NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that there have been many threads about this issue, and many have been based on innuendo, opinion, and contoversey. Some are based on de-classified information, and others are based on Red Cross reports, etc.

My simple question is:

Just what is the US hiding in Guantanamo Bay?

Before the flaming begins, consider the following:

UN officials want to visit Guantanamo Bay (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1119539351282_114948551?s_name=&no_ads=)

U.N. human rights investigators, citing "persistent and credible" reports of torture at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, urged the United States on Thursday to allow them to check conditions there.

This is NOT the first such request by the UN:

The failure of the United States to respond to requests since early 2002 is leading the experts to conclude Washington has something to hide at the Cuban base, said Manfred Nowak, a specialist on torture and a professor of human rights law in Vienna, Austria.

Something that is also notworthy is this observation:

In an April meeting, U.S. officials refused to guarantee the right to speak to detainees in private — an "absolute precondition" for such a visit, Nowak said.

Here we have a situation, whereby prisoners are being held without any rights to due process, have not been formally charged with anything, and will be further denied access to an "outside" party. Although some have been released, it makes one wonder how they ended up in Guantanamo Bay in the first place.

The very fact that these detainees are not even afforded the rights provided for under the Geneva Conventions, indicate that sinister forces are at work.

This stonewalling by the US government, to allow UN access, reeks of a hidden agenda and fuels the horror stories that have been brought to light.

Just what is the US hiding in Guantanamo Bay?


Delicious Port Wine cheese .... shhhhhhhhhhhhh!

bring crackers

Delicious Port Wine cheese .... shhhhhhhhhhhhh!

bring crackers
Ahhh a wine and cheese party c/w with crackers.LOL

Just what is the US hiding in Guantanamo Bay?
Were planning to move Area 51 there, the 'terrorists' are actually alien mole-people who were using to dig the tunnels.

This remidns me of an Arsenio Hall skit I saw somewhere...

Just what is the US hiding in Guantanamo Bay?


We're actually hiding our secret stockpile of Hustler, twenty-two gallons of liquid Cadmium, and all those hard-to-find spare parts for classic cars and airplanes.

Hope that answers your question.

Super-intelligent super-human flying monkey soldiers!!!!

I think they are hiding the real Bush administration that have been cloned by the evil Paul Wolfowitz to achieve his PNAC dreams! Ya, ya, that's the ticket!

OR

It could be people they suspect of terrorism or connections to terrorists.

Not sure which theory has more credibility though..lol :D

The very fact that these detainees are not even afforded the rights provided for under the Geneva Conventions, indicate that sinister forces are at work.

Or maybe it indicates that they don't fall under the geneva conventions.

Or maybe it indicates that they don't fall under the geneva conventions.
They still fall under Human Rights conventions.

Or maybe it indicates that they don't fall under the geneva conventions.
Every prisonar taken by US millitary falls under it, the US itself signed the convention and violates it now. A "non" POW does not exist..

Every prisonar taken by US millitary falls under it, the US itself signed the convention and violates it now. A "non" POW does not exist..

Ding, Ding, Ding!

We have a winner. He's 100% correct. Most of these "prisoners" were taken out of Afghanistan and were fighting for the government of the Taliban. The USA and most countries didn't recognize them as the legit government you say? Oh really? Than why did our dear Mr Bush Jr. give them all those millions when he first took office for helping clean up the drug trade? Because Bush knew damn well recognized or not, that they were the ruling government of Afghanistan! Thus they are all POW's.. and if you don't like that argument, then you could just fall back on the fact that it was Bush himself who "declared" war on terrorism, Bush gave them solider status by declaring war on them. Sorry, enemy combatants is just a play on words. They are most certainly POW's.

Calling them anything else is simply trying to rationalize the reality of the situation.

Or maybe it indicates that they don't fall under the geneva conventions.
And the US government really, really, really did not want these detainees to have any rights whatsoever. Being a civilized country, that promotes democracy, one would think that the US would want to give these detainees the bare minimum of rights as per the Geneva Conventions?

Every prisonar taken by US millitary falls under it, the US itself signed the convention and violates it now. A "non" POW does not exist..
This is the important underbelly of this whole controversey. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

They're hiding me from you.



















































They're not doing too good of a job though.

What about Diego Garcia now? Some reporters have suggested there might be a detention center there (citing photos from commercial imaging satellites).

What about Diego Garcia now? Some reporters have suggested there might be a detention center there (citing photos from commercial imaging satellites).
What news do you have? I really have never heard of this facility, other than from the information I am getting from a Google search.

BTW, from what I can see, Diego Garcia, means ""Footprint of Freedom". I think it would also be difficult to support a detention centre there considering the following:

"Personnel transferring to Diego Garcia should attend to any medical or dental problems which require surgical treatment prior to departing their last duty station. Because the clinic is only equipped to treat general medical conditions.......

If a medical emergency condition develops which the Branch Medical or Dental Clinics are incapable of treating, the patient will be air evacuated to Singapore."

What about Diego Garcia now? Some reporters have suggested there might be a detention center there (citing photos from commercial imaging satellites).

Just like the reporters said that a Koran was flushed down a toilet at Gitmo? And how did that turn out to be? A humiliating blow to whatever dirt throwing 'reporter' it was that wrote it, 11 lives were lost due to his poor fact checking and relying heavily on an 'un-named source', and it all proved to be wrong in the end. I see this situation mirroring. Reports (like the one in this thread) will beat around the bush, but fail to give any cold facts of 'torture' and 'misconduct' at Gitmo, and why? Becuase there have been no credible allegations of it! Its a detention center, it is designed to hold detanees who post a major threat to US interests during war-time, until a more stable time, where they can be properly tried for war crimes.

Isn't it obvious? They're hiding Elvis down there, Las Vegas just got to commercial for him.

Its a detention center, it is designed to hold detanees who post a major threat to US interests during war-time, until a more stable time, where they can be properly tried for war crimes.

The only problem playing the game that way is that the whole point of a war on something as nebulous as 'terrorism' is that the 'more stable time' you speak of will never actually be reached. Certainly not during the tenure of the seated President.

How much more 'stable' do things have to be before these alleged war criminals have their day in court? I haven't noticed any uprisings...

I have no idea what is done there. For some reason, the news doesn't seem to be talking about it a whole deal, especially where I live being that I live in a red state (bleh [Nothing against conservatives/Republicans, I swear!]).

However, if I do hear something and actually find out what is down there, I'll be happy to give the answer. That, unfortunately,...is a big "if".

Just like the reporters said that a Koran was flushed down a toilet at Gitmo? And how did that turn out to be? A humiliating blow to whatever dirt throwing 'reporter' it was that wrote it, 11 lives were lost due to his poor fact checking and relying heavily on an 'un-named source', and it all proved to be wrong in the end. I see this situation mirroring.
Actually the Pentagon has admitted that there were "abuses" of the Koran, so it didn't "all prove to be wrong in the end", as you suggest.

Reports (like the one in this thread) will beat around the bush, but fail to give any cold facts of 'torture' and 'misconduct' at Gitmo, and why? Becuase there have been no credible allegations of it!
This article is straight forward. The UN has been denied access to Guantanamo over the past 3 years, despite repeated requests to visit the facility. If everything is above board, then why has the US refused these requests?

Its a detention center, it is designed to hold detanees who post a major threat to US interests during war-time, until a more stable time, where they can be properly tried for war crimes.
And how long do these detainees have to wait for a "more stable time"? Two years, 3 years, more? Put yourself in their shoes? You have been detained indefinitely without ANY rights whatsoever even though you haven't been formally charged with a crime. You support this form of treatment?

Isn't it obvious? They're hiding Elvis down there, Las Vegas just got to commercial for him.
No, the real Elvis is held up at a retirement home sharing stories with JFK and keeping it safe from an Egyptian mummy. I would check your sources before reporting them.

@ CanuckHeaven

I hate to tell you, but yes, the 'Koran being flushed down the toilet', as I said, did prove to be a hoax. Both the pentagon, Gitmo officials, and the 'reporter' himself admitted that sources were mixed and the entire murderous article fell through. He issued an apology to the victims for his poor reporting skills.

And no, the article is not straight forward. They do tell of the UNs agenda and persistant heckling of the US to view the site, but they give no credible information that actual misconduct is taking place. It is also a security issue, seeing that a report of the UN's nature would immediatly be made public, jeopardizing sensative information being attained at the facility.

It is up to the insurgents and their organization of terror to decide when these people are put on trial. The war will continue until the Iraqi people are able to handle the state themselves. Like Bush said today, there can be no 'timetables' like all you liberals would hope for. This simply allows them to lay low, wait it out, and strike back with vengence at the populace.

First of all, they are recieving the highest grade of Human Rights, and no one thus far has been able to disprove that. This facility is giving us life-saving information. Heres a direct quote from D. Rumsfeld in an interview discussing Guantanamo conditions. ( http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050621-secdef3102.html )

"What are we learning from them? Well, we're learning a lot. One of them was the 20th hijacker, everyone is convinced of. But we've learned a great deal about al-Qaida's terrorist network and its presence in Europe, the U.S., the Middle East, their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, their methods of recruitment, their terrorist skill sets, we've learned a great deal through the interrogation process which has been humane."

It is a breach of security and a breach of our rights. The UN has no right to go in and investigate a top-secret facility without having the slightest bit of incriminating evidence, and then after, release a public document that would disclose case sensative information.

@ CanuckHeaven

I hate to tell you, but yes, the 'Koran being flushed down the toilet', as I said, did prove to be a hoax. Both the pentagon, Gitmo officials, and the 'reporter' himself admitted that sources were mixed and the entire murderous article fell through. He issued an apology to the victims for his poor reporting skills.

But abuses were occuring at the site. Yes, the Quran was not abused in that manner but it and prisoners were abused.

And no, the article is not straight forward. They do tell of the UNs agenda and persistant heckling of the US to view the site, but they give no credible information that actual misconduct is taking place. It is also a security issue, seeing that a report of the UN's nature would immediatly be made public, jeopardizing sensative information being attained at the facility.

Bull. The UN wants into Guantanamo Bay to check up on the treatment of prisoners who have been kept there without trial for over 3 years now. After what happened at Abu-Grabe prison, can you really blame them? The US should allow inspectors in. If they have nothing to hide, there shouldn't be a problem. Looks like they do. What abuses have the American public not been made aware of?

It is up to the insurgents and their organization of terror to decide when these people are put on trial. The war will continue until the Iraqi people are able to handle the state themselves. Like Bush said today, there can be no 'timetables' like all you liberals would hope for. This simply allows them to lay low, wait it out, and strike back with vengence at the populace.

No, it is up to the US government to give these people a trial. There will be violence in Afghanistan and Iraq for as long as there are US troops there. It's a fact of life. It is an immoral abuse of people that these people are held without trial. "But!" you say, "They're terrorists."

Well I say prove it. If these people are truly terrorists, then put them on trial and proove it. Until then, you have no good reason to hold them without trial.



It is a breach of security and a breach of our rights. The UN has no right to go in and investigate a top-secret facility without having the slightest bit of incriminating evidence, and then after, release a public document that would disclose case sensative information.

And the US has no right to hold these people without trial or charges. We're still doing it. There are many reasons to find the brickwalling of investigation, especially after evidence of abuse has been revealed in front of the senate, very disturbing. The US needs to let a non-biased source moniter the facility and report on abuses. It is a good question, what does our government have to hide?

"Just what is the US hiding in Guantanamo Bay?"

Well, ya see ... there's this huge pile of entrails that we pulled out of the detainees that we'd rather not have the overly solicitous human rights organizations get wind of. We've been trying our best to incinerate them, but there's such a huge pile! Sigh. Oh, the burdens of being a superpower! Tsk. :D

What our government has to hide is information. Who knows what could happen if it leaks. Also nowhere has the pentagon say directly that prisoners were being abused. That would amount to admission of torture, and if that was true, I could maybe see a reason for allowing such a dangerous investigation.

I would like to know what 'evidence of abuse' was revealed in front of the senate. Would it be possible to pull up a manuscript from the adress? After the "To liberal Dick Durban Incident", anything presented infront of the senate should be carefully disected. (Im very shameful to be from Illinois right now)

They are waiting trial. Just because the public does know of any charges, doesnt mean that no charges have been brought against them. As for a court date, I think theres a long waiting list for suspected terrorists.

And I would hardly call the UN a 'non-biased' source, seeing that they are the most powerful anti-American anti-terrorist group. I would hardly call them non-biased. We are launching several investigations of our own, and Im sorry if thats not good enough for you, but for now, it will have to do. You have no right to investigate with nothing more than a hunch.

As for your little X-files cliff hanger 'what do they have to hide'. Its secret information, same reason that you cant walk into the pentagon, or any other detanement facility operated by the US for that matter.

@ CanuckHeaven

I hate to tell you, but yes, the 'Koran being flushed down the toilet', as I said, did prove to be a hoax. Both the pentagon, Gitmo officials, and the 'reporter' himself admitted that sources were mixed and the entire murderous article fell through. He issued an apology to the victims for his poor reporting skills.
Yet there was an admission by the Pentagon regarding improprieties with the Koran (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050603/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_koran_dc), whether that is the full truth, God only knows.

And no, the article is not straight forward. They do tell of the UNs agenda and persistant heckling of the US to view the site, but they give no credible information that actual misconduct is taking place. It is also a security issue, seeing that a report of the UN's nature would immediatly be made public, jeopardizing sensative information being attained at the facility.
I like your coice of the word "heckling", as if the UN is wrong for asking permission to view the facilities at Guantanamo, which date to before there was the abuse stories at Abu Gharib in Iraq.

Also, what kind of "sensitive information" would the UN be releasing to the public? If everything is ship shape and above board, then the US should have no qualms about allowing an UN inspection of the facility, and in a timely fashion? To continually delay these requests would suggest that sinister forces are at work?

It is up to the insurgents and their organization of terror to decide when these people are put on trial. The war will continue until the Iraqi people are able to handle the state themselves. Like Bush said today, there can be no 'timetables' like all you liberals would hope for. This simply allows them to lay low, wait it out, and strike back with vengence at the populace.
No, I disagree with you. IF the people the US is holding have committed criminal acts, then they should be formally charged and tried in a proper manner instead of keeping them in a perpetual state of limbo.

First of all, they are recieving the highest grade of Human Rights, and no one thus far has been able to disprove that.
Actually, other reports suggest otherwise.

"What are we learning from them? Well, we're learning a lot. One of them was the 20th hijacker, everyone is convinced of. But we've learned a great deal about al-Qaida's terrorist network and its presence in Europe, the U.S., the Middle East, their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, their methods of recruitment, their terrorist skill sets, we've learned a great deal through the interrogation process which has been humane."
Which has been "humane" as far as you know, which does not automatically make it true.

It is a breach of security and a breach of our rights. The UN has no right to go in and investigate a top-secret facility without having the slightest bit of incriminating evidence, and then after, release a public document that would disclose case sensative information.
A breach of YOUR rights? That is a fine choice of words. How about the rights of those being detained who have not been formally charged with a crime and are arguably being tortured?

And I think the UN has every right to ask for inspection privileges, and if there is nothing to hide, they should be granted forthwith.

and u dare to call me a terrorist while u look down your guns, and as i think of all the deeds that you have done. you have plundered many nations, divided many lands, you have terrorised my people, you ruled with an iron hand and you brought this reign of terror to my land. (sorry couldnt help a good rebel tune)

Also, what kind of "sensitive information" would the UN be releasing to the public? If everything is ship shape and above board, then the US should have no qualms about allowing an UN inspection of the facility, and in a timely fashion? To continually delay these requests would suggest that sinister forces are at work?

Information regarding future attacks against the US/Europe, insurgents in/out of US, location of biological/WoMD. There are many pieces of information that we can not afford to be leaked becuase of an failed UN attempt to find evidence of misconduct at Gitmo.

Actually, other reports suggest otherwise.

No credible documents have been made indicating direct prisoner abuse.

Also, what kind of "sensitive information" would the UN be releasing to the public? If everything is ship shape and above board, then the US should have no qualms about allowing an UN inspection of the facility, and in a timely fashion? To continually delay these requests would suggest that sinister forces are at work?

We do not know that they are being held without charges.

Which has been "humane" as far as you know, which does not automatically make it true.

Well thats a pretty naive statement.

A breach of YOUR rights? That is a fine choice of words. How about the rights of those being detained who have not been formally charged with a crime and are arguably being tortured?

And I think the UN has every right to ask for inspection privileges, and if there is nothing to hide, they should be granted forthwith.

I said it once, and Ill say it again. Why dont you walk into the Pentagon and ask to view some files becuase you have a 'hunch' that the US government is up to no good, but no real tangible evidence. Will they let you in? I think not. Why? Same reason. A report of the investigation will be made public, leaking secret information.

No, it is up to the US government to give these people a trial. There will be violence in Afghanistan and Iraq for as long as there are US troops there. It's a fact of life. It is an immoral abuse of people that these people are held without trial. "But!" you say, "They're terrorists."

Well I say prove it. If these people are truly terrorists, then put them on trial and proove it. Until then, you have no good reason to hold them without trial.

Most of the people being held there are Taliban soldiers and Iraqi soldiers that fought in Saddam Hussein's regime. They aren't terrorists for the most part.

Information regarding future attacks against the US/Europe, insurgents in/out of US, location of biological/WoMD. There are many pieces of information that we can not afford to be leaked becuase of an failed UN attempt to find evidence of misconduct at Gitmo.
The UN is not looking for that kind of sensitive information. And again, I love your choice of words. You already presume that the UN would "fail" in an attempt to find evidence of abuse.

No credible documents have been made indicating direct prisoner abuse.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1130

http://www.arikiart.com/blog/2004/12/a_few_bad_apples.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501395.html

http://www.uhrp.org/issues/uyghurs_in_guantanamo/news__1/red_cross_finds_detainee_abuse_in_guant_namo

We do not know that they are being held without charges.
Apparently we know that they are being held without rights:

"Guantanamo Bay is an international embarrassment to our nation, to our ideals, and it remains a festering threat to our security," Leahy said.

"Our great country, America, was once viewed as a leader in human rights and the rule of law, and justly so. Guantanamo has undermined our leadership, has damaged our credibility, has drained the world's goodwill for America at an alarming rate," Leahy added.

Critics have decried the indefinite detention of Guantanamo prisoners, whom the United States has denied rights accorded under the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war.

Well thats a pretty naive statement.
I think the naiveté would be on your part? Do you automatically believe everything that the government tells you?

I said it once, and Ill say it again. Why dont you walk into the Pentagon and ask to view some files becuase you have a 'hunch' that the US government is up to no good, but no real tangible evidence. Will they let you in? I think not. Why? Same reason. A report of the investigation will be made public, leaking secret information.
I have no right to view any files, but I do believe that the UN has the right to visit Guantanamo. Bottom line here is that I do believe that the US has something to hide and that is why the requests by the UN have been denied. The longer that the situation is left unchecked, the greater the public outcry will be. And BTW, I do agree with the comments made by Senator Leahy.

The Government isnt "hiding" anything on Gitmo.

What they are doing, is mentally torturing, if not physically, prisoners of war, wich they say do not fall under Geneva Conventions, and therefore, have no rights as such, against thier will.

Why are they doing this?

Becuase these men just may have knowledge of where other Al-Qaeda training camps, safe-holes, supplies, etc, may be.

These men are religious fanatics, wich in some ways just like the Christian Right, and willing not willingly give up this information, and therefore, it must be tortured out of them.

Becuase they are not labeled as P.O.W.'s, that means that they dont have to be given trials, or set free.
They are quite simply, going to be there until someone lets them go home, or until they die, or commit suicide.
They wont be given a fair trial, or any other rights we enjoy as citizens.

Why is this bad?

We are in the midst of a losing battle in Iraq, to bring to them, or so we say, Democracy and "freedom".
Yet, we are not giving the same "gift" to those people on our own soil.
(Yes, all American military bases are considered American soil, regardless of where they actually are)

We are imposing our goverment militarily to a country that would rather not have it, and also denying that very same thing to people we capture.

When was the last time somthing similar to this happened, and it went poorly from there?

Oh yes, thats right.

It was Poland, 1938.

Now we hear about torture at Gitmo.

Nice.

Fuck you Bush, for making me feel sorry for terrorist scum.

How any of us can support Bush and his pals, is beyond sanity.

WMDs, of course! :p
(just kidding)

It's a military outpost on what was once the territory of what is now *the* thorn in America's side. I wouldn't want any information of what's going on in there leaking to the Cubans if I was in charge. But that's just a minor point.
A big thing is prestige. The Bush administration is unwilling to admit the UN to Guantanamo because their staunchest supporters hate it so much. I doubt human rights violations as bad as Abu Ghraib occur in Guantanamo, but in the past, there may have been some "aggressive" interogations, especially shortly after the first islamic prisoners came in. I'm willing to believe that any such actions are punished now, but I'm a bit skeptical about the past.
Nevertheless, the biggest problem the international community (or at least our allies) has is that there doesn't seem to be any rule of law concerning the verification of arrests. The fact that there's no transparency is why the UN wants to go, it might even help America's image.

We are in the midst of a losing battle in Iraq, to bring to them, or so we say, Democracy and "freedom".
Yet, we are not giving the same "gift" to those people on our own soil.
(Yes, all American military bases are considered American soil, regardless of where they actually are)

I would hardly call the removal of a genocidal dictator, first free elections in half a decade, and the development of a self-sufficient self-protecting free state a 'losing battle'. And I think the terrorits void there rights when they enter the plan to be the 20th 9/11 hijacker.

We are imposing our goverment militarily to a country that would rather not have it

No. That statement is wildly untrue. The Iraqi people have time and time again been exremely appreciative of the US and coalitions efforts in Iraq. They are very thankful for the protection and training they are recieving, and saying that they would rather have Saddam in power than a free state is an absurd statement.

When was the last time somthing similar to this happened, and it went poorly from there?

Oh yes, thats right.

It was Poland, 1938.

Dem Dick Durban paid dearly for his comparison of US soldiers to Nazis, and I think you sould think twice before you do so.

Critics have decried the indefinite detention of Guantanamo prisoners, whom the United States has denied rights accorded under the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war.

I think "critics" is the key word there. Who are these critics might I ask? The ACLU perhaps? So much for the non-biased approach.

Security above all else is the appropriate approach at this time. The US is a a pivital time in our war against terror and a report of this nature would be disasterous.

... And I think the terrorits void there rights when they enter the plan to be the 20th 9/11 hijacker...

Have you noticed how many 20th hijackers there are?

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/005061.html

http://www.rantingprofs.com/rantingprofs/2005/05/the_20th_hijack.htmlhttp:

http://www.therationalradical.com/dsep/1001/zacarias-moussaoui.htm

I found all of these on the first two pages of a google search.

Stalin tried the same trick, claiming that Trotsky was hiding in any country he wanted people to hate. ;)

Thats what the wildly biased 'talkleft' would want you to think ;)

I would hardly call the removal of a genocidal dictator, first free elections in half a decade, and the development of a self-sufficient self-protecting free state a 'losing battle'. And I think the terrorits void there rights when they enter the plan to be the 20th 9/11 hijacker.
Many people see Iraq as a "losing battle". The elections wre not totally "free", and who are you to deny anyone their human rights?

No. That statement is wildly untrue. The Iraqi people have time and time again been exremely appreciative of the US and coalitions efforts in Iraq. They are very thankful for the protection and training they are recieving, and saying that they would rather have Saddam in power than a free state is an absurd statement.
Somehow, you have totally twisted Backwoods statement and proferred your own views, which is okay if you can back them up with some proof?

Dem Dick Durban paid dearly for his comparison of US soldiers to Nazis, and I think you sould think twice before you do so.
Backwoods drew an allusion, not a direct comparison. As far as Dick Durban is concerned, he did apologize, and whether you accept that fact or not rests solely with you.

I think "critics" is the key word there. Who are these critics might I ask? The ACLU perhaps? So much for the non-biased approach.
Can you refute the findings of the ACLU? If you can, then it might help your argument?

Security above all else is the appropriate approach at this time. The US is a a pivital time in our war against terror and a report of this nature would be disasterous.
Why would it be disastrous, if as you say, they (the detainees), "are recieving the highest grade of Human Rights"? Nothing to hide, right?

Thats what the wildly biased 'talkleft' would want you to think ;)
Actually, the article originated with the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A33616-2004Jan20&notFound=true).

I say that the U S is not being quite hard enough on the terrorist who have killed more than 3,000 people on the own soil.
When our people were being held in gulags and camps, our captors had no qualms at all about keeping us in constant trror and deprivation.
What is with all these liberal weenies who think we treat our prisoners to harse when the are treated better than prisoners in our own penitenturies and prisons.
Come on people, whats with all the whining?
the prisoners there get treated better there than the nationals in Cuba!

I say that the U S is not being quite hard enough on the terrorist who have killed more than 3,000 people on the own soil.
When our people were being held in gulags and camps, our captors had no qualms at all about keeping us in constant trror and deprivation.
What is with all these liberal weenies who think we treat our prisoners to harse when the are treated better than prisoners in our own penitenturies and prisons.
Come on people, whats with all the whining?
the prisoners there get treated better there than the nationals in Cuba!
And this is what the liberals argue makes us better than the terrorists and is the only possible moral justification for a war on terror.

:mad: :mad: grrrrrrrrrrrwhy wouldnt they be????? who do you think you are asking about peoples personal business you should be ashamed of yurself :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Or maybe it indicates that they don't fall under the geneva conventions.


they were picked up in a war zone, they might have been bystanders but at worst they are POWs, saying they arnt real POWs just because they didnt go through an official national armed service is barmy, it like saying its ok for me to shoot you because I define you to be a deer, and its ok to shoot deer right?

I say that the U S is not being quite hard enough on the terrorist who have killed more than 3,000 people on the own soil.
When our people were being held in gulags and camps, our captors had no qualms at all about keeping us in constant trror and deprivation.
What is with all these liberal weenies who think we treat our prisoners to harse when the are treated better than prisoners in our own penitenturies and prisons.
Come on people, whats with all the whining?
the prisoners there get treated better there than the nationals in Cuba!


Ha, Cuba rocks they have the best public transport, the best social equality and the best doctor-patient ratio in the world, the only think that stops them becoming a truly prosperous nation in the US trade embargo, then the US have the nerve to say the reason cuba isn't succeeding is because of its "evil" "dictatorship" government. Bah humbug

Ha, Cuba rocks they have the best public transport, the best social equality and the best doctor-patient ratio in the world, the only think that stops them becoming a truly prosperous nation in the US trade embargo, then the US have the nerve to say the reason cuba isn't succeeding is because of its "evil" "dictatorship" government. Bah humbug
I've talked to a Mexican girl that says someone she knows complains that they've studied medicine and put a lot of work into becoming a good doctor, and yet they earn as much as the local quack.

I say that the U S is not being quite hard enough on the terrorist who have killed more than 3,000 people on the own soil.
I am not sure if you are making reference to 9/11, and if you are, then Iraqi detainees were not involved. Regardless, torture is wrong. Since they are POW's they should be treated according to the Geneva Conventions.

When our people were being held in gulags and camps, our captors had no qualms at all about keeping us in constant trror and deprivation.
Two wrongs make a right? Are you suggesting that the US should resort to the same level?

What is with all these liberal weenies who think we treat our prisoners to harse when the are treated better than prisoners in our own penitenturies and prisons.
Most people severely doubt that but if you have any proof, it would be nice if you shared it here?

Come on people, whats with all the whining?
the prisoners there get treated better there than the nationals in Cuba!
Again, if you have any proof, please present it here. Thanks.

I know that there have been many threads about this issue, and many have been based on innuendo, opinion, and contoversey. Some are based on de-classified information, and others are based on Red Cross reports, etc.

My simple question is:

Just what is the US hiding in Guantanamo Bay?

Before the flaming begins, consider the following:

UN officials want to visit Guantanamo Bay (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1119539351282_114948551?s_name=&no_ads=)

U.N. human rights investigators, citing "persistent and credible" reports of torture at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, urged the United States on Thursday to allow them to check conditions there.

This is NOT the first such request by the UN:

The failure of the United States to respond to requests since early 2002 is leading the experts to conclude Washington has something to hide at the Cuban base, said Manfred Nowak, a specialist on torture and a professor of human rights law in Vienna, Austria.

Something that is also notworthy is this observation:

In an April meeting, U.S. officials refused to guarantee the right to speak to detainees in private — an "absolute precondition" for such a visit, Nowak said.

Here we have a situation, whereby prisoners are being held without any rights to due process, have not been formally charged with anything, and will be further denied access to an "outside" party. Although some have been released, it makes one wonder how they ended up in Guantanamo Bay in the first place.

The very fact that these detainees are not even afforded the rights provided for under the Geneva Conventions, indicate that sinister forces are at work.

This stonewalling by the US government, to allow UN access, reeks of a hidden agenda and fuels the horror stories that have been brought to light.

Perhaps (looks left and right suspicously) they they're hiding something they don't want anyoneto see? I think they caught Bin Laiden years ago and are just slowly torturing him, and Al Queada think he's dead but are always living in hope.

What is with all these liberal weenies who think we treat our prisoners to harse when the are treated better than prisoners in our own penitenturies and prisons.

Most people severely doubt that but if you have any proof, it would be nice if you shared it here?

Does being beaten for weeks, starved, and tortured, being bound and shown on live TV screaming last words to your family back home 'I love you' while 3 men are sawing and hacking through your neck with a rusty blade while chanting "allah is great!", and then degrade and deface your corpse sound better than 3 meals a day, a bed, a holy book, a room full of friends, and a shelter?

I am not sure if you are making reference to 9/11, and if you are, then Iraqi detainees were not involved. Regardless, torture is wrong. Since they are POW's they should be treated according to the Geneva Conventions.

They may have well been involved in 9/11, directly or indirectly. It also houses other terrorists that are not affiliated with any organization, according to Rumsfeld

Why would it be disastrous, if as you say, they (the detainees), "are recieving the highest grade of Human Rights"? Nothing to hide, right?

Again, ill say it for the last time. The UN would be forced legally to make a public statement and report. The UN currently, and rightfully so, is bound by no restrictions as to what information it can and can not leak. Information that they may release could be disasterous, and that is a move that the administration can not afford to make.

Every prisonar taken by US millitary falls under it, the US itself signed the convention and violates it now. A "non" POW does not exist..

Clear like a mountainsource, says enough.

Does being beaten for weeks, starved, and tortured, being bound and shown on live TV screaming last words to your family back home 'I love you' while 3 men are sawing and hacking through your neck with a rusty blade while chanting "allah is great!", and then degrade and deface your corpse sound better than 3 meals a day, a bed, a holy book, a room full of friends, and a shelter?
Ah, the extreme view point? Yup, some of these terrorists are bad dudes for sure, and if the US ever catches one of these dudes, what will be their punishment?

You make Guantanamo sound like a regular valhalla. after the stories that I have read, I surely doubt it.

They may have well been involved in 9/11, directly or indirectly.
Iraqis were not involved in 9/11.

It also houses other terrorists that are not affiliated with any organization, according to Rumsfeld
So they are "freedom fighters"?

Again, ill say it for the last time. The UN would be forced legally to make a public statement and report. The UN currently, and rightfully so, is bound by no restrictions as to what information it can and can not leak. Information that they may release could be disasterous, and that is a move that the administration can not afford to make.
You can repeat it over and over (Bush's favourite tactic) and it won't change my question to you:

"Why would it be disastrous, if as you say, they (the detainees), "are recieving the highest grade of Human Rights"? Nothing to hide, right?"

You seem to keep contradicting yourself suggesting that the detainees are treated well, yet you suggest that any report by the UN would somehow be "disastrous".

Elvis.