard today.

Alright, now imagine the sexes were reversed: imagine it was a female detainee and a male guard were rubbing his penis and sperm on her. I think most Americans would agree that qualifies as a turtuous practice.

And this kind of sexual torture is particularly terrible for Muslims because of what their culture dictates.
I doubt it. I certainly wouldn't, and I agree with Johhny Wadd:
Well, when I was in a POW camp inVietnam, I would have welcomed this kind of "torture". It is awfully nice to have hookers with g strings rubbing menstrual blood all over you, instead of having your limbs dislocated on purpose!Perspective, people, perspective.

:confused:

Way to take it out of context, dink!

This smacks to me of the "wilding" stories of kids in NYC in the 80s, during the time of the Central Park Jogger. Not only was it made up, but it BECAME a problem afterwards!

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

That's good. So we should believe they have been tortured with thumbscrews until it is proven otherwise?

I see. We should assume that everything Bush does is evil and stupid until proven otherwise, and that he and his crew have done everything evil and stupid in the book until proven otherwise.

That's really logical, that is. Probably the stupidest thing I've heard today.
well you presume they are terrorists until it is proven otherwise

One person's terrorist is the nest persons freedom fighter

Johnny, we have to hope that they will resort to a 3-way girl on girl if we really refuse to talk...

That's good. So we should believe they have been tortured with thumbscrews until it is proven otherwise?
Habib says they Tortured him Both Traditional and Menstruation...
Bush says its not true.

for now a matter of logic...untill we get to the bottom of this(if we ever)

My logic says its likely Habib is telling the truth.
Your logic says its likely Bush is telling the truth.

I say your logic is flawed.

Habib says they Tortured him Both Traditional and Menstruation...
Bush says its not true.

for now a matter of logic...untill we get to the bottom of this(if we ever)

My logic says its likely Habib is telling the truth.
Your logic says its likely Bush is telling the truth.

I say your logic is flawed.

My logic says that Habib was only taken to Guantanamo because he was captured at an al-Qaida camp after firing his weapon at US troops. He was lucky he wasn't shot dead on the spot. As an avowed enemy of the US, I'm sure he would say anything to discredit the US. So, if I wanted to be unbiased, I would have to say that we can't believe either without proof.

And I mean multiple eyewitnesses from both sides, along with unretouched Polaroid photos (I won't trust a digital photo). Medical injuries can be verified by examination.

Otherwise, I don't believe it.

Habib says they Tortured him Both Traditional and Menstruation...
Bush says its not true.

for now a matter of logic...untill we get to the bottom of this(if we ever)

My logic says its likely Habib is telling the truth.
Your logic says its likely Bush is telling the truth.

I say your logic is flawed.

You'd honestly believe some raghead who hasn't bathed in years over the president. I guess that just shows your mentality.

And they wonder why their party will continue to lose support in the US.

One person's terrorist is the nest persons freedom fighter

A true freedom fighter would only target people who threaten their country directly, such as an occupation force. When you're blowing up innocent bystanders you start crossing the line into terrorism.

Also, Habib says real menstruation, and the government document says red ink.

How many women do you know can menstruate on demand?

Johnny, we have to hope that they will resort to a 3-way girl on girl if we really refuse to talk...

As long as they untie my hands so I can, you know cover my face from the "torture"! I probably woulnd't talk, but they could make those girls pump me for information, and to just teach me a lesson. Menstrual blood and all.

I love a rare steak!

My logic says that Habib was only taken to Guantanamo because he was captured at an al-Qaida camp after firing his weapon at US troops. He was lucky he wasn't shot dead on the spot. As an avowed enemy of the US.......As a POW...my brain says...As a POW...

what does your brain say?

IQ...you either have it or you dont.

Yeah, Bush is shit, the best part about Italy was the grafitti that said "Bush Merda." He doesnt even care about Osama anymore, he even said it.

...As a POW...my brain says...As a POW...

what does your brain say?

IQ...you either have it or you dont.

Your IQ is evidently absent as well. According to the Geneva Conventions, Habib is not a "Prisoner of War". He is an "enemy combatant".

Worse yet, he belongs to an organization that is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions (eliminating his protections on that front), and his organization does not wish to abide by the Conventions (either by announcement or by example).

Thus, he has NO Geneva Convention protections. You still need to go back and read your Conventions.

It's painfully obvious that you like coming to class without reading the text.

...As a POW...my brain says...As a POW...

what does your brain say?

IQ...you either have it or you dont.
Actually you aren't technically a POW unless you are a member of a regular armed service. If you are a coward and a terrorist who is trying to blend in with the locals, then you aren't a POW, you are a criminal with a gun. Habib and everyone like him got what was coming to them.

It's painfully obvious that you like coming to class without reading the text.This is a great line. Way to go.

Your IQ is evidently absent as well. According to the Geneva Conventions, Habib is not a "Prisoner of War". He is an "enemy combatant".let me guess...Your brain says we are allowed to torture him.

after all...Thats why we created camp X-rays (not on US soil*sarcasm*) in a legal blackhole

Alright, now imagine the sexes were reversed: imagine it was a female detainee and a male guard were rubbing his penis and sperm on her. I think most Americans would agree that qualifies as a turtuous practice.

And this kind of sexual torture is particularly terrible for Muslims because of what their culture dictates.

Agreed...

But this goes beyond fucking with someone's head, this is breaking down their most firmly held fundamental beliefs.

Exactly. And of course, if you 1) already think anyone being interrogated, and is Muslim, is probably a terrorists and 2) don't respect Muslim culture or belief because it doesn't make sense to you, you'll not consider any of this a big deal. Which is why Johnny Wadd doesn't seem to give a shit, and of course Bush supporters will deliberately give less of a shit in order to prove they're not falling for liberal-media-lies.

I wonder how many Christians who don't think this is a big deal, and wouldn't mind if someone smeared them with blood from abortion? Or made them eat what they were told was an aborted fetus. They'd just go, "aw hell, back in my day we'd PAY to eat fetus! Pass the salt!" Maybe they would. Bad example.

..If you are a coward and a terrorist who is trying to blend in with the locals.... you are a criminal with a gun.undercover like, CIA, mossad, NSA, SpecialOps et all

let me guess...Your brain says we are allowed to torture him.

after all...Thats why we created camp X-rays (not on US soil*sarcasm*) in a legal blackhole

It's not a legal black hole. It is legal precedence, used by European nations.

Of course, the European nations in question (Italy, Germany, the UK, France, and Russia) took things a step further.

It was their policy to execute "enemy combatants" in time of war.

Execute, not torture. It would seem that in terms of historical precedence, the Americans are quite generous. They gave Habib a lap dance that he would have paid 100 dollars for in Miami Beach, a two-year vacation on an island resort, and then they let him go.

Europeans, in time of war, would have legally shot him on the spot.

American troops in WWII also shot enemy troops on the spot. I have heard stories from vets who marched german prisoners to a truck and out the back of a truck comes a machine gun. Not that I agree with it but just saying Euro countries arn't the only ones to execute prisoners.

Agreed...



Exactly. And of course, if you 1) already think anyone being interrogated, and is Muslim, is probably a terrorists and 2) don't respect Muslim culture or belief because it doesn't make sense to you, you'll not consider any of this a big deal. Which is why Johnny Wadd doesn't seem to give a shit, and of course Bush supporters will deliberately give less of a shit in order to prove they're not falling for liberal-media-lies.

I wonder how many Christians who don't think this is a big deal, and wouldn't mind if someone smeared them with blood from abortion? Or made them eat what they were told was an aborted fetus. They'd just go, "aw hell, back in my day we'd PAY to eat fetus! Pass the salt!" Maybe they would. Bad example.


Why should I have to respect any culture or custom, esp when it goes against my own belief. Isn't it better for me to be tolerant of their culture. Why do I have to respect it?

This is so not a big deal. Let's face it, this is not torture.

These non-POWs should be tortured, then they'd have something to bitch about. Just like that naked pyramid, it is all bullcrap.

It's not a legal black hole. It is legal precedence, used by European nations.You are not answering the question...

we did not use one of our multilple military prisons...we build a new one at Gitmo..
the Gov is fighting a legal battle to deny Habib his POW status...

all of that so we can torture him...

yes or no? (what says your logic?...what says your brain?)

"Personally, I don't think it is torture, or even abuse, even if it is religiously offensive.

Deception and things of an offensive, yet physically harmless nature, are not torture."

& if I point a plastic gun to the head of your child?

The US's days of stomping around the world are drawing to a close. THe resistance encounted against the war on Iraq will be trebbled the next time they try to stomp on a soverign state.

Democracy is a tree that grows from a seed, it is not transplanted or grafted. Look at Serbia, even though they have elections, popular leaders are voted out by the gun aka assination.

9-11 should have been a wake up call to review US foreign policy, instead it has been used as a hammer to smash the thin ficard of just motive & steadly erode the freedoms gained through the battle for independance.

American troops in WWII also shot enemy troops on the spot. I have heard stories from vets who marched german prisoners to a truck and out the back of a truck comes a machine gun. Not that I agree with it but just saying Euro countries arn't the only ones to execute prisoners.

You need some actual proof of this before your claims will be believed. Just because someone told you that we did it makes it not necessarily true.

I threw two hand grenades into a schoolroom in Nam. I killed about 30 kids, but they only gave me credit for 15 kills as they said 2 kids = 1 adult. I was so mad!! :mad:

You are not answering the question...

we did not use one of our multilple military prisons...we build a new one at Gitmo..
the Gov is fighting a legal battle to deny Habib his POW status...

all of that so we can torture him...

yes or no? (what says your logic?...what says your brain?)

They aren't fighting a legal battle for his POW status. They are fighting a legal battle as to whether or not he gets a hearing to determine if he is an "enemy combatant" or not. Apparently, though, the courts have held that the military tribunals they are holding are more than enough.

But, he's still not a POW. So he still doesn't have the protections - unless the US is feeling generous. And it would appear that it is, since they didn't shoot him.

You are not answering the question...

we did not use one of our multilple military prisons...we build a new one at Gitmo..
the Gov is fighting a legal battle to deny Habib his POW status...

all of that so we can torture him...

yes or no? (what says your logic?...what says your brain?)
No, they are claiming he never was a POW, which is true according to every law we have on the books. Having prisoners in the most secure location on earth is probably not a bad thing either, given that they were trying to kill as many of us as they could just a short while ago. All of this is not so we can torture him, but so we can get information from him in order to save lives. Johnny, I don't know if you ever really were in Vietnam, but the comment about school kids is sick. I agreed with a lot of what you said before, but that is over the top, even as a joke.

You need some actual proof of this before your claims will be believed. Just because someone told you that we did it makes it not necessarily true. it does not make automatically untrue either.

some people say OJ killed his wife...

My brain tells me its likely...
What does your brain tells you?

Ocean, it's quite clear you still haven't read your homework assignment, which was to read the Geneva Conventions (all of them, including the Protocols).

When you come back, there will be a pop quiz.

...All of this is not so we can torture him, but so we can get information from him in order to save lives...http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=denial&x=12&y=15

Terrorists kill people. The military kills people. Terrorists torture people. The military tortures people. Both have as much right to do this kind of thing. You'll either assume that both have right to rape, torture and offend as they please or assume that neither has. Because, surprise, they are NOT DIFFERENT. I say neither has the right.

They aren't fighting a legal battle for his POW status. They are fighting a legal battle as to whether or not he gets a hearing to determine if he is an "enemy combatant" or not. Apparently, though, the courts have held that the military tribunals they are holding are more than enough.

But, he's still not a POW. So he still doesn't have the protections - unless the US is feeling generous. And it would appear that it is, since they didn't shoot him.all that Blah-Blah doen not answer the question...so I shall ask it again..

all of that so we can torture him...

yes or no? (what says your logic?...what says your brain?)

undercover like, CIA, mossad, NSA, SpecialOps et all

As I recall unless they have an official diplomatic cover intelligence agents in a foreign country have no legal protection and do not get POW status if captured. Of course, since as others have pointed out Al-Qaeda has not signed the Geneva Convention and likely never will that is a moot point anyway. In terms of international law, the US could simply hold summary executions for every captured terrorist.

Of course, the US does not do such things, as even if it is not perfect they do generally try to be at least decent.

Terrorists kill people. The military kills people. Terrorists torture people. The military tortures people. Both have as much right to do this kind of thing. You'll either assume that both have right to rape, torture and offend as they please or assume that neither has. Because, surprise, they are NOT DIFFERENT. I say neither has the right.
exactamente

No, because it's not torture.

You still haven't read. Otherwise you would know that thongs and menstrual fluid aren't torture.

No, because it's not torture.

You still haven't read. Otherwise you would know that thongs and menstrual fluid aren't torture.
for the xzillion time WhisperLegs,
(idependently of your definition of torture)

non POW status allowes torture

Yes or no?

quit spinning..its a simple question.

Personally, I don't think it is torture, or even abuse, even if it is religiously offensive.

Deception and things of an offensive, yet physically harmless nature, are not torture.

If we convinced a prisoner that people in the other room were being flayed alive (through interesting special effects), and he talked, none of that would be considered torture. Deception, yes, but not torture.

We don't pull people's fingernails out these days. We send those boys to Hooters.
that is deception, what is being done is PSYCHOLOGICAL torture based on their religious beliefs. jsut because no one in the united states is that religios even thoguh they pretend to be doesnt mean other people in the world arnt

..If you are a coward and a terrorist who is trying to blend in with the locals.... you are a criminal with a gun.unlike...SpecialOps? CIA?, mossad?, NSA?, KGB? SS? etc, etc, etc.
As I recall unless they have an official diplomatic cover
criminals with a gun...Cowardly Covering under a diplomatic cover?

You need some actual proof of this before your claims will be believed. Just because someone told you that we did it makes it not necessarily true.

I threw two hand grenades into a schoolroom in Nam. I killed about 30 kids, but they only gave me credit for 15 kills as they said 2 kids = 1 adult. I was so mad!!

Hey Johnny. Know what my favorite Vietnam era protest slogan was?

"Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win!" :cool:

Seriously, you're either a retarded 14 year old troller who's never seen a jungle OR a hand grenade in his life, or a truly odious, disgusting human being. Do us all a favor and stop mucking up this thread for people who actually want to discuss this.

On to the actual thread.

So.. why do people assume that EVERYONE held at Guantanimo Bay is automatically a terrorist? I personally suspect that a good portion of these people here were just grunt militiamen in the wrong place at the wrong time though even if they weren't, that wouldn't justify what amounts to psychological torture, breaking a person's will to resist by destroying their connection to their faith. Think about it, Christians, would it be OK if an interrogator made a Christian prisoner in the states worship an idol, do something against their code of morality, or renounce their religion? The outcry over this would be horrendous if it happened in an American prison to an American prisoner, even if that person had done something terrible.

These non-POWs should be tortured, then they'd have something to bitch about. Just like that naked pyramid, it is all bullcrap.

Yeah lets torture them for not being tortured, that'll teach 'em. Hey let's torture some of your buddies from where was it, Vietnam? Let's make them rape a nun. That's not torture, it must be fuckin OK then.

that is deception, what is being done is PSYCHOLOGICAL torture based on their religious beliefs. jsut because no one in the united states is that religios even thoguh they pretend to be doesnt mean other people in the world arnt
And a wonderful job they are doing of it. Let them continue. If this is the worst torture they are using, then I am relieved. Deception works wonders I am sure.
I am curious actually, how you managed to spell "psychological" correctly, but missed on "religious", "though" and "aren't."

And Ocean Drive, the CIA, Mossad types are spies, and yeah, I guess you could call them criminals, epecially since they are treated as such if caught. Special forces though, wear uniforms and are clearly identified as members of armed services. Plus they don't target civilians like the cowards I was referring to earlier.

You'd honestly believe some raghead who hasn't bathed in years over the president. I guess that just shows your mentality.

And they wonder why their party will continue to lose support in the US.
You honestly are calling someone a raghead who hasnt bathed in years, because you are apparently racist and intolerent of cultures different to your own, and so far as I can tell have no knowledge about this person's bathing habits whatsoever...

here's hoping you dont spend your time wondering why Bush supporters get tarred with the 'red neck' brush....this post clearly shows your mentality, lets hope enough people know better than to mistake it for anything other than extremist red neck clap trap, the US currently has a bad enough image problem without the whole world becoming convinced that Bush is only in the Whitehouse because finally rednecks out number normal people in the US.

Hey Johnny. Know what my favorite Vietnam era protest slogan was?

"Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win!" :cool:

Seriously, you're either a retarded 14 year old troller who's never seen a jungle OR a hand grenade in his life, or a truly odious, disgusting human being. Do us all a favor and stop mucking up this thread for people who actually want to discuss this.



You know what my favorite protest was? The Kent State incident. Nice to see all of those bloody hippies!! :)

I am a disgusting human being.

BTW, I was using the grenade incident (which was not real) as an analogy to that persons story. Learn how to understand context, dickhead! ;)

Yeah lets torture them for not being tortured, that'll teach 'em. Hey let's torture some of your buddies from where was it, Vietnam? Let's make them rape a nun. That's not torture, it must be fuckin OK then.


How can you force someone to rape a person. I'm sorry but an erection isn't likely to occur when there is a gun to your head!

they don't target civilians.says who?

I am a disgusting human being.

Agreed. And you suck at analogies.

You'd honestly believe some raghead who hasn't bathed in years over the president. I guess that just shows your mentality.

And they wonder why their party will continue to lose support in the US.
Look at it this way. Who would you believe more, John Kerry or Habib?

says who?
This is a continuous problem with you Ocean. A steadfast refusal to accept reality. Our military doesn't target civilians because it is illegal. and we are the good guys. We don't break the rules, and if someone on our side does, they get punished for it. You need to stop seeing "Platoon" as history.

You honestly are calling someone a raghead who hasnt bathed in years, because you are apparently racist and intolerent of cultures different to your own, and so far as I can tell have no knowledge about this person's bathing habits whatsoever...

here's hoping you dont spend your time wondering why Bush supporters get tarred with the 'red neck' brush....this post clearly shows your mentality, lets hope enough people know better than to mistake it for anything other than extremist red neck clap trap, the US currently has a bad enough image problem without the whole world becoming convinced that Bush is only in the Whitehouse because finally rednecks out number normal people in the US.


Sounds like I hit a nerve. Are you one of those unwashed masses? Do you go through a bar of soap every year.

I'm sorry but I've travelled to the Middle East, and bathing isn't exactly high on the list of things to do!

Why can't I call someone a raghead? They wear rags on their heads, don't they? Why is it fair for people to call me a cracker, or a honky?

I don't care if we get the label of red-neck, the fact is we beat you democrats good and proper! As far as our image goes, I don't give a you know what! If it was so important what the Europeans thought or what the Middle East thought, then maybe I'd care. What is a "normal person"? You do know that perhaps some people who weren't red-necks voted for Bush? Some of these I'm sure live in NYC and even LA!! ;)

BTW where is this Whitehouse you speak of?

Agreed. And you suck at analogies.

No I don't, but you suck in general, fruitcake!

This is a continuous problem with you Ocean. A steadfast refusal to accept reality...we are the good guys. We don't break the rules ...You need to stop seeing "Platoon" as history.Your reality comes from Hollywood, not mine...

Your reality comes from Hollywood, not mine...
Actually no, it comes from being a veteran. The closest you have ever come to the military is...what? Driving by an Army post and spitting on the gate? I have news for you, what I said was true, and just because Oliver Stone hates America doesn't mean I have to accept his blatantly false portayal of what the military is like.

No I don't, but you suck in general, fruitcake!

Heh, second time today you're pretty much spot on. Keep it up.

You know, implying that somebody is non-heterosexual isn't a particularly effective insult if that's the truth of the matter.

But, to end this retarded flamewar here and now, back to my other post - how would you feel if something like this was done to a Christian American, in an American prison, regardless of guilt/innocence?

Look at it this way. Who would you believe more, John Kerry or Habib?


This guy! Reporting For Duty! (http://stareat.us/eric/archives/john-kerry-no-botox.jpg)

how would you feel if something like this was done to a Christian American, in an American prison, regardless of guilt/innocence?You can't discount guilt/innocence. But if this was done to a Christian, in an American prison, I wouldn't have a problem with it if it were done with the express purpose of protecting the whole of America from terrorist crazies. Fortunately, Christianity can't really be used to justify terrorism easily (without a lot of twisting of meaning) and so I don't have to worry about that one. Islam on the other hand...but that is a topic for another thread.

...doesn't mean I have to accept his blatantly false portayal of what the military is like.It doesnt mean I have to accept either yours or Stones portrayals.

But for now I choose to give Habib the benefit of the doubt.

I choose Habib over Bush...and over your "veteran portrayal"

Allright then. So, if guilt or innocence matters, does it bother you in the slightest that none of the people whom this has happened to have ever been charged with a crime, let alone proven to have committed, aided, or abetted acts of terrorism? As I said before - how do you know that these aren't just innocent villagers thrown to the Americans by unscrupulous Afghans for reward money, or just tribal militiamen who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Does it in any way affect your opinion that no one's even bothered to seriously look into whether these people are guilty or innocent?

Heh, second time today you're pretty much spot on. Keep it up.

You know, implying that somebody is non-heterosexual isn't a particularly effective insult if that's the truth of the matter.

But, to end this retarded flamewar here and now, back to my other post - how would you feel if something like this was done to a Christian American, in an American prison, regardless of guilt/innocence?

Why do you assume I'm Christian? Honestly, I follow no religion, except my worship of the Dollar! I wouldn't care if this was done to a guilty American. Even if they are innocent, who cares?

How does being called a fruitcake insinuate that you are a homosexual. In my day it was a common insult to call someone this (it means you aren't right in the head). If you want me to poke fun of your sexuality, please let me know!
I know alot of jokes and insults!

I disagree that Christianity can't be twisted to justify terror and oppression. It can, and has been. One only need to look at European colonialism to see this, and the justifications put in place for the slaughter and enslavement of indigenous peoples. And not just early colonialism mind you, I'm talking all the way up to India and the big land grab in Africa in the 1880s.

Hell, any religion can be used by members of the ruling classes as a form of social control. The Tibetan priests used Buddhism to justify serfdom and outright slavery, for fuck's sake. BUDDHISM!

Allright then. So, if guilt or innocence matters, does it bother you in the slightest that none of the people whom this has happened to have ever been charged with a crime, let alone proven to have committed, aided, or abetted acts of terrorism? As I said before - how do you know that these aren't just innocent villagers thrown to the Americans by unscrupulous Afghans for reward money, or just tribal militiamen who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Does it in any way affect your opinion that no one's even bothered to seriously look into whether these people are guilty or innocent?

I am not bothered by any of this in any way!

Being born a white guy here in the US of A, I really don't have to be worried about being mistaken for a Middle Eastern terrorist.

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Are you one of those unwashed masses? Do you go through a bar of soap every year.
I avoid soap whenever possible, soapless detergents are not only kinder on the skin, they are also more effective and leave less mess than soaps.

I'm sorry but I've travelled to the Middle East, and bathing isn't exactly high on the list of things to do!
I'm sorry but travelling through the Middle East does not qualify you to know the bathing habits of every single person who is or ever will exist who comes from the Middle East or is of a Middle Eastern ethnicity.

Why can't I call someone a raghead?
You can, in fact it's better to signal your backward racist redneck thinking as quickly as possible, that way we all know we need not take anything you say seriously, sooner rather than later.

They wear rags on their heads, don't they?
Not so as I've noticed.

Why is it fair for people to call me a cracker, or a honky?
Who said it was fair?

I don't care if we get the label of red-neck, the fact is we beat you democrats good and proper!
Who is this 'we', it's only you that I've got categorised as a redneck? Who is this 'you Democrats' er, you dont imagine that I am a democrate, because I didnt say I was, let me guess, this is more of your 'sparkling redneck logic'...?

As far as our image goes, I don't give a you know what!
Apparently so, however there are many other Americans, and they dont all wish to be known as intolerent red neck simpletons...

If it was so important what the Europeans thought or what the Middle East thought, then maybe I'd care.
what exactly is the value system used to determine importance in with regards to this issue, and why is Eurpean opinion on the Middle East a necessary condition?

What is a "normal person"?
Someone not suffering from being subnormal...

You do know that perhaps some people who weren't red-necks voted for Bush? Some of these I'm sure live in NYC and even LA!! ;)
What makes you think I'm not one of them? Did you actually take the important step that should occur between reading my post and responding to it, you know the one they refer to as 'comprehension'?

BTW where is this Whitehouse you speak of?
Washington DC. I'd have expected you to know that, or should I just assume that this is your backward way of admitting you dont have a valid point, no one fluffs around with presentational attributes, when they actually can legitimately address the point being made....is there some reason why you dont understand that 'grammer nazi' tactics actually draw attention to your lack of valid argument, rather than diverting from it?

Read this in today's paper....
Link, please...

(Mods forbid me to say "Menstruated in his face"...ooops did i say that out loud)
Not exactly correct. We said you couldn't use it in a thread title. Thread titles are held to a slightly higher standard than ordinary posts.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

As a non-Bush supporter I can say without hesitation that what is described in the article is a perfectly sound and legit tactic for breaking a person's will. See, this is what happens when you're are captured and accused of doing really bad things.

Seriously, a lot of you need to wake up and smell the coffee and come to grips with reality. Pretty much everyone here would agree the snipping off people's fingers with bolt cutters is bad, no one would agree more than a well trained interrogator.

Let me give you an example. In the US Army, people can go through a POW school where they are exposed and subjected to "torture" like the above. They are forced to exist on little to no sleep, doing dumb things like saying having to say the word "boots" every time their left foot touches the ground when they're walking/marching anywhere, and subjected to sounds of babies crying and women screaming broadcast over loudspeakers 24 hours a day, etc. All designed to demonstrate how to legally break down the will and resistance of a prisoner. They'll do things like strap a guy down over a table, take off his pants, then have a big beefy guy drop trou in front of him, then walk behind him and start rubbing a lubricated hot dog between his buttcheeks. Nasty? You bet! Legal? You bet!

In short, what I'm saying is that what is described in the original article is legal and acceptable. You don't have to like it personally I suppose, but chances are that one day the little magical bubble that you live it will pop, at which point you're going to be in for one nasty suprise about the reality of life and the world around you.

Oh, and just to head off the bashers, I'm not white, I'm not Christian, and I don't live in the US :P

And to the original author, if such a things make you sick to be an American, you're going to really hate being from somewhere like, oh, anywhere else in the frickin' world.

...'ll do things like strap a guy down over a table, take off his pants, then have a big beefy guy drop trou in front of him, then walk behind him and start rubbing a lubricated hot dog between his buttcheeks....You should really save all your erotic fantasies for yourself...

As a non-Bush supporter I can say without hesitation that what is described in the article is a perfectly sound and legit tactic for breaking a person's will. See, this is what happens when you're are captured and accused of doing really bad things.
I can say regardless of my opinion on President Bush, that it is not a legit tactic.

Seriously, a lot of you need to wake up and smell the coffee and come to grips with reality. Pretty much everyone here would agree the snipping off people's fingers with bolt cutters is bad, no one would agree more than a well trained interrogator.

Let me give you an example. In the US Army, people can go through a POW school where they are exposed and subjected to "torture" like the above. They are forced to exist on little to no sleep, doing dumb things like saying having to say the word "boots" every time their left foot touches the ground when they're walking/marching anywhere, and subjected to sounds of babies crying and women screaming broadcast over loudspeakers 24 hours a day, etc. All designed to demonstrate how to legally break down the will and resistance of a prisoner. They'll do things like strap a guy down over a table, take off his pants, then have a big beefy guy drop trou in front of him, then walk behind him and start rubbing a lubricated hot dog between his buttcheeks. Nasty? You bet! Legal? You bet!
Acceptable just because it isnt illegal, no.

In short, what I'm saying is that what is described in the original article is legal and acceptable.
You can say it's acceptable, but that doesnt make it so. Being legal doesnt render something acceptable. It's not illegal for my spouse to go and have unprotected sex with someone else (or any sex with someone else), but it is absolutely unacceptable for my spouse to do so.

You don't have to like it personally I suppose, but chances are that one day the little magical bubble that you live it will pop, at which point you're going to be in for one nasty suprise about the reality of life and the world around you.
I dont live in a bubble. Not like the way things are doesnt mean not being aware of how they are, in fact the later is a necessary condition for the earlier to occur.

Oh, and just to head off the bashers, I'm not white, I'm not Christian, and I don't live in the US :P
I dont see that any of that is relevent...

And to the original author, if such a things make you sick to be an American, you're going to really hate being from somewhere like, oh, anywhere else in the frickin' world.
Nonesense, many countries dont treat human beings in such an unacceptable manner. Many countries dont consider strapping people to tables and sexually assaulting them, to be either acceptable or legal.

That, and you won't ever bring them to the Hague.

That is because the neocon regime refuses to sign the international treaty about it like all democracies did. A real elected goverment by the people in the US sign it, you know that.

The people that were convicted with small times for Abu Graib would face more years in democracies. Those guys will get away with 1/3th of their time after good behaviour in the US, in fact they deserve lifetime since they also killed people, acording US troops (anonymous because afraid of the neocon regime) that came back.

That is because the neocon regime refuses to sign the international treaty about it like all democracies did. A real elected goverment by the people in the US sign it, you know that.
Hrm?
I'm pretty sure we voted in the current guys...

...elected goverment by the people in the US sign it...
FloridaGate2000?

i feel worse that you beleive all of that. i feel EVEN worse that you think bush has control over that. apparently, never heard of red tape and secrets have you? the pres is an easy scapegoat. i suggest you find a better one.

It seems that gone are the days of "the buck stops here".

Since this administration came in it appears the president has taken out a restraining order against the buck.

Since this administration came in it appears the president has taken out a restraining order against the buck.
Not that you'd realise it, looking at the National deficit, I'm sure plenty of Americans wish the bucks would stop....flowing out of US coffers...

I say we petition the US government to stop horrible methods of toture like this and go back to the good ol' tried and true methods, like electrode to the testicles, burning toothpicks jammed under the finger nails, and druggings, lots and lots of druggings.

Honestly, this has to be one of the least invasive, least violent and least damaging forms of interrogation.

... like electrode to the testicles, burning toothpicks jammed under the finger nails, and druggings, lots and lots of druggings.We are doing that too...full service...

This thread has given me more understanding as to why the US would be considered "infidels" by many people in the Middle East. There definitely is some sick puppies posting here.

I for one am somewhat impressed by the number of posts that go to the trouble of outlining why this isn't exactly torture, and then follow that up by saying, "We should torture those bastards for real." If you don't care if they torture them, why are you defending the decision to do this as "not torture"?

Anyway, torture or not, this certainly constitutes duress, and is grossly inappropriate.

I say we petition the US government to stop horrible methods of toture like this and go back to the good ol' tried and true methods, like electrode to the testicles, burning toothpicks jammed under the finger nails, and druggings, lots and lots of druggings.

Honestly, this has to be one of the least invasive, least violent and least damaging forms of interrogation.
Aha, because of course we can either sexually, mentally and physically abuse people or we can physically abuse people, the earlier being preferable to the latter...? Heaven forbid we actually show enough self respect to act with dignified humanity towards other human beings who may or may not be dispicable examples of our race. Clearly 'standards' are not 'minimum codes of conduct' but rather 'codes of conduct that we adhere to if we feel like it, and the other party involved provably meets certain standards'...

After all, the fact that someone has not been proved guilty of any crime, can be fixed providing enough 'motivation' to confess is provided...

Fact, after some weeks at Gitmo, more than one prisoner accused two British citizens of being at a terrorist training camp. The many witnesses including their employer who insisted they were in England and at work on the dates concerned, were dismissed, as intitially was the video footage from their employer's security camera. Eventually after their families lodged a law suite, there came a point where after a certain date, if the two were still held prisoner, the US government would be financially liable should a law suite find that the two had been held unreasonably. The two were kept until the last moment when it was possible to retain them without incurring financial liability, and then were released without charge.

So either the US is more concerned about it's wallet than it is about the security of it's citizens, or the US is holding people that it doesnt believe are a danger, or the very day that the US would be financially liable for unreasonably holding the two, they changed their mind about the fact that these two were in a terrorist training camp, even though previously dozens of witnesses and video tapped evidence couldnt convince them the two were not guilty.....clearly all above board here....

And how evidently did it come to be that other prisoners accused the two of being somewhere they simply could not have been. Perhaps all accussed terrorists look alike to other accussed terrorists, surely it cant be because abusing people can cause people to lie in order to avoid being abused, because that would make such tactics worthless.

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/opinion/30dowd.html?oref=login&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists)

Here is the link that some asked for.

OK, lets say rape is torture.

Being forced to look at a naked women constitutes rape for a Muslim.

THEREFORE

The Muslim man was raped.

AND

The Muslim man was tortured.

Congrats! I've taken time outta my day to come to you and say:

This Thread Sucks!
Have a wonderful day.

Not that you'd realise it, looking at the National deficit, I'm sure plenty of Americans wish the bucks would stop....flowing out of US coffers...

Nota bene: The US has been running almost every year, and a consistent deficit since 1958. That is, there has not been a single day since 1958 where the US gov't was not in debt.

I'm not saying this to excuse anything, just giving a point of reference.

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

That is because the neocon regime refuses to sign the international treaty about it like all democracies did. A real elected goverment by the people in the US sign it, you know that.

The people that were convicted with small times for Abu Graib would face more years in democracies. Those guys will get away with 1/3th of their time after good behaviour in the US, in fact they deserve lifetime since they also killed people, acording US troops (anonymous because afraid of the neocon regime) that came back.

I didn't know the Clinton Administration was a neocon regime. They refused to sign it before Bush ever did. Are you telling me that Clinton wasn't elected by the people?

BTW, there's no early release from a military sentence. They don't parole people. So you do the whole sentence.

Perhaps you should read the American and British psychological research into small group dynamics in the immediate post WW II period. It explains how people get to do the things that were done at Abu Gharaib (and worse), and explains why men stand and fight or turn and run.

All without extensive conspiracies.

And if you believe half of what these men say...
So far...I believe what Habib says...over Bush denials and over the Pantagon denials...

So far...I believe what Habib says...over Bush denials and over the Pantagon denials...

And you still don't believe the Geneva Conventions, especially Convention I, Article 2.

*trasfered your answer*
... you know it will show you that Habib was not subject to its protections.

And if you're going to trust lawyers, you'll have to explain why you don't trust me. I've been a lawyer for some time now.
I know?
No sir I dont know...
Trust you? no, I do not.

there is multiple technical loopholes you use to steal his POW situation...Most of the World GenevaConvention scholars disagree with Pentagon lawyers that use the same legalese argumentantion you use...

your pitiful blahblahblah do not change the Bottom line...
There was a war..USA vs Afghanista/Taliban...some of them were made prisoners...They are Prisoners Of War...

all your BullShit is not going to change that.

Going back to your question why do i trust those other World Lawyers and not You?
BECAUSE YOU DONT MAKE ANY SENSE. :gundge:

... you'll have to explain why you don't trust me. I've been a lawyer for some time now.
FYI..no, I do not have to explain you why I think all your legelese is BullShit.

*trasfered your answer*

I know?
No sir I dont know...
Trust you? no, I do not.

there is multiple technical loopholes you use to steal his POW situation...Most of the World GenevaConvention scholars disagree with Pentagon lawyers that use the same legales argumentantion you use...

your pitiful blahblahblah do not change the Bottom line...
There was a war USA vs Afghanista/Taliban...some of them where made prisoners...They are Prisoners Of War...

all your BullShit is not going to change that.

Going back to your question why do i trust those other World Lawyers and not You?
BECAUSE YOU DONT MAKE ANY SENSE. :gundge:


It's not bullshit. I don't have to make any legalese arguments. Let's read the section together:

"Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

Well, we only have one High Contracting Party in the war against the Taliban (which was not a war, since the US has not declared war since WW II, but OK, we'll let you call it a war). Since this is not a war between TWO High Contracting Parties, so far Habib scores a ZERO for protection.

"The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."

Well, the US was not occupying the territory of a High Contracting Party, so Habib still scores a ZERO for protection.

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

This means that if one of the Powers in conflict is not a party to the Convention (the Taliban) and others are (the US), the US is still bound by the convention in mutual relations to other Powers who are signatories to the Convention. Furthermore, if the Taliban had so much as announced that they accepted the provisions of the Conventions, or applied its provisions, they would have been protected by the Conventions.

Still a ZERO score for Habib. Without any legalese. Even if he was officially a uniformed soldier for the Taliban.

Maybe you need to learn to speak English. Show me one reference to a Geneva Convention scholar who believes that the Geneva Convention legally applies to Habib (not that they wish it was applied, or thought that it should apply - I want to see the legal argument in plain English that shows where in the Convention it says that Habib is protected).

You can't. Because it doesn't exist.

.... I want to see the legal argument in plain English that shows where in the Convention it says that Habib is protected.
You wnat to see? :rolleyes:

...Im not your Librarian look it up for yourself...try Google (2 words) guantanamo geneva

like this

http://www.google.com/search?q=geneva+guantanamo&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Its attacking their politics, not their physical being.

Even if it was, I say let 'em yank their fingernails out if it keeps our boys alive.
you sir are a fuck tard. What abotu the 100 thousand Iraqies who have died as a direct result of our ocupation there shoudl they pull our troosp finger nails out? That is jsut the sort of retarded rhetoric I woudl expect from teh average American . Are you average? I hope not.

You wnat to see? :rolleyes:

...Im not your Librarian look it up for yourself...try Google 2 words guantanamo geneva

like this

http://www.google.com/search?q=geneva+guantanamo&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

and if you dont like Google try Yahoo. like this

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=guantanamo+geneva&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1

To quote from the first page on that search:

"Al-Qaeda members, who neither wear identifying insignia nor abide by the laws of war, probably would not qualify. "

Oh, so I can torture and shoot them. Good.

"Taliban soldiers, as the armed forces of Afghanistan, may well be entitled to POW status."

Only if they satisfy Convention I, Article 2, which they most definitely do not.

"If there is doubt about a captured fighter's status as a POW, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise."

You'll notice that there are military tribunals already. There has already been a general military tribunal that has already decided that none of them have prisoner of war status.

You wnat to see? :rolleyes:

...Im not your Librarian look it up for yourself...try Google (2 words) guantanamo geneva

like this

http://www.google.com/search?q=geneva+guantanamo&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

takes less than a second just clik

255,000 Results for geneva guantanamo. (0.25 seconds)

We may also note that there is no legal citation to back up anything they assert, and that their assertions are in the form of "may".

"May" says that something is possible. Under certain circumstances, they "may" have protections. These circumstances do not exist, therefore they do not have protections.

They even agree that al-Qaeda men probably are not protected.

Human Rights Watch can't even extend the Geneva Conventions for al-Qaeda men.

It's your assertion that their rights are a certainty. You haven't shown me anything that is a legal certainty that these men have rights. You still refuse to read the Conventions.

If you're not going to exercise your own brain, and going to take "may" to mean the same thing as "certainty", and you're not going to read the Conventions, there's little point in discussing something with you, because you obviously lack the faintest precursors of intelligence.

To quote from the first page on that search...
this is the title on the first page;

News results for geneva guantanamo - View today's top stories
Orwellian Guantanamo - CBS News - 14 hours ago

US: Geneva Conventions Apply to Guantanamo Detainees
US: Geneva Conventions Apply to Guantanamo Detainees (New
York, January 11, 2002) -- Human Rights Watch questioned ...
www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm - 14k - 31 Jan 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

here is the link http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm

Try reading the details, and not just the headlines - or are you really functionally illiterate?

If you're not going to exercise your own brain, and going to take "may" to mean the same thing as "certainty", and you're not going to read the Conventions.may is enough.

Try reading the details, and not just the headlines - or are you really functionally illiterate?
you want details now?
here have fun:


Matthew Engel in Washington
Monday April 15, 2002

Amnesty International is today issuing a 62-page memorandum sent to the US government, listing its complaints over the treatment of detainees held in both Cuba and Afghanistan, and condemning the US approach to the issue.

"The USA's 'pick and choose' approach to the Geneva Conventions is unacceptable, as is its failure to respect fundamental international human rights standards," the Amnesty memorandum says.

The organisation renewed its request for access to the prisoners held at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, nearly three months after it made its previous request, to which it has received no reply.

Amnesty said the US was denying, or threatening to deny, internationally recognised rights of prisoners by:
· Holding them in conditions that may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
· Refusing them access to counsel, despite ongoing inter rogations that may lead to prosecutions.
· Refusing them access to the courts to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.
· Refusing to disclose full information about the circumstances of many of the arrests, including the country in which they were made.
· Undermining human rights of people arrested outside Afghanistan, particularly six Algerians seized in Bosnia in apparent violation of Bosnian and international law.
· Undermining the presumption of innocence through comments on the guilt of the detainees.
· Threatening to apply an unfair justice system, involving military commissions with the power to hand out death penalties without appeal and without clear independence from the government.
· Raising the prospect of indefinite detention without charge and continued detention after acquittal by military commission.
· Failing to show that it had adequately investigated allegations of human rights violations against Afghan villagers who were detained by US soldiers in Afghanistan.

About 300 prisoners - nearly all of them captured in Afghanistan - are held at Camp X-Ray, with unknown numbers still in Afghanistan. More than a thousand have been held in post-September 11 sweeps in the US itself.

"The US government must ensure that all its actions in re lation to those in its custody in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay comply with international law and standards," Amnesty says. "This is crucial if justice is to be done and seen to be done, and if respect for the rule of law and human rights is not to be undermined."

Amnesty International believes that the Conventions should apply to everyone, regardless of what the Conventions say. They also believe that people should have additional rights and better treatment than is specified in the Conventions.

They do the same thing with laws within countries. They don't do a literal, factual reading of the laws.

Show me in the Conventions where it says that this is true. I'm not being selective in reading them. I'm reading all the words.

You can't show me in the Conventions where any of what Amnesty International is saying is true. You haven't done it because you can't.

Show me the line in the Conventions where the protections apply. They don't. And I'm betting you can't.

They gave Habib a lap dance that he would have paid 100 dollars for in Miami Beach, a two-year vacation on an island resort, and then they let him go.

Yes, and I suppose that human pyramid of naked Iraqis was just like cheerleaders, eh? And when a woman is raped, she shouldn't complain since it is pleasant to her, right?

I didn't think that many Americans were that sick.

You've never been imprisoned and sexually harassed, have you? Then how can you say it is pleasant?

Amnesty International believes that the Conventions should apply to everyone, regardless of what the Conventions say. Genve and Human Rigths...are 2 separate issues...Geneva applies to Wars, Human Rites Aplies to all citizens...

Amnesty International has studied the Gitmo LegalBlackHole...

and they say that the US violates BOTH GENEVA AND HUMAN RIGTHS.

Genve and Human Rigths...are 2 separate issues...Geneva applies to Wars, Human Rites Aplies to all citizens...

Amnesty International has studied the Gitmo LegalBlackHole...

and they say that the US violates BOTH GENEVA AND HUMAN RIGTHS.
Now you can dance all the Legalese Limbo you are used to...

but for God sake...please dont ask me again Why do I trust AmnestyInternational over you.

You're still not showing me where in the Conventions. If they think it's a violation of the Conventions, then show me where.

You can't, so you lose. End of discussion.

End of discussion.WUAHAHAHA how pathetic..

If they think it's a violation of the Conventions, then show me where..Well they sure think it is...so If you really wanna know...

ask them!! http://web.amnesty.org/contacts/index/eng-000

like I said im not your librarian ...nor your secretary.

You obviously believe that Amnesty International is the source of all international agreements - not the agreements themselves.

I wonder what other governments think. Do they let Amnesty define what they should do, and think, and sign, and comply with, or do they go by the documents they sign?

You obviously don't want to read the Conventions, because you know you don't have a leg to stand on. Still haven't shown me the reference you think exists.

You'll need to contact Amnesty yourself to get your side of the argument. I've already read the Conventions and presented my side. You're just standing there with a thumb up your ass.

...
You'll need to contact Amnesty yourself ....You are wrong... I dont need to, .....I can read
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1003587,00.html

and AmnestiInternational is just one of the organizations that say you are wrong... there is dozens:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=guantanamo+geneva&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1

I am more worried about the people we physically torture to death than the religious maniacs we offend.

I am more worried about the people we physically torture to death than the religious maniacs we offend.

It's interesting to note that Human Rights Watch can't even offer an argument to protect al-Qaeda members from torture or indefinite imprisonment.

The rumor has it that the #3 man captured (Khalid Sheik Mohammed) was tortured at Wake Island by being repeatedly drowned and revived.

He isn't subject to protections, even according to an organization that desperately wishes that such protections existed.

That, and his talking got a lot of al-Qaeda men killed or captured.

Khalid's whereabouts are still unknown. He may be dead.

Sometimes you have to grin and bear it when you are interrogating someone. If this person knows of people who wants to kill you and family wouldn't you want to do whatever it takes to get the information out of him so you could prevent the attacks from happening. Why can't you liberals just quit the shit about everything and just support your country in this war. This is a time when the who country should be fighting together but people just want to be pussys and bitch and moan about stupid shit. Lets give the terrorists your addresses due to the fact that you do not want to stop them.

Liberals :mp5:
Liberals :sniper:

When I orginaly posted this I didn't care about the legal status of the prisoners. I don't care if they're POW or not pow or protected by the geneva convention. What I was angry about is that HUMAN BEINGS are being treated like this. This is in adition to the physical torture they have endured. Doing this to them is the same as making a devout jew eat not-kosher items, make a christian burn a cross, etc. I myself am not overly religious but I can respect the choices and convicions that others have. Is everything legal moral?

When I orginaly posted this I didn't care about the legal status of the prisoners. I don't care if they're POW or not pow or protected by the geneva convention. What I was angry about is that HUMAN BEINGS are being treated like this. This is in adition to the physical torture they have endured. Doing this to them is the same as making a devout jew eat not-kosher items, make a christian burn a cross, etc. I myself am not overly religious but I can respect the choices and convicions that others have. Is everything legal moral?

It is very easy to say that what is going on is horrible (and some of it has been too extreme), but these people are trying to kill innocent people.

If all forms of torture are out, how would you go about getting information out of known terrorists?

I ask this because if we do not gather information via interogation, many people will die.

When I orginaly posted this I didn't care about the legal status of the prisoners. I don't care if they're POW or not pow or protected by the geneva convention. What I was angry about is that HUMAN BEINGS are being treated like this. This is in adition to the physical torture they have endured. Doing this to them is the same as making a devout jew eat not-kosher items, make a christian burn a cross, etc. I myself am not overly religious but I can respect the choices and convicions that others have. Is everything legal moral?

Legality has nothing to do with morality, and morality has nothing to do with the law - a point that OceanDrive can't get a grasp on. Also, neither has anything to do with common sense.

Legally, it's not torture. And for those who were physically tortured in more traditional ways, they enjoy no legal protections, even according to Human Rights Watch.

Morally, an argument can be made for and against torture. For some people, torture may be a moral imperative, depending on what the captured person may know. For others, the mere act of questioning the captured person, or even capturing them in the first place would be wholly immoral.

It is clear to me that despite having shot at US troops, and having fought for al-Qaeda, is not enough for the people working at Amnesty International. To them, no one qualifies for capture, let alone being asked a simple question. Theoretically, your tone of voice could be threatening to me (and not to anyone else), and therefore I could claim mental torture. So asking someone a simple question is out.

As far as I'm concerned, legally the US is in the clear. You'll notice no cases filed at the Hague.

Morally, I believe that the US should engage in the highest tech versions of drug induced interrogations, including direct electrical stimulation of the pleasure and pain centers of the brain. I also believe that instead of being released, all armed enemy combatants (as was done historically by most European nations in accordance with the Geneva Conventions) should be executed by firing squad after their interrogations are complete.

We are at war. People get captured, interrogated, and killed in war.

If they didn't want a war, they should never have flown those planes into our buildings. Now that they have a war, they can't suddenly claim that it's unfair that we're fighting back.

So fuck them. We'll be pissing on their graves when this is all through.

I ask this because if we do not gather information via interogation, many people will die.

Yes because all of our interogation has stopped all the hijackings and car bombs. Oh yes, and the also found Osama with all this info as well. I forgot, thanks for reminding me.

Read this in today's paper....



That just sickens me. I feel terrible to be American.

for one thing.. that is an extremely detailed report to be left out of main stream media.. Ive heard nothing of it and highly question the source of the information. While I disagree with some of the most reprehensable acts and feel Guantinamo is fundamentally wrong the sad truth is that today the world is unprepared to deal with the new problems world wide terrosim poses.. Hell.. the UN can't even stop GENOICDE the primary purpose it was organized in the first place.. the UN is not prepared to face issues such as world wide terrorism, and the US the only source capable to address the matter realisticially.

While i dont agree with acts that would be considered crimes against humanity.. I surely would not associate most of the more basic tactics used by the US military (sleep deprevation, hot cold temerature differences, barking dogs !?!) as torture.. and in this day and age we are unable to continue to maintain all the liberties we once could because if we do so we risk our most basic freedom.. life without fear.

Yes because all of our interogation has stopped all the hijackings and car bombs. Oh yes, and the also found Osama with all this info as well. I forgot, thanks for reminding me.

By actually torturing the #3 man in al-Q, they did capture or kill most of the upper echelons of al-Q.

So it does work.

We are at war. People get captured, interrogated, and killed in war.

I thought we weren't at war, beause as many have said the U.S. didn't declare war. So these men are just prisoners then. I hope next time someone drives drunk they are tortured. Because they are prisoners just like these men then. Or howbout jaywalking, or any other minor offense that makes you a criminal. Because hey as long as you did something bad and your not a POW covered by the Genva Conventions we have the right to torutre you, at least that's what I'm getting from you and others like you.

By actually torturing the #3 man in al-Q, they did capture or kill most of the upper echelons of al-Q.

So it does work.

Most of them were killed by Predator unmaned aircraft that flew around the sky looking for moving vehicles. the answer isn't torture, it's better intelegence. Stop things before they happen not punish and hunt those responsible after the fact.

We are doing that too...full service...

Can you prove this?

OK, lets say rape is torture.

Being forced to look at a naked women constitutes rape for a Muslim.

THEREFORE

The Muslim man was raped.

AND

The Muslim man was tortured.

Your second premise is flawed.

I thought we weren't at war, beause as many have said the U.S. didn't declare war. So these men are just prisoners then. I hope next time someone drives drunk they are tortured. Because they are prisoners just like these men then. Or howbout jaywalking, or any other minor offense that makes you a criminal. Because hey as long as you did something bad and your not a POW covered by the Genva Conventions we have the right to torutre you, at least that's what I'm getting from you and others like you.

No, a prisoner of war is someone captured with certain identifying paraphernalia.
1. A standard uniform of a recognized nation.
2. Dog tags
3. Military ID card in the format approved by the signatories
4. Lacking that, a standard emblem pinned on the uniform.
5. In any case, a public and orderly chain of command

They lack all 5, so they are not Prisoners of War.

Even if they were Prisoners of War, they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions because al-Qaeda is not covered (something acknowledged by Human Rights Watch - hardly Bush), and the Taliban are not covered because they are not signatories and they did not publicly agree to abide by the Conventions.

So we could have legally shot all of them on capture, as Europeans traditionally did during WW II. British, French, German, Italian, and Russians did this. And no one was EVER prosecuted for those.

You wnat to see? :rolleyes:

...Im not your Librarian look it up for yourself...try Google (2 words) guantanamo geneva

like this

http://www.google.com/search?q=geneva+guantanamo&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

You can't have a very firm grasp on the concept of argumentation if you think this is the way it works. You've made the positive claim that Habib is protected by the Geneva Convention. Now it's your responsibility to prove that claim.

No, a prisoner of war is someone captured with certain identifying paraphernalia.
1. A standard uniform of a recognized nation.
2. Dog tags
3. Military ID card in the format approved by the signatories
4. Lacking that, a standard emblem pinned on the uniform.
5. In any case, a public and orderly chain of command

They lack all 5, so they are not Prisoners of War.

Even if they were Prisoners of War, they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions because al-Qaeda is not covered (something acknowledged by Human Rights Watch - hardly Bush), and the Taliban are not covered because they are not signatories and they did not publicly agree to abide by the Conventions.

So we could have legally shot all of them on capture, as Europeans traditionally did during WW II. British, French, German, Italian, and Russians did this. And no one was EVER prosecuted for those.

I have agreed they are not prisoners of war and it is legal to do this. What I argued is that they are criminals so should all criminals be treated unfairly? My problem is that these men are being treated terribly and they are HUMAN BEINGS. Unless your a jerk who thinks they're sub-human. They are not POWs, but the are criminal humans. People who advocate this type of torture on criminals advocate it on to other criminals as well.

I thought we weren't at war, beause as many have said the U.S. didn't declare war.

Just because some people dont call it a war does not make it so. The definition of war is; "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations". I do belive that what is going on in Iraq qualifies as war.


I hope next time someone drives drunk they are tortured. Because they are prisoners just like these men then. Or howbout jaywalking, or any other minor offense that makes you a criminal. Because hey as long as you did something bad and your not a POW covered by the Genva Conventions we have the right to torutre you, at least that's what I'm getting from you and others like you.


Your Drunk driving statement makes no sense. We do not torture people for no reason. TERRORISTS are being tortured because they have information about other terrorists that can help us save lives.

I have agreed they are not prisoners of war and it is legal to do this. What I argued is that they are criminals so should all criminals be treated unfairly? My problem is that these men are being treated terribly and they are HUMAN BEINGS. Unless your a jerk who thinks they're sub-human. They are not POWs, but the are criminal humans. People who advocate this type of torture on criminals advocate it on to other criminals as well.

They are not criminals, because they were captured by the military. If the FBI were holding them, and if they had been captured by police and placed under arrest, and if this was a law enforcement matter, then yes, they would be criminals subject to trial according to legal standards.

They are not criminals, either. They are not prisoners of war. They are "enemy combatants". I do not advocate torture on criminals. However, if it is legal to do so, and if it obtains results (as it did with Khalid Sheik Mohammed when they repeatedly drowned him and revived him), then I am all for it.

Hundreds of men were killed or captured as a result of Khalid squealing so that he wouldn't have to be drowned again. That works for me, especially since he planned 9-11. He's not a prisoner of war, and he's not a criminal. He's just some dogshit that's been scraped off of a shoe.

Yes because all of our interogation has stopped all the hijackings and car bombs. Oh yes, and the also found Osama with all this info as well. I forgot, thanks for reminding me.

lmao

as if we know how many OTHER TRAGEDIES have been prevented... these people are the scum of the earth (ie, those who murder or try to murder innocent humans with intent). They are not protected under Geneva. They should be happy we DON'T use Chinese water torture to make them talk, instead of whining about near-naked women getting close to and touching them. lmao.

this story is hilarious, btw.

"The human-rights group decried tactics used on some detainees — including severe temperatures, loud music and other sounds, the sharing of medical information with interrogators and forced nudity — that it said violate international rules against torture adopted by the United States and other countries. "

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002105377_gitmo01.html

vs.

An Iraqi militant group believed to be linked to al-Qaida beheaded a South Korean hostage Tuesday after the Seoul government refused to remove its soldiers from Iraq.

U.S. soldiers on a routine patrol found the body of the man, Kim Sun-il, 33, between Baghdad and Fallujah, 22 miles west of the capital, about noon (4 a.m. ET), military officials told NBC News. They said that Kim’s body was booby-trapped with explosives but that the explosives did not go off.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5256382/


Sorry, the terrorists aren't playing tiddly-winks here. No, torture is not allowed. But I hardly call what's going on in GitMo as torture. Interrogation? Absolutely.

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

... I do not advocate torture on criminals. However, if it is legal to do so, and if it obtains results then I am all for it...You should aply for a Job with the Homeland security Dept...or as a Military contractor for AbuGrabass

how exactly do you "torture" someone with sex? Is that kinda like the same thing as tickling someone to death?

...As a POW...my brain says...As a POW...

what does your brain say?

IQ...you either have it or you dont.
IQ is not binary ...

how exactly do you "torture" someone with sex? Is that kinda like the same thing as tickling someone to death?
Lol :) for as often as I disagree with your quoting of democracynow I think I got to save this quote ... thats great

Good god. I can't believe that people are so up in arms because some "poor illegal combatant" got some titties rubbed in his face. Alright dipdunks, this is War, with a capital W. People have been whining about Bush's tactics being too brutal ever since the get go. But the fact of the matter is if another plane crashed into another tower tommorow, probably the majority of you bemoaning this guys horrible treatment would be screaming that Bush hasn't done enough to protect us. The fact remains that we were promised more attacks, on several occasions, and none have materialized. If someone bumping and grinding on Haji is going to save lives then so be it. Christ, if the female interrogators get tired, I'll do it. I'm sure my hairy arse would make him long for the days of his female interegator. The fact is that Haji is probably going to go home someday. I'm sure he'll forever be scarred by the audacity of those titties, but he'll get to go home and complain about it. Which is alot more than can be said for the people who's lives were lost that September day, which need I remind you is why his ass is at Getmo in the first place.

As I'm in no condition to make a longer post, I am just going to ask this : How DO you propose interrogations should be carried out?

Good god. I can't believe that people are so up in arms because some "poor illegal combatant" got some titties rubbed in his face. Alright dipdunks, this is War, with a capital W. People have been whining about Bush's tactics being too brutal ever since the get go. But the fact of the matter is if another plane crashed into another tower tommorow, probably the majority of you bemoaning this guys horrible treatment would be screaming that Bush hasn't done enough to protect us. The fact remains that we were promised more attacks, on several occasions, and none have materialized. If someone bumping and grinding on Haji is going to save lives then so be it. Christ, if the female interrogators get tired, I'll do it. I'm sure my hairy arse would make him long for the days of his female interegator. The fact is that Haji is probably going to go home someday. I'm sure he'll forever be scarred by the audacity of those titties, but he'll get to go home and complain about it. Which is alot more than can be said for the people who's lives were lost that September day, which need I remind you is why his ass is at Getmo in the first place.

You do know Haji means pilgrimiage dont you?

I think you are forgetting the psychology involved. To you, this is merely disturbing, but you must remember that Islamic fundamentalists are even more sex-negative than Americans or even Christian fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalists consider sex immoral but tolerable under certain specific circumstances. However, they would agree that it isn't nearly as bad as murder. Islamic fundamentalists, by contrast, are pretty close to genophobic (having a fear of sex).

To us, this would be merely disturbing and offensive, but to them, it is an attack on their core beliefs about everything. Imagine if you were forced to go on a killing spree or forced to live in an anarcho-communist society (yeah, I realize it isn't possible, but just think). You would be horrified to have your deep commitment to the law and capitalism disrupted so.

I think you are forgetting the psychology involved. To you, this is merely disturbing, but you must remember that Islamic fundamentalists are even more sex-negative than Americans or even Christian fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalists consider sex immoral but tolerable under certain specific circumstances. However, they would agree that it isn't nearly as bad as murder. Islamic fundamentalists, by contrast, are pretty close to genophobic (having a fear of sex).

To us, this would be merely disturbing and offensive, but to them, it is an attack on their core beliefs about everything. Imagine if you were forced to go on a killing spree or forced to live in an anarcho-communist society (yeah, I realize it isn't possible, but just think). You would be horrified to have your deep commitment to the law and capitalism disrupted so.
I understand the differences in perspective but personaly I feel chalanging someones beliefs or feelings to not be torture (for example someone who is agrophobic or arachnophobic or anyother phobia's ) not just sex

As long as its not phisical ... but thats my opinion

I think you are forgetting the psychology involved. To you, this is merely disturbing, but you must remember that Islamic fundamentalists are even more sex-negative than Americans or even Christian fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalists consider sex immoral but tolerable under certain specific circumstances. However, they would agree that it isn't nearly as bad as murder. Islamic fundamentalists, by contrast, are pretty close to genophobic (having a fear of sex).

To us, this would be merely disturbing and offensive, but to them, it is an attack on their core beliefs about everything. Imagine if you were forced to go on a killing spree or forced to live in an anarcho-communist society (yeah, I realize it isn't possible, but just think). You would be horrified to have your deep commitment to the law and capitalism disrupted so.

Yes, lap dances are disturbing. :rolleyes:

This whole thing is BS anyway. It's fiction, made up to incite the leftists. It wouldn't work, and if I had a contractor come up with this idea, I would fire him for incompetence. After all didn't some of the 9-11 hijackers go to a titty bar the night before, so I can say a believe this type of thing would even make these dudes bat an eyelid.

Now waterboarding I can believe. Because that would work.

Good god. I can't believe that people are so up in arms because some "poor illegal combatant" got some titties rubbed in his face. Alright dipdunks, this is War, with a capital W. People have been whining about Bush's tactics being too brutal ever since the get go. But the fact of the matter is if another plane crashed into another tower tommorow, probably the majority of you bemoaning this guys horrible treatment would be screaming that Bush hasn't done enough to protect us. The fact remains that we were promised more attacks, on several occasions, and none have materialized. If someone bumping and grinding on Haji is going to save lives then so be it. Christ, if the female interrogators get tired, I'll do it. I'm sure my hairy arse would make him long for the days of his female interegator. The fact is that Haji is probably going to go home someday. I'm sure he'll forever be scarred by the audacity of those titties, but he'll get to go home and complain about it. Which is alot more than can be said for the people who's lives were lost that September day, which need I remind you is why his ass is at Getmo in the first place.
Apparently only 19% of the posters here agree that this torture is acceptable.

Also, the opening post declared that the detainee was only taking flying lessons (alledgedly). You already have him guilty. Only in America?

I am sure that it is comments such as yours, if read by potential terrorists, would do more to convince them to join the movement than revoke it. You may be unwittingly, aiding and abetting the terrorist movement?

And if you are going to invoke the name of God, you could at least capitalize the name?

Apparently only 19% of the posters here agree that this torture is acceptable.

Also, the opening post declared that the detainee was only taking flying lessons (alledgedly). You already have him guilty. Only in America?

I am sure that it is comments such as yours, if read by potential terrorists, would do more to convince them to join the movement than revoke it. You may be unwittingly, aiding and abetting the terrorist movement?

And if you are going to invoke the name of God, you could at least capitalize the name?
23 percent ... you cant include the ones that dont think it even happened that is a setaside (like none of the above) traditionaly removed in polls

After all didn't some of the 9-11 hijackers go to a titty bar the night before, .....
Did they?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

YEAH! TAKE THAT INSURGENTS!!!!

Thats just .....Kinky. Hahaha.

23 percent ... you cant include the ones that dont think it even happened that is a setaside (like none of the above) traditionaly removed in polls
Only 19% voted that they agree with this form of torture, that is all I stated.

Only 19% voted that they agree with this form of torture, that is all I stated.
Non representative statistics ... note a vote of none of the above is not included in totals (at the time I totaled it 114) so 23 percent as a vote for the last option is not added to the total

If you like to do poll statistics incorrectly be my guest but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously

(note if this was a multi optional not a single choice poll then the rules are different)

Non representative statistics ... note a vote of none of the above is not included in totals (at the time I totaled it 114) so 23 percent as a vote for the last option is not added to the total

If you like to do poll statistics incorrectly be my guest but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously

(note if this was a multi optional not a single choice poll then the rules are different)
Agree- Yeah for neo-torture. 28 19.31%

Interpret what you will from the numbers, I don't think my cedibility is in danger for reporting what is in black and white.

Agree- Yeah for neo-torture. 28 19.31%

Interpret what you will from the numbers, I don't think my cedibility is in danger for reporting what is in black and white.
That is percent voted not people in agreement … there is a difference sorry if you cant see that but I am sure others will

... need I remind you is why his ass is at Getmo in the first place.Plz do remind me, why was Mr Habib Illegaly Kidnapped? What is he acused of? Why was he tortured in Egipt ..and sexually asaulted for 3 years? and why was he set free?

let me guess...Your brain says we are allowed to torture him.

after all...Thats why we created camp X-rays (not on US soil*sarcasm*) in a legal blackhole

All US bases,embassies and consulates are considered to be US soil, same with other countries. What are you talking about?

Did they?

Their credit cards were used to make payments at one location of ill-repute.

Call me old fashioned but I think torture should involve pliers, hammers, soldering irons, high voltage/low amperage electricity, and knitting needles. This "torture by sex" thing is kind of weak.

All US bases,embassies and consulates are considered to be US soil, same with other countries. What are you talking about?"legal blackhole"

...if you dont have I clue what am I talking about... use Yahoo
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22legal+blackhole%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

if you dont like yahoo, use google
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22legal+blackhole%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Their credit cards were used to make payments at one location of ill-repute.
This is a fact, or pure speculation?

Damn it, I am thinking of making a few bomb threats to see if I can get sent down to gitmo for a week or two and get "interrogated" a few times. Sounds like a party, not tourture. :D

This is a fact, or pure speculation?
Actually I'd heard that as well.

Call me old fashioned but I think torture should involve pliers, hammers, soldering irons, high voltage/low amperage electricity, and knitting needles. This "torture by sex" thing is kind of weak.Mr Habib says he was Tortured your way...for a couple of years...

when all that did not work...they tried Sexual assault...when that did not work...he was set free.

Actually I'd heard that as well.
I've heard lots of things in my life, and I would be a fool to believe all that I have heard as being truthful.

Hear say doesn't work in a court of law.

Torture me please.

One person's terrorist is the nest persons freedom fighter

Unfortunately, if you care anything about your own self, sympathy for the devil doesn't work out that great. It just encourages him.

undercover like, CIA, mossad, NSA, SpecialOps et all

Yeah except the CIA doesn't indiscriminately kill people, contrary to poular belief, Special OPS don't target non-combatants, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. :D

"legal blackhole"

...if you dont have I clue what am I talking about... use Yahoo
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22legal+blackhole%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

if you dont like yahoo, use google
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22legal+blackhole%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

You do know legal blackhole means the loopsholes their being held on and not the actual location of the base itself right?

"Never have I been so sick to be an American.... "

Well get the hell over it! They've captured GI Joe!

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394213

This means WAR! Um ... no wait, we're already at war. Ok then, more war! ;)

You do know legal blackhole means the loopsholes their being held on and not the actual location of the base itself right?
No i dint know that, I though the word BlackHole was the name of a town in Cuba.

"Blackhole City" or something like that.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

To my mind it's blatently dishonest to sign a treaty if you dont intend to honour it, ratification or otherwise. In fact why be a signitory to a treaty you wont ratify.

The alledged treatment of these people is contrary to conventions the US has signed. Of course we could all just assume the US's promises/assurances are not worth the paper they are written on. Hang on, I almost forgot, Bushgate already provides plenty of reasons to consider the US's assurances are not worth squat...

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The US signed a treaty that includes the quote above and the US should honour treaties that the US chose to sign.

OGHHH NOOOOOOESSSSS!!!1!!1one NOT T3H LAP DANEC. TAHTS TOO M3AN.

What kind of sucker would pay for a lap dance after a story like this breaks? A communist is who!

The U.S. follows it and if somone (an individual who has free will) doesn't they are punished.

Try again.

The U.S. follows it and if somone (an individual who has free will) doesn't they are punished.

Try again.
Follows what?

I'm somewhat confused as to who's comments this is in reply to... :confused:

Follows the sucker whom would pay for a lap dance ... cos he must be a pinko-commie... or something like that... :confused:

The alledged treatment of these people is contrary to conventions the US has signed. Of course we could all just assume the US's promises/assurances are not worth the paper they are written on. Hang on, I almost forgot, Bushgate already provides plenty of reasons to consider the US's assurances are not worth squat...


1. Last I checked, putting red ink on someone's face wasn't torture.

2. I assume the documents you are talking about are the Geneva Convention, which states that only enemies wearing a visible uniform of a warring nation are subject to torture rules. These terrorists are neither bona fide soldiers of a soverign nation, nor were they wearing any uniforms. Therefore, no treaties have been broken.

1. Last I checked, putting red ink on someone's face wasn't torture.
Actually the act was done in a manner of cruelty, and no one I know doesnt find smearing red ink on someone's face and saying it is menstrual blood, not to be unusual. I gather it wasnt done to as a kind or neutral act, but with the sole intention of being punitive. Punishing via cruel and unusual acts, most certainly satisfies the requirements of torture so far as I am concerned. Regardless more than this is allegded to have occured. Much of what is described most certainly falls under torture, as does any act of sexual aggression, carried out for the punitive, revenge or similar purposes.

2. I assume the documents you are talking about are the Geneva Convention, which states that only enemies wearing a visible uniform of a warring nation are subject to torture rules. These terrorists are neither bona fide soldiers of a soverign nation, nor were they wearing any uniforms. Therefore, no treaties have been broken.
Then you assume wrong.

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Narry a word regarding uniforms, warring nations etc...

Follows what?

I'm somewhat confused as to who's comments this is in reply to... :confused:
The Geneva Convention

If you think that is concerned ith your comment, then it is.

The Geneva Convention

If you think that is concerned ith your comment, then it is.
I dont (think it is relevent to my comments).