NationStates Jolt Archive

my comment: It was about time.

7 minutes ago
GENEVA (AFP) -
United Nations experts said the United States must shut down its Guantanamo Bay detention centre without delay and release or try its inmates, a call immediately rejected by Washington.

The demand came in a report by five independent experts who act as monitors for the UN Human Rights Commission.

"The United States government should close the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities without further delay," it said.

The 54-page document charged that US treatment of the more than 500 "war on terror" detainees held in legal limbo at the naval base in Cuba violated their rights to physical and mental health and in some cases amounted to torture.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060216/wl_afp/usattacksunguantanamo_060216173137;_ylt=AiPL1xf006poCZ1MVzw4.ww3NiUi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJV RPUCUl

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Guantanamo_Detainees

McClellan dismissed the report as a "rehash" of allegations previously made by lawyers for some detainees and said the military treats all prisoners humanely.

"We know that al-Qaida terrorists are trained in trying to disseminate false allegations," McClellan said.

The report, summarizing an investigation by five U.N. experts who did not visit Guantanamo, said photographic evidence and testimony of former prisoners showed that detainees were shackled, chained, hooded and beaten if they resisted.



In a response included at the end of the report, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. offices in Geneva said investigators had taken little account of evidence against the abuse allegations provided by the United States and had rejected an invitation to visit Guantanamo.

"It is particularly unfortunate that the special rapporteurs rejected the invitation and that their unedited report does not reflect the direct, personal knowledge that this visit would have provided," ambassador Kevin Moley wrote.

Apologists: You may begin talking about hearsay and misrepresenting the position and character of the Human Rights Commission now.

And you think GW gives a sh-t about international law because................?

I personally don't give a shit what anyone "thinks" (I use the term loosely) we should do.

If you don't like what the US is doing, then you have three choices.


Cut off all ties with the US
Declare war on us
Shut the fuck up

In a response included at the end of the report, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. offices in Geneva said investigators had taken little account of evidence against the abuse allegations provided by the United States and had rejected an invitation to visit Guantanamo.

"It is particularly unfortunate that the special rapporteurs rejected the invitation and that their unedited report does not reflect the direct, personal knowledge that this visit would have provided," ambassador Kevin Moley wrote.
They rejected visiting because they would be given a set tour and would not be allowed to talk with prisoners. Something that China allows when their jails are inspected.

I personally don't give a shit what anyone "thinks" (I use the term loosely) we should do.

If you don't like what the US is doing, then you have three choices.


Cut off all ties with the US
Declare war on us
Shut the fuck up


Or: 4. Criticise in an attempt to diplomatically resolve problems.

Apologists: You may begin talking about hearsay and misrepresenting the position and character of the Human Rights Commission now.
Do you mean apologists for terrorism, or America? :confused:

Basically that facility shows the US to be morally bankrupt. It has no credibility with me as far as "values" are concerned, because it has failed to live up to them.

I personally don't give a shit what anyone "thinks" (I use the term loosely) we should do.

If you don't like what the US is doing, then you have three choices.


Cut off all ties with the US
Declare war on us
Shut the fuck up


What about the other choices? Fly planes into your buildings; Kill your troops; Kidnap your citizens while overseas. I wonder who'll be whining "the whole world hates America" next week?

Basically that facility shows the US to be morally bankrupt. It has no credibility with me as far as "values" are concerned, because it has failed to live up to them.

Pfft. That happened with American Idol.

Torture camp? Guantanamo Bay is a luxury hotel compared to any MidEast prison.

Or: 4. Criticise in an attempt to diplomatically resolve problems.
In order to do that with any positive outcome, you need to seperate yourselves from the "blame America for everything" crowd, something that has been proved impossible, therefor, not a viable choice.

Torture camp? Guantanamo Bay is a luxury hotel compared to any MidEast prison.
It's OK, America runs those too. :D

I personally don't give a shit what anyone "thinks" (I use the term loosely) we should do.

If you don't like what the US is doing, then you have three choices.


Cut off all ties with the US
Declare war on us
Shut the fuck up



/me thinks this is why people hate the US

/me wants to nuke this person

/me could so build a nuke if he wanted to

/me thinks this is why people hate the US
I gave up on caring who hates us a long time ago.

/me wants to nuke this person
We have more, go ahead and try it.:p

/me could so build a nuke if he wanted to
I already have one in my pants. :D

It's OK, America runs those too. :D

The US runs MidEast prisons? Not outside of Iraq. Or did you stumble across a secret?

The US runs MidEast prisons? Not outside of Iraq.
:D

people can hate on the US all they want, it doesn't change our status as the only superpower. :)

the UN can say what they want but the US can tell them to fuck off.

people can hate on the US all they want, it doesn't change our status as the only superpower. :)
.
Give India and China another few years or so...

While human rights allegations are, in my opinion, reason enough to shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, there are other reasons for shutting it down. A realpolitik perspective suggests that this camp is actually helping terrorists.

For example, approximately 80% of the detainees are not Taliban or Al-Qaeda fighters, and should be released.
( http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf )
That they have not been estranges the family and friends of these people. This, in turn, creates more sentiment against the USA and makes recruitement for Al-Qaeda that much easier. It also allows the insurgents to portray the USA as a corrupt, hypocritical, islamophobic and oppresive state that tortures and executes innocent people, regardless of the truth.

The detainees should be tried immediately. If they are acquitted, they should be released. If they are found guilty of terrorist activity, they should be punished, and held in a prison where people can see they are being humanely treated. Nothing else will win the hearts and minds of the people in the Middle East. The current situation is idiotic from a strategic point of view.

The US runs MidEast prisons? Not outside of Iraq. Or did you stumble across a secret?

The US now sends prisoners to Jordan and Egypt."special renditions" etc.

Give India and China another few years or so...


India would stand a decent chance until the US stops outsourcing to them, then their economy would fall apart

China would suffer the same fate on a different level: they are a production country . . . production countries lose funding when rich countries boycott the products they produce.

A fact about both countries: Their bulk of their population is too concentrated and too impoverished to establish a huge global presence outside of commerce in the immediate future.

Heh, the US isn't the only country doing the outsourcing. Eventually India and China will be able to survive without US business. Their economies are diversifying with every passing year.

Apologists: You may begin talking about hearsay and misrepresenting the position and character of the Human Rights Commission now.

Nigeria and pakistan are on it, so I'm guessing we should just tell them that the detainees are all actually women, and awaiting their 'honor' killing.

That should sort the whole thing out.

India would stand a decent chance until the US stops outsourcing to them, then their economy would fall apart

China would suffer the same fate on a different level: they are a production country . . . production countries lose funding when rich countries boycott the products they produce.

A fact about both countries: Their bulk of their population is too concentrated and too impoverished to establish a huge global presence outside of commerce in the immediate future.

Someone has a very Americo-centric view of both of these countries.

Yes the US is a good customer for these countries, yes they could survive-- even thrive without the US due to their reforms. In fact I would go as far as saying that cutting off economic contact with India and China would hurt the US much more than it would hurt either of the other two.

Cheers
Grantwold

In order to do that with any positive outcome, you need to seperate yourselves from the "blame America for everything" crowd, something that has been proved impossible, therefor, not a viable choice.

How does condemning torture and unlawful imprisonment equal blaming America for everything?

How does condemning torture and unlawful imprisonment equal blaming America for everything?

Much the same way pointing out Israeli snipers shoot school children makes you an anti-semite, or that saying Americans sodomising Afghani goatherds with a broomstick is of doubtful value means you "love Osama", I'd imagine.

The US runs MidEast prisons? Not outside of Iraq. Lets forget for a second that the US rents Torture camps from Egypt, Jordan, and others..

Lets Focus(for a second) on US runned Torture Camps in Iraq.
Ceia, (or other torture apologists) Would you care to comment on this pics.

*torture/blood warning*
http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/images/abu_ghraib_abuse.jpg
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Abu%20Ghraib

I agree. We should close the detention facility AND execute all the prisoners. We should not be taking any prisoners in the first place - instead of "detaining" enemies, we should shoot them on the spot. Unless they meet several conditions, namely they are carrying arms openly, having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Anyone engaging in acts of war against the US and not meeting ALL these criteria should be executed unless he immediately indicates that he wishes to share important information.

I agree. We should close the detention facility AND execute all the prisoners. We should not be taking any prisoners in the first place - instead of "detaining" enemies, we should shoot them on the spot. Unless they meet several conditions, namely they are carrying arms openly, having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Anyone engaging in acts of war against the US and not meeting ALL these criteria should be executed unless he immediately indicates that he wishes to share important information.

You mean civilians should be shot on sight?

In order to do that with any positive outcome, you need to seperate yourselves from the "blame America for everything" crowd, something that has been proved impossible, therefor, not a viable choice.

Well..I don't blame America. I blame people like you.

/me thinks this is why people hate the US

/me wants to nuke this person

/me could so build a nuke if he wanted to

or, you could investigate the magic of subject pronouns. it's a whimsical journey.

and btw... you foreign countries - shut the fuck up.

thanks.

propper procedure now requires a resolution in the UN security council against the USA.

i <3 john bolton

and btw... you foreign countries - shut the fuck up.

thanks.
I'm sure glad this forum has intelligent people who know how to debate the issues of the day.

propper procedure now requires a resolution in the UN security council against the USA.The US Gov. can Kill (Veto) any S.C. resolution at will.

The US Gov. can Kill (Veto) any resolution at will.yeah, that was my point.

yeah, that was my point.Your S.C. point is similar to this one you foreign countries - shut the fuck up.(You cant touch US.. so STFU)

but it is the propper procedure to follow according to international law.

but it is the propper procedure to follow according to international law.If one International Law says that 5 Presidents(heads of state) can Veto the rest of the world.. Then that Law is due to be adjusted/corrected/amended..etc.

but it is the propper procedure to follow according to international law.

If the UN wanted to force the US to close the camp, that would be one of the ways to go. One of the last resorts, mind you. You should remember:

a) this is an internal matter (national sovereignty), and the UN will be satisfied to criticize the US government. Such official critique will be a blow to the administration, as their voice on human rights issues diminishes on the international stage as a result of this. It could be a serious diplomatic defeat.

b) to bring this before the UNSC, it has to be established that the issue concerns international peace and security. (See UN Charter art. 24 and art. 33)

c) it would be more likely this issue would be brought before the General Assembly, if anything. The US has no power of veto there.

But I doubt the UN will go much further - it serves little purpose. For the most part, their work is done after this report.

Basically that facility shows the US to be morally bankrupt. It has no credibility with me as far as "values" are concerned, because it has failed to live up to them.
Which is halarious when you think of the fact that the US government is still trying to pass 'moral' laws.

People who care whether or not we torture prisoners already know, and people who dont wont be swayed by this.

People who care whether or not we torture prisoners already know, and people who dont wont be swayed by this.
But it is a diplomatic slap in the face. And there will be reactions in the aftermath of this report. The European Parliament (http://za.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-16T174625Z_01_ALL662976_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-EU-GUANTANAMO-20060216.XML&archived=False) has already responded to the report with a resolution urging the US to close the camp, and in Britain a cabinet minister (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4722408.stm) has also said he wants to see the camp closed. So as I said, the diplomatic fallout could be troublesome for the US.

I agree. We should close the detention facility AND execute all the prisoners. We should not be taking any prisoners in the first place - instead of "detaining" enemies, we should shoot them on the spot. Unless they meet several conditions, namely they are carrying arms openly, having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Anyone engaging in acts of war against the US and not meeting ALL these criteria should be executed unless he immediately indicates that he wishes to share important information.

I agree

You mean civilians should be shot on sight?

If your carrying a weapon in a warzone and wearing a uniform your an enemy combatant and can be shot. If your carrying a concealed or visable weapon in a warzone and NOT wearing a uniform then your a spy, and are to be exicuted. Personally I think we are being too nice to the majority of the people at the prison by giving them an extended life, food, shelter, free religious practices and by you know.. not killing them.
But of course when you force somebody on a hunger strike to EAT and thats torture.. then i guess we torture them.

feh.:sniper:

Art. 82. Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers -- such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.

Art. 83. Scouts, or single soldiers, if disguised in the dress of the country or in the uniform of the army hostile to their own, employed in obtaining information, if found within or lurking about the lines of the captor, are treated as spies, and suffer death.

Art. 84. Armed prowlers, by whatever names they may be called, or persons of the enemy's territory, who steal within the lines of the hostile army for the purpose of robbing, killing, or of destroying bridges, roads or canals, or of robbing or destroying the mail, or of cutting the telegraph wires, are not entitled to the privileges of the prisoner of war.

If your carrying a weapon in a warzone and wearing a uniform your an enemy combatant and can be shot. If your carrying a concealed or visable weapon in a warzone and NOT wearing a uniform then your a spy, and are to be exicuted. Personally I think we are being too nice to the majority of the people at the prison by giving them an extended life, food, shelter, free religious practices and by you know.. not killing them.
But of course when you force somebody on a hunger strike to EAT and thats torture.. then i guess we torture them.

Actually, you are mistaken. You see, if you're wearing a uniform you're not... ah... No, you won't listen anyway, will you. Why bother. Try getting forcefed sometime.
*Shakes head and leaves*

Basically that facility shows the US to be morally bankrupt. It has no credibility with me as far as "values" are concerned, because it has failed to live up to them.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the Bush administration.
I was not surprised in the least that this administration would discard any sort of findings without a care.
I hope the world backs the UN on this and forces such disgusting prison camps down. I had hoped this sort of thing would end with Hitler.

Well, if the UN feels it is necessary that the camp be shut down, we should definitely cooperate with them. At a time when we need support in regard to Iran, a move of cooperation seems like a good political move, to say nothing of the human rights aspect.

Nevertheless, I think it should be done gradually rather than immediately, simply because we don't really seem to have anywhere else suited to keeping the prisoners that we do need; the rest can be sent back to Afghanistan or wherever they came from, since they don't really seem to be any kind of threat.

I like how they attack the investigators for "never even having been there", when all this time they have done their best to prevent an actual investigation from taking place.

Interesting fact: After WWII the Western Allies renamed German POWs "Disarmed Enemy Forces" and made them do forced labour for a few years. The Geneva Convention only says "POW" afterall, not "DEF".

I personally don't give a shit what anyone "thinks" (I use the term loosely) we should do.

If you don't like what the US is doing, then you have three choices.


Cut off all ties with the US
Declare war on us
Shut the fuck up


I like that choice :D

*brings a pair of wire cutter and wrenches*


And as for the allegations made by the US about the UN didn't visit Gitmo, Gitmo would look more "humane" if the UN was there. It's like visiting North Korea. :rolleyes: