NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Unlike so very many of the unverifiable and unprovable "torture incidents" touted by the far left, this article stands on its own ... totally!


Cited as Symbol of Abu Ghraib, Man Admits He Is Not in Photo (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/18/international/middleeast/18ghraib.html?th&emc=th)


By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: March 18, 2006
In the summer of 2004, a group of former detainees of Abu Ghraib prison filed a lawsuit claiming that they had been the victims of the abuse captured in photographs that incited outrage around the world.

One, Ali Shalal Qaissi, soon emerged as their chief representative, appearing in publications and on television in several countries to detail his suffering. His prominence made sense, because he claimed to be the man in the photograph that had become the international icon of the Abu Ghraib scandal: standing on a cardboard box, hooded, with wires attached to his outstretched arms. He had even emblazoned the silhouette of that image on business cards.

The trouble was, the man in the photograph was not Mr. Qaissi.

Military investigators had identified the man on the box as a different detainee who had described the episode in a sworn statement immediately after the photographs were discovered in January 2004, but then the man seemed to go silent.

Mr. Qaissi had energetically filled the void, traveling abroad with slide shows to argue that abuse in Iraq continued, as head of a group he called the Association of Victims of American Occupation Prisons.

The New York Times profiled him last Saturday in a front-page article; in it, Mr. Qaissi insisted he had never sought the fame of his iconic status. Mr. Qaissi had been interviewed on a number of earlier occasions, including by PBS's "Now," Vanity Fair, Der Spiegel and in the Italian news media as the man on the box.

This week, after the online magazine Salon raised questions about the identity of the man in the photograph, Mr. Qaissi and his lawyers insisted he was telling the truth.

Certainly, he was at Abu Ghraib, and appears with a hood over his head in some photographs that Army investigators seized from the computer belonging to Specialist Charles Graner, the soldier later convicted of being the ringleader of the abuse.

However, he now acknowledges he is not the man in the specific photograph he printed and held up in a portrait that accompanied the Times article. But he and his lawyers maintain that he was photographed in a similar position and shocked with wires and that he is the one on his business card. The Army says it believes only one prisoner was treated in that way.

"I know one thing," Mr. Qaissi said yesterday, breaking down in tears when reached by telephone. "I wore that blanket, I stood on that box, and I was wired up and electrocuted."

Susan Burke, a lawyer in Philadelphia who is representing Mr. Qaissi and other former prisoners in a lawsuit against civilian interrogators and translators at Abu Ghraib, said that Mr. Qaissi had been abused in the same way as the man in the photo. "The sad fact is that there is not only one man on the box," she said.

Using a name that Mr. Qaissi is often called, she said, "Haj Ali is but one of many victims of the torture by Graner and the others."

In the interview for the article, Mr. Qaissi pointed to his deformed hand and said it matched the hand in the photograph. A close look at the photograph, however, is inconclusive.

Whether he was forced to stand on a box and photographed is not clear, but evidence suggests that he adopted the identity of the iconic man on the box, the very symbol of Abu Ghraib, well after he left the prison.

Records confirm that Mr. Qaissi became inmate 151716 sometime after the prison opened in June 2003, but do not give firm dates; Mr. Qaissi, a 43-year-old former Baath Party member and neighborhood mayor in Baghdad, said he arrived at Abu Ghraib in October 2003 and was released in March 2004, two months after the Army began an investigation into the abuse.

And he suffered mistreatment and humiliation at the hands of the same people who photographed the man on the box: photographs investigators seized show him forced into a crouch, identifiable by his mangled hand, with the nickname guards gave him — "The Claw" — scrawled in black marker across his orange jumpsuit.

But if he was the hooded man on the box, he did not mention it on several key occasions in the first months after the scandal broke.

In the spring of 2004, Mr. Qaissi approached Muhammad Hamid al-Moussawi, the deputy director of the Human Rights Organization of Iraq, and proposed that the men set up a group for prisoners of the occupation, Mr. Moussawi said this week. Yet Mr. Qaissi never claimed at the time that he had been the man in the photograph, Mr. Moussawi recalled.

A journalist who interviewed Mr. Qaissi three times that May and June about what happened at Abu Ghraib similarly said he never mentioned the pose or the photograph. The journalist, Gert Van Langendonck, said Mr. Qaissi mentioned the other cruelties he described in the Times profile.

A lawsuit Mr. Qaissi joined, filed on July 27, 2004, also made no allegation that he was shocked with wires or forced to stand on a box. That allegation appeared only on an amended version of a complaint he later joined, filed last month, which said he had been forced to stand on the box and fell off from the shocks of the electrocution: "They repeated this at least five times."

Another man had already been publicly identified as the man on the box in May 2004, when documents including logbooks and sworn statements from detainees and soldiers were leaked to The Times.

On May 22, 2004, The Times quoted the testimony of a detainee, Abdou Hussain Saad Faleh: "Then a tall black soldier came and put electrical wires on my fingers and toes and on my penis, and I had a bag over my head. Then he was saying, 'Which switch is on for electricity?'"

Specialist Sabrina Harman, one of the soldiers later convicted of abuse, identified the man by his nickname, Gilligan, in her statement.

She left some room to believe that others were subjected to the same treatment. "The wires part," she said, was her idea, but she said Specialist Graner and Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick II had forced detainees to stand on a box to stay awake, and did so at the request of military intelligence officials. Abu Ghraib photographs show more than one example of a hooded man forced to stand on boxes.

But Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army's Criminal Investigation Command, said that the military believed that Mr. Faleh had been the only prisoner subjected to the treatment shown in the photo. "To date, and after a very thorough criminal investigation, we have neither credible information, nor reason to believe, that more than one incident of this nature occurred," he said.

Mr. Qaissi's lawyer, Ms. Burke, countered, "We do not trust the torturers."

Mr. Qaissi seems to have first begun identifying himself as the hooded man in the fall of 2004, by which point he had started his prisoners' group out of a politically charged mosque in Baghdad.

In an article in the February 2005 issue of Vanity Fair, Donovan Webster identified Mr. Qaissi as Haj Ali, the likely man on the box, based on an extensive investigation of military records. Soon, Mr. Qaissi was featured in numerous profiles, including in Der Spiegel, reprinted by Salon, as well as on the PBS current affairs program "Now," where he described being shocked: "It felt like my eyeballs were coming out of my sockets."

With his soft voice and occasionally self-deprecating humor, he has impressed interviewers as affable and credible. He told his story with a level of detail that separated it from that of many others.

Most of his assertions and details could be confirmed, Mr. Webster and others stress. In his three-hour interview with The Times, Mr. Qaissi did not veer from reported details and appeared confident in his discussion, punctuating his story with bitter laughter and occasionally, tears. But he never raised the possibility that another man may have also been photographed in the same pose.

Human rights workers were compelled by his story, as well. Reporting the Saturday article, The Times relied in part on their statements that he could well be the hooded man, as well as on prison records and interviews with friends and his lawyers, who say they have Mr. Qaissi's blanket, the same one, they said, draped over the man in the photograph. Army officials at the time refused to confirm or refute Mr. Qaissi's claims, citing privacy protections in the Geneva Convention.

Abdel Jabbar al-Azzawi, who now lives in Baghdad and says he was in the prison with both Mr. Qaissi and the man named Gilligan and has joined the lawsuit, says he saw Mr. Qaissi wearing the blanket fashioned into a poncho depicted in the photograph, though he did not see the photographs being taken.

Mr. Qaissi's lawyers also stress that the iconic photograph is not the basis of his case. In court papers, he also says he was punched, kicked, hit with a stick and chained to his cell while his captors poured cold water over his naked body.

Meanwhile, it is not clear what happened to the real hooded man, Mr. Faleh. An Army spokesman said he was released from American custody in January 2004. Tribal leaders, and the manager of a brick factory next to the address where prison records say he lived, said they had never heard the name. Besides, they said, detainees often make up identities when they are imprisoned. Mr. Qaissi's attorneys said they have not attempted to search for him.

Hello ironic twist!

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It doesn't matter if this specific man was tortured or not, the point is that someone was tortured. Just because it turns out not to be him does nothing to detract from the extensive torture that went on at Abu Graib.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It doesn't matter if this specific man was tortured or not, the point is that someone was tortured. Just because it turns out not to be him does nothing to detract from the extensive torture that went on at Abu Graib.
ROFLMFAO! Oh God. Surely you see the problems with what you just posted???

ROFLMFAO! Oh God. Surely you see the problems with what you just posted???

Not really.

ROFLMFAO! Oh God. Surely you see the problems with what you just posted???
Um, I, for one, don't.

Not really.
The point Eutrusca is making is that this guy was lying about being tortured. Oh, and all the photos and that whole trial of Lindsey England and the others can be explained away in some other way. Right, Eut? ;-)

All this says is that several people may have been made to stand on boxes and electrocuted. Somehow I don't think Rumsfeld's going to be so jubilant about this as the OP...

All this says is that several people may have been made to stand on boxes and electrocuted. Somehow I don't think Rumsfeld's going to be so jubilant about this as the OP...
Try actually reading the article, please.

"No no no, you misunderstand. We don't torture that guy, we tortured that guy over there. See? It makes it all OK. Why doesn't the liberal media report that?"

So, the torture still went on and he was still tortured, he just wasn't the man in that particular picture? Hmmkay, if you see this as some victory, I guess this minor little scrap will be awarded to you. The rest of us will just not forget that the picture(s) still exist(s), no matter the subject.

Yeah, I get it. One thing wasn't actually true. Ergo, other things may not be true.

The other things may not have been true before we discovered that the one thing wasn't. I'm also not impressed by this.

COMMENTARY: Unlike so very many of the unverifiable and unprovable "torture incidents" touted by the far left, this article stands on its own ... totally!
However, the fact remains that there were many cases of prisoner abuse at Abu Gharib that were verified and proven, and God only knows what is happening at Guantanamo or those "secret" CIA detention camps . You would think that people on the far right, such as yourself, would want this whole torture fiasco to fade away?

I guess certain individuals on the far right want to paint those on the "far left" as being out of touch with reality when in all reality, the opposite is true.

Keep up the good work Forrest!! :p

*nods thoughtfully, but doesn't see any major impact*

Christ, it's like a bad US PR stunt. They throw out this guy who wasn't actually tortured, whilst trying to push away all the evidence of the other prisoners who were tortured, and some people actually believe this shit. Jesus.

Christ, it's like a bad US PR stunt. They throw out this guy who wasn't actually tortured, whilst trying to push away all the evidence of the other prisoners who were tortured, and some people actually believe this shit. Jesus.

Actually, there seems to be evidence that this person was tortured, too. The only thing this says is that he wasn't in that particular picture. Which somehow makes torture OK.

Actually, there seems to be evidence that this person was tortured, too. The only thing this says is that he wasn't in that particular picture. Which somehow makes torture OK.

"He wasn't in this picture, okay? We know that isn't him, because he has a little mole that you can see in this picture, just underneath the electrodes! Stupid liberals!"

"He wasn't in this picture, okay? We know that isn't him, because he has a little mole that you can see in this picture, just underneath the electrodes! Stupid liberals!"

"Who WAS in the picture? Oh, it was....um...jeez we can't find him now. But take our word for it. We know our own work." :)

What is the significance of this article? Pardon my ignorance, but I just don't see it.

Actually, there seems to be evidence that this person was tortured, too. The only thing this says is that he wasn't in that particular picture. Which somehow makes torture OK.
Exactly. From the quoted article:

Specialist Sabrina Harman, one of the soldiers later convicted of abuse, identified the man by his nickname, Gilligan, in her statement.

She left some room to believe that others were subjected to the same treatment. "The wires part," she said, was her idea, but she said Specialist Graner and Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick II had forced detainees to stand on a box to stay awake, and did so at the request of military intelligence officials. Abu Ghraib photographs show more than one example of a hooded man forced to stand on boxes.

But Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army's Criminal Investigation Command, said that the military believed that Mr. Faleh had been the only prisoner subjected to the treatment shown in the photo. "To date, and after a very thorough criminal investigation, we have neither credible information, nor reason to believe, that more than one incident of this nature occurred," he said.

So much for their "very thorough criminal investigation"?

What is the significance of this article? Pardon my ignorance, but I just don't see it.
It is a cheap shot at the "far left" by the OP that didn't pan out the way the he expected it too.

It is a cheap shot at the "far left" by the OP that didn't pan out the way the he expected it too.

Ah, okay. Thanks. :)

It is a cheap shot at the "far left" by the OP that didn't pan out the way the he expected it too.
Wrong answer, Kemo Sabe. How do you know what I expected??

Wrong answer, Kemo Sabe. How do you know what I expected??

It was still a cheap shot old boy. It also didn't work, as one man not being in a certain photo doesn't mean that he wasn't being tortured, and that the majority of the torture being reported by the amusingly titled 'Liberal media' isn't true.

Wrong answer, Kemo Sabe. How do you know what I expected??
Spare us the rhetorical two-step, Eutrusca. You thought this article proved something it didn't, as evidenced by the thread title, and you got called on it.

Wrong answer, Kemo Sabe. How do you know what I expected??
Because thats what you do.

It was still a cheap shot old boy. It also didn't work, as one man not being in a certain photo doesn't mean that he wasn't being tortured, and that the majority of the torture being reported by the amusingly titled 'Liberal media' isn't true.
Where oh where did I limit myself to "liberal" media in the title or in my "Commentary?" Hmmm??? You really should read the OP before you try to refute it.

Where oh where did I limit myself to "liberal" media in the title or in my "Commentary?" Hmmm??? You really should read the OP before you try to refute it.

Well, given that you referred to the 'Far Left' in the opening commentary and refer to the media in the title, the two aren't hard to match up, certainly moreso when you've referred to many media as Liberal before.

Oh, and please try and answer the actual point of my question. You know, the fact that one man not being in a certain photo doesn't mean that he wasn't being tortured, and that the majority of the torture being reported by the media isn't true.

[QUOTE=Fass]So, the torture still went on and he was still tortured, he just wasn't the man in that particular picture? /QUOTE]

If he lied about being the man in the picture, what makes you think he wouldn't lie about being tortured? Some people were abused and those that abused them have been brought to justice. Perhaps some other people who claim they were abused lied about it for reasons of their own.

COMMENTARY: Unlike so very many of the unverifiable and unprovable "torture incidents" touted by the far left, this article stands on its own ... totally!
Gosh. Let's see what the article says:
In court papers, he (Mr. Qaissi) says he was punched, kicked, hit with a stick and chained to his cell while his captors poured cold water over his naked body.
Yep. no torture there.

Oh, and as for "unprovable" and "unverifiable" torture, perhaps you could explain these:
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/15/abugraib1_gallery__470x375,0.jpg
(These aren't pleasant to see, so you are forewarned):
http://smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/15/abugrahib4_gallery__470x375,0.jpg
http://smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/15/2prisoner_gallery__470x311,0.jpg
http://external.cache.el-mundo.net/albumes/2006/02/15/torturas_irak/1140016207_extras_albumes_1.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Abu_Ghraib_54.jpg

Well if people are so far off base with their assessment of your intented point (in posting the article) Eut, then why not enlighten us all? What exactly do you think this demonstrates?

Let's review the scale, type and effect of the issue described. A man who was mistreated and (according to the sensibilities of every person I know) tortured, claim to be a particular person in a particular photo who was mistreated and (according to the sensibilities of everyone I know) tortured.
Both people were mistreated (and arguably tortured.) The events in the photo did take place and the man claiming to have been mistreated was mistreated by the organisation/entity that he claims mistreated him. No one has been arrested, imprisoned, killed or indeed suffered any particular misfortune as a result of the man's claim to be the person in the photo.

Gee, it's not like anyone got a coalition together and started a war over these 'gullible reports' is it.....? Next to the people believed in the 'active WMD programe in Iraq' and who actually believed Saddam Hussein posed some kind of threat to the US when in fact the weather posed more risk (not to mention the people who actually voted for Bush a 2nd time around - really the mind boggles:confused: ) these reporters look like Einsteins....

Honestly given the creduality of the huge numbers of people who believed in the WMD fairytale, these reporters hardly appear to be either stoopid or gullible, at least what they reported was believable, not like that far-fetched crap continuously streaming out the Whitehouse....

Christ, it's like a bad US PR stunt. They throw out this guy who wasn't actually tortured, whilst trying to push away all the evidence of the other prisoners who were tortured, and some people actually believe this shit. Jesus.

No one "pushed away all the evidence." Those indiviuals who abused prisoners were brought to justice.

Christ! Demented Hamsters, delete those photos, please! The Mods'll have you for posting obscene photos, and those are disgusting to look at. I know that's the point, but just mention where they are online...

Spare us the rhetorical two-step, Eutrusca. You thought this article proved something it didn't, as evidenced by the thread title, and you got called on it.
If I hadn't wanted to post the article, or even just parts of it, I wouldn't have. What's so difficult to comprehend about that?

Sigh. Several of you seem to be obsessed with me lately. I suggest you take a walk, or visit yer auntie, or take a long holiday.

No one "pushed away all the evidence." Those indiviuals who abused prisoners were brought to justice.

Many prisoners are still being held on trumped up or non-existant charges, and many are not even terrorists themselves, especially in Gitmo Bay. Plus the fact, these are only the known cases of torture - there will be many more that haven't leaked out.

Well if people are so far off base with their assessment of your intented point (in posting the article) Eut, then why not enlighten us all? What exactly do you think this demonstrates?

Let's review the scale, type and effect of the issue described. A man who was mistreated and (according to the sensibilities of every person I know) tortured, claim to be a particular person in a particular photo who was mistreated and (according to the sensibilities of everyone I know) tortured.
Both people were mistreated (and arguably tortured.) The events in the photo did take place and the man claiming to have been mistreated was mistreated by the organisation/entity that he claims mistreated him. No one has been arrested, imprisoned, killed or indeed suffered any particular misfortune as a result of the man's claim to be the person in the photo.

Gee, it's not like anyone got a coalition together and started a war over these 'gullible reports' is it.....? Next to the people believed in the 'active WMD programe in Iraq' and who actually believed Saddam Hussein posed some kind of threat to the US when in fact the weather posed more risk (not to mention the people who actually voted for Bush a 2nd time around - really the mind boggles:confused: ) these reporters look like Einsteins....

Honestly given the creduality of the huge numbers of people who believed in the WMD fairytale, these reporters hardly appear to be either stoopid or gullible, at least what they reported was believable, not like that far-fetched crap continuously streaming out the Whitehouse....
I wasn't addressing all that. As the thread title points out, I was interested in how the media got scammed on this story, perhaps because they are a bit too quick to believe that anything which makes the US look bad has got to be good. As far as I'm concered, the article does just that. End of story. Sorry if you don't agree.

If I hadn't wanted to post the article, or even just parts of it, I wouldn't have. What's so difficult to comprehend about that?

Sigh. Several of you seem to be obsessed with me lately. I suggest you take a walk, or visit yer auntie, or take a long holiday.
Only in the threads you start and you do choose some unfortunate titles.

I wasn't addressing all that. As the thread title points out, I was interested in how the media got scammed on this story, perhaps because they are a bit too quick to believe that anything which makes the US look bad has got to be good. As far as I'm concered, the article does just that. End of story. Sorry if you don't agree.

The why the flip comment about the "far-left"? Why all this backtracking. Why can you just say what you mean in you OP?

Many prisoners are still being held on trumped up or non-existant charges, and many are not even terrorists themselves, especially in Gitmo Bay.

And you know this because? You know the charges are trumped up or non-existant because...

I wasn't addressing all that. As the thread title points out, I was interested in how the media got scammed on this story, perhaps because they are a bit too quick to believe that anything which makes the US look bad has got to be good. As far as I'm concered, the article does just that. End of story. Sorry if you don't agree.
Then you picked a very poor example.
As a matter of fact prisoners were abused in a certain facility.
During the time of these incidents this person was a prisoner at the facility.
The person in the photo has their face and other distinguishing characteristics hidden.
When this man claimed to be the person in the photo no one came forward to claim otherwise (ie no it cant be because that is me).
How exactly was believing this person being 'too quick to believe'? What exactly should have tipped off the media? They are journalists; they are not an intelligence agency charged with national security and given leave to inter people without charge and torture them until they get the information they are after.

Now if these reporters had simply taken all the spam from their email boxes and printed that as though it were gospel truth, that would be gullible...

I'm aware of what you were not addressing. That's exactly my entire point. You're so quick to accuse everyone of bias, I think you should probably look a bit closer to home in that regard. I dont expect you will agree with me, you have a habit of only seeing those things you want to. Given how intelligent you clearly are, it must take an enormous amount of energy to keep kidding yourself. I rather suspect even you are at most only half convinced.....

And you know this because? You know the charges are trumped up or non-existant because...

Well, there's this (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-malinowski16mar16,0,109617.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
) for a start.

Then you picked a very poor example.
As a matter of fact prisoners were abused in a certain facility.
During the time of these incidents this person was a prisoner at the facility.
The person in the photo has their face and other distinguishing characteristics hidden.
When this man claimed to be the person in the photo no one came forward to claim otherwise (ie no it cant be because that is me).
How exactly was believing this person being 'too quick to believe'? What exactly should have tipped off the media? They are journalists; they are not an intelligence agency charged with national security and given leave to inter people without charge and torture them until they get the information they are after.

I'm aware of what you were not addressing. That's exactly my entire point. You're so quick to accuse everyone of bias, I think you should probably look a bit closer to home in that regard. I dont expect you will agree with me, you have a habit of only seeing those things you want to. Given how intelligent you clearly are, it must take an enormous amount of energy to keep kidding yourself. I rather suspect even you are at most only half convinced.....
There are several things to keep in mind here:

* I have a very strong visceral reaction against those who rail against America or against the US military.

* There is considerable history here with some of the posters who object to virtually everything I post.

* Everyone, including me, is biased to one degree or another. It's inescapable.

* There are more than a sufficient number on here perfectly willing to blame America for everything up to and including plate tectonics. I don't need to show the downside of American diplomacy or of the American military; they do that quite well and with great glee.

* As I have indicated repeatedly on here ( to no avil whatsoever with this particular crowd of vultures ), I do not categorically endorse GW Bush, nor endorse the use of torture, nor approve of everything either the US or the US military do.

* This may not have been a great example to illustrate the point I was trying to make, but it was the only one I had at the time. :)

Christ! Demented Hamsters, delete those photos, please! The Mods'll have you for posting obscene photos, and those are disgusting to look at. I know that's the point, but just mention where they are online...
Ok. fair enough. Sorry about that. I've just posted the links. It just aggravted me reading 'unverifiable' and 'unprovable' when there's hundreds of photos proving there's been torture going on (and let's not forget the court cases).
Just sad and pathetic how some ppl blind themselves so much to reality that they misrepresent anything and everything to make themselves feel better.
Further proof that men's brains shrink as they get older and that causes increased levels of grumpiness. *sigh* that's what I (and most of the posters here) have got to look forward to. *sigh*

I read the whole article and the thread and was actually hopping there was going to be a point that justified the 748 point type headline and all those a's and h's in teh subject line and I couldn't find anything. The fact remains no matter what this article said that a lack of good leadership and just plain intelligent planning and oversight has resulted in Abu and a host of other bungles that have severly eroded American credibility and security. Buish may not have trotured anybody but he sets the tone for leadership and oversight in this administration and this war. It is his lack of competence and his lack of ability to recognize incompetence that set the stage for this fiasco. Abu was the worst thig that could possibly have happened at the worst time and this administration fostered an environment that made it possible.

Well, there's this (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-malinowski16mar16,0,109617.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
) for a start.

This is the opinion of someone from an organization that is biased and not necessarily based on facts. So, what facts can you present to support your position that these people are in prison on trumped up and non-existent charges?

Just sad and pathetic how some ppl blind themselves so much to reality that they misrepresent anything and everything to make themselves feel better.

This happens quite a bit on the left side of the political spectrum as well.

Further proof that men's brains shrink as they get older and that causes increased levels of grumpiness. *sigh* that's what I (and most of the posters here) have got to look forward to. *sigh*

I do not appreciate your bigoted remark. Debate the issue, do not attack the poster. :mad:

This is the opinion of someone from an organization that is biased and not necessarily based on facts. So, what facts can you present to support your position that these people are in prison on trumped up and non-existent charges?
How about the fact that only nine inmates have been formally charged with anything? Or what about the ~260 who have been released without charge? That is after up to 3 years in prison.

This happens quite a bit on the left side of the political spectrum as well.
Oh, look! It took 4 pages until we got to: "They do it, so that means I can do it too! nah!nah!nah!" retort. Well done on your patience and fortitude.
Great debate of the issue btw.
I do not appreciate your bigoted remark. Debate the issue, do not attack the poster. :mad:
Yes, because we all know Eutrusca never stoops to that.

How about the fact that only nine inmates have been formally charged with anything? Or what about the ~260 who have been released without charge? That is after up to 3 years in prison.

The fact that hundreds have been released suggests that Gitmo isn't holding large numbers of innocents. Those who the US didn't think posed a threat to security were released.

The link that was provided however didn't state that inmates at Guantanamo were innocent farmers in the wrong place at the wrong time. The last few paragraphs said that they were foreign fighters in Afghanistan who helped support the Taliban, the same people Al Qaeda is using as cannon fodder.

There are several things to keep in mind here:

* I have a very strong visceral reaction against those who rail against America or against the US military.

I agree this should be kept in mind, by you.
You are demeaning your own intelligence by posting in this manner - with you on their side America and the US military do not need a 'looney leftist' conspiracy to undermine their credibility.

If you dont want people to 'rail' against America and/or the US military then keep in mind your own reasoning when posting this article. The point (however much you might try to obfusicate it in the face of challenges) was to smear by association 'see this was false and so...'. As you stated you posted it because the media are in your mind 'too quick to believe'.

People reading the artical will see that it doesnt discredit the media generally and in fact supports the premise 'something stinks in the prison of Abu Gharib'.

Rather than discrediting the media, it is you that is discredited and via the 'smear by association' factor that you were intending (or even had actually bought into) many people will then form an impression (or gain further conviction in the impression) that 'Americans are stupid and/or dissembling' or at least that 'Americans that support the military are stupid and or dissembling' and then from there (via the 'smear by association factor') to 'America and/or the US military are stupid and/or dishonest'.

Now personally I dont go in for the whole 'smear by association' thing, but a lot of people do. Why? I dont know - I have some ideas but...however, since this was in essence the reasoning you (if you are entirely honest with yourself) were employing in regards to the article, you really shouldnt need me to explain to you how very real and powerful the 'smear by association' factor is.

So if you dont want the US and the US military railed against, you might help out by not feeding the railers so much fodder. By presenting silliness as though you think it is a reasoned point or a point at all, you are 'smearing by association' the very thing you believe yourself to be defending (not to mention demeaning yourself).

* There is considerable history here with some of the posters who object to virtually everything I post.
That is not at all relevent so far as I and my comments are concerned. Nor does it make your having posted the article, comments and title as you did anymore sensible or any less damaging to your credibility.

* Everyone, including me, is biased to one degree or another. It's inescapable.
Being as biased as you present yourself as being is entirely escapable.

* There are more than a sufficient number on here perfectly willing to blame America for everything up to and including plate tectonics. I don't need to show the downside of American diplomacy or of the American military; they do that quite well and with great glee.
I dont see that as a good reason to discredit yourself by posting in such a myopic and unreasoned manner. In fact since doing so actually strengthens the impression that not opposing the Bush administration requires extreme myopicism, would it not be more productive to accept reality and argue on its terms rather than appearing to dwell in a fantasy land?

The fact is the US under the Bush administration has made the world a much worse place than it was before. US is part of the world, as is the US military. If you really cared about these things then I find it odd that you dont object as much as anyone to the harm and degredation both have suffered at the hands of the Bush administration. Your attempts to downplay the very wrong turn the US has taken under the Bush administration's steering, achieves the exact opposite of what you intend. Being unreasoned and downplaying the problems doesnt make things look better for a nation currently believed to be unreasoning and notorious for hiding/downplaying and dissembling about the problems it has and is causing.

* As I have indicated repeatedly on here ( to no avil whatsoever with this particular crowd of vultures ), I do not categorically endorse GW Bush, nor endorse the use of torture, nor approve of everything either the US or the US military do.
Right, yet you still felt the need to make the OP in this thread. Go back and read it and tell me that to any 'Jo come lately' that they wouldnt get the impression that you are an apologist for current US military policy. The fact is the US has been implicated in using torture. There are photos proving it, people have been prosecuted, yet reading your OP one would think you were utterly unaware of these things because there seems no point to it but 'see all this torture stuff is probably just fairytales the gullible media foisted on us'.

So which is it? 'The media believes stuff too much' or an attempt to demonstrate that 'the media that prints uncomplimentary stuff about Bush/the US/the US military, is full of it' because if it's the earlier then most of your comments above (in the post I am replying to right now) are irrelevent, and if the comments I am replying to are relevent, then your earlier denials regarding your intended point in making the OP were in fact bald faced lies. Either way you are digging yourself a deeper hole and due to the good ol 'smear by association' factor you are taking down the very things you claim to be defending, with you....

* This may not have been a great example to illustrate the point I was trying to make, but it was the only one I had at the time. :)
Which illustrates my point nicely. Given this is the only one you have at any given time, you really dont have much of a case. People will notice this and instead of proving your point, you will demonstrate quite the opposite.

This is what I mean about bias. I'm not talking partiality, I'm talking about a myopic view that actually intereferes with basic reasoning and at best leads other people to dismiss you out of hand (due to the silliness of your arguments/actions) and at worst to associate that silliness with the very thing you are trying to defend.

Let me put it this way, if someone else tried on a silly like this on an issue you had no particular bias about (something you were disinterested in), bet you wouldnt be fooled for a moment, yet somehow you've managed to fool yourself...

The fact that hundreds have been released suggests that Gitmo isn't holding large numbers of innocents. Those who the US didn't think posed a threat to security were released.
Well the fact that only nine have been formally charged with anything, after more than 3 years of interogation, sorta indicates that Gitmo isn't holding large numbers of felons don't ya think?

Wow. So because someone might have fraudulently involved themselves in this lawsuit, Eutrusca seems to draw the conclusion that a) it's the media's fault (and I suppose this means that the media reporting on the fraud is also not to be trusted?), and/or b) that the stories of the torture itself must now be treated as suspect.

In other news, some people were convicted of fraudulently receiving compensation after 911. Using Eut's well crafted logic we must now assume that there were indeed no actual victims on that day if the media ever interviewed any of these fraudsters I guess....

...clearly a case for...

THE NIT-PICKING SQUAD!!

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW03-15-06.jpg

(The last panel is by far the most apropos...)

Oh, look! It took 4 pages until we got to: "They do it, so that means I can do it too! nah!nah!nah!" retort. Well done on your patience and fortitude.

I did not mean it that way at all. My point was that all sides have a tendency to do it. It is not one sided and both sides should try to refrain from doing so.

Great debate of the issue btw.

Thank you. I also have enjoyed it.

Yes, because we all know Eutrusca never stoops to that.

I was not talking about Eut. Being an "old fart," I took your remark as an attack on all older people including myself.

Being an "old fart," I took your remark as an attack on all older people including myself.
A self-proclaimed "old fart". And a paranoid one, at that.

So, Eutrusca's a troll. Got it.

Its pretty reasonable to assume that they werent just doing the hood-and-wires bit to one guy.


George Bush has made it publically clear that he advocates the use of torture on POWs with his disgraceful proclamation signing the Anti-Torture bill that he did not intend to follow it.

A self-proclaimed "old fart". And a paranoid one, at that.

I'm a cerified "old fart" as I got an 86.66% on the test. :D

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/002904.html

Just because I know everyone is out to get me doesn't make me paranoid. :rolleyes:

None of this changes the fact that sick crimes have been committed by American soldiers in Iraq.

None of this changes the fact that sick crimes have been committed by American soldiers in Iraq.

Or the fact that those who committed those sick crimes have been brought to justice.

What exactly was there sentence?

Meh, I stopped caring about the welfare of our war prisoners. If they try to harm our troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan, then they have revoked all natural rights. Plus I thought some of those photos were actually pretty funny. Hehe, naked human pyramid.

Meh, I stopped caring about the welfare of our war prisoners. If they try to harm our troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan, then they have revoked all natural rights. Plus I thought some of those photos were actually pretty funny. Hehe, naked human pyramid.

For someone who wants to become a Priest, you show an amazing lack of compassion. And just because they do things to our troops, doesn't mean we should do it back; we're supposed to be better than they are.

For someone who wants to become a Priest, you show an amazing lack of compassion. And just because they do things to our troops, doesn't mean we should do it back; we're supposed to be better than they are.

He wants to be an Inquisitor like Pope Palpatine. A lack of compassion is de rigeur for the vocation.

For someone who wants to become a Priest, you show an amazing lack of compassion. And just because they do things to our troops, doesn't mean we should do it back; we're supposed to be better than they are.

1. I have pleanty of compassion, I have compassion for the poor, for the single mothers, for families who are struggling to make ends meet. I have compassion for people who can't help their plight. However, the prisoners are most likely there because they've killed, injured or pose a threat to our troops, that's where I draw the line.

2. Says who that we have to be better than they are? Guess what people, prison SUCKS! Why do you think we have a break out every few months? Prison is not suspose to be easy, it's suspose to be a cold hard experience, and also a way to lose your anal virginity. So excuse me for not feeling sorry when our prisoners are not treated like royality.

If they try to harm our troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan, then they have revoked all natural rights.
It's called war. If you don't want troops to be harmed don't do it. If the troops harm civilians are their natural rights revoked?

Plus I thought some of those photos were actually pretty funny. Hehe, naked human pyramid.I'm sure the prisoners where laughing their heads off! :rolleyes: :(

1. I have pleanty of compassion, I have compassion for the poor, for the single mothers, for families who are struggling to make ends meet. I have compassion for people who can't help their plight. However, the prisoners are most likely there because they've killed, injured or pose a threat to our troops, that's where I draw the line.

2. Says who that we have to be better than they are? Guess what people, prison SUCKS! Why do you think we have a break out every few months? Prison is not suspose to be easy, it's suspose to be a cold hard experience, and also a way to lose your anal virginity. So excuse me for not feeling sorry when our prisoners are not treated like royality.

1. I don't think compassion can be selective, especially for the priesthood.

2. There is a difference between legal prison experiences where prisoners abuse each other and are penned in for crimes they have been tried for, and actual torture and pointless interogations inflicted upon them by officials and soldiers, as well as having no trial and being kept even without legal representation.

It's called war. If you don't want troops to be harmed don't do it. If the troops harm civilians are their natural rights revoked?

If they harmed civilians yes, they are people not involved in the war, thus they are not valid targets. I know this is War, and sometimes War is messy like this, get over it. Look, the people in the Middle East are going to hate us no matter what. Even if Iraq and Afghanistan are successful Demoracy, they're still going to find some reason to hate us.

1. I don't think compassion can be selective, especially for the priesthood.

You'd be suprised actually.


2. There is a difference between legal prison experiences where prisoners abuse each other and are penned in for crimes they have been tried for, and actual torture and pointless interogations inflicted upon them by officials and soldiers, as well as having no trial and being kept even without legal representation.

You do realize that our rights, our consitution doesn't apply to them right? It only applies to citizens or people who immigrated here.

If they harmed civilians yes, they are people not involved in the war, thus they are not valid targets. I know this is War, and sometimes War is messy like this, get over it. Look, the people in the Middle East are going to hate us no matter what. Even if Iraq and Afghanistan are successful Demoracy, they're still going to find some reason to hate us.
They aren't some kind of a hive mind.

They aren't some kind of a hive mind.

Yea, and I guess the fact that the entire Middle East (with the exception of Israel) hates us is just a conicdence.

Yea, and I guess the fact that the entire Middle East (with the exception of Israel) hates us is just a conicdence.

Yes, that's right - the complete entirity of the Middle East, down to the very last person, hates, despises and rejects all things Western. How very, totally, incredibly true.:rolleyes:

You do realize that our rights, our consitution doesn't apply to them right? It only applies to citizens or people who immigrated here.
Ever hear of international law? Geneva convention? (http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

I personally find it despicable that some Americans think they can just piss on the Geneva convention and consider that it does not exist or apply to them.

Yea, and I guess the fact that the entire Middle East (with the exception of Israel) hates us is just a conicdence.
Saudi Arabia are your allies, Turkey want to be in the EU (this requires western style democracy), Egypt are on friendly terms. Afganistan are on friendly terms now. Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror.

Syria and Iran are the only governments hostile to the US.

I personally find it despicable that some Americans think they can just piss on the Geneva convention and consider that it does not exist or apply to them.

Yea, it's not like OTHER countries has abused the Geneva convention too *cough*Vietnam*cough*. Nooo, it's just big ol' nasty America. Jeez, get over yourself. America is not the only country that abused the Geneva Convention, and it won't be the last. Jeez I am getting sick and tired of leftist trying to paint America as the bad guy. Meh, the simple fact is that the entire world is run by falliable humans, we can't all be perfect all the time. Things like torture are going to happen, they'll keep happening, because well, that's how life is sometimes, espically during war, and when you have people that you need information from.

Saudi Arabia are your allies, Turkey want to be in the EU (this requires western style democracy), Egypt are on friendly terms. Afganistan are on friendly terms now. Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror.

Syria and Iran are the only governments hostile to the US.

But Syria and Iran obviously comprise of the entire Middle East! Don't you see? Or are you one o' dem terrorist-lovin' scumbags?

Saudi Arabia are your allies, Turkey want to be in the EU (this requires western style democracy), Egypt are on friendly terms. Afganistan are on friendly terms now. Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror.

Syria and Iran are the only governments hostile to the US.

The only reason we're allies with the Saudis is for their oil. Egypt, ok you got that one, and Pakistan yea. Hmm, there was the UAE, but I think they hate us now sine we blocked the port deal.

Yea, it's not like OTHER countries has abused the Geneva convention too *cough*Vietnam*cough*. Nooo, it's just big ol' nasty America. Jeez, get over yourself. America is not the only country that abused the Geneva Convention, and it won't be the last. Jeez I am getting sick and tired of leftist trying to paint America as the bad guy. Meh, the simple fact is that the entire world is run by falliable humans, we can't all be perfect all the time. Things like torture are going to happen, they'll keep happening, because well, that's how life is sometimes, espically during war, and when you have people that you need information from.

You think thats an excuse? "Oh, Vietnam does it as well, so it's okay that the US does it as well! They did it first!", which is even more ironic because the US is supposed to be a bastion of freedom and democracy.

Yea, it's not like OTHER countries has abused the Geneva convention too *cough*Vietnam*cough*. Nooo, it's just big ol' nasty America. Jeez, get over yourself. America is not the only country that abused the Geneva Convention, and it won't be the last. Jeez I am getting sick and tired of leftist trying to paint America as the bad guy. Meh, the simple fact is that the entire world is run by falliable humans, we can't all be perfect all the time. Things like torture are going to happen, they'll keep happening, because well, that's how life is sometimes, espically during war, and when you have people that you need information from.

Ah, the "he did it first" argument. Glad to see you can't actually justify torture.

Glad to see that yall conviently ignored the "humans are fallibale, shit like this is going to happen" argument. :rolleyes:

You think thats an excuse? "Oh, Vietnam does it as well, so it's okay that the US does it as well! They did it first!", which is even more ironic because the US is supposed to be a bastion of freedom and democracy.

Eh, yea, to people who don't wish to do us harm. Everyone else can go screw themselves. Why do you think we deport people when they commit a crime over here??? It's a bastion of freedom and democracy for those who wish to live here and abide by our laws, not to kill us.

Glad to see that yall conviently ignored the "humans are fallibale, shit like this is going to happen" argument. :rolleyes:

That's not an argument, it's an excuse. And not a great one, at that. It should be the responsibility of leaders like Bush to ensure that their countries, as supposed beacons of democracy and freedom, do not cause 'Shit' to happen.

Glad to see that yall conviently ignored the "humans are fallibale, shit like this is going to happen" argument. :rolleyes:

I did ignore it, because it's crap. It doesn't excuse what happens. It's a flimsy defense. Now try to justify torture using a rational argument, not "people are bad, oh well."

That's not an argument, it's an excuse. And not a great one, at that. It should be the responsibility of leaders like Bush to ensure that their countries, as supposed beacons of democracy and freedom, do not cause 'Shit' to happen.

Bush is human too, he's going to fail at things too. Comon humans are FALLIABLE, we are NOT perfect, we will NEVER be perfect, so stup trying to force people to be something that they can't be. As for the beacon of democracy and freedom, let me reinstate.

Eh, yea, to people who don't wish to do us harm. Everyone else can go screw themselves. Why do you think we deport people when they commit a crime over here??? It's a bastion of freedom and democracy for those who wish to live here and abide by our laws, not to kill us.

Eh, yea, to people who don't wish to do us harm. Everyone else can go screw themselves. Why do you think we deport people when they commit a crime over here??? It's a bastion of freedom and democracy for those who wish to live here and abide by our laws, not to kill us.

And you're setting a great example for the world by defending yourselves. Let's see, torturing prisoners, forcing false confessions out of them, imprisoning innocent people, not giving them trials. Great ways to fight the terrorists, of course...

Glad to see that yall conviently ignored the "humans are fallibale, shit like this is going to happen" argument. :rolleyes:
Yeah because it's such a great argument!:rolleyes:

"Whoops I murdered someone!"
"That's ok because humans are falliable!"

"Damn, raped a child!"
"That's ok because humans are falliable!"


"Massive torture going on in Abu graib!"
"We can ignore that! They only do it because humans are falliable!"

Glad to see that yall conviently ignored the "humans are fallibale, shit like this is going to happen" argument. :rolleyes:

Which of course is a perfect excuse for this sort of thing. Isn't it odd how perfectly normal, fallible human beings such as - to take an example at random - myself, have managed, despite my despicably flawed human nature, to get this far without torturing people?

And you're setting a great example for the world by defending yourselves. Let's see, torturing prisoners, forcing false confessions out of them, imprisoning innocent people, not giving them trials. Great ways to fight the terrorists, of course...

Torture I can buy, but what is your source on the false confession and fale imprisonment? Also, in case you realize it or not, we imprison people before (or without in your case) a trial too, within our own borders as well!. As for no trial, comon, what about the guy that's on trial now, for the connection to 9/11? You can't expect us to give every prisoners we have a trial NOW, these things take time!

Bush is human too, he's going to fail at things too. Comon humans are FALLIABLE, we are NOT perfect, we will NEVER be perfect, so stup trying to force people to be something that they can't be.

I hate to say this, but even for someone as supposedly mentally limited as Bush it surely isn't that tough a decision - hmm, do we brutally torture these guys or not? Hmm...

Torture I can buy, but what is your source on the false confession and fale imprisonment? Also, in case you realize it or not, we imprison people before (or without in your case) a trial too, within our own borders as well!. As for no trial, comon, what about the guy that's on trial now, for the connection to 9/11? You can't expect us to give every prisoners we have a trial NOW, these things take time!

So let's torture them in the mean time! Brilliant!:rolleyes:

Torture I can buy, but what is your source on the false confession and fale imprisonment? Also, in case you realize it or not, we imprison people before (or without in your case) a trial too, within our own borders as well!. As for no trial, comon, what about the guy that's on trial now, for the connection to 9/11? You can't expect us to give every prisoners we have a trial NOW, these things take time!
They should have access to an attorney and a date for a trial.

Eh, yea, to people who don't wish to do us harm. Everyone else can go screw themselves. Why do you think we deport people when they commit a crime over here??? It's a bastion of freedom and democracy for those who wish to live here and abide by our laws, not to kill us.

That's pretty much what your average police state does too. In police states people tend to go missing and people get deported without any form of justice. Looks like Iraq to me.

That's pretty much what your average police state does too. In police states people tend to go missing and people get deported without any form of justice. Looks like Iraq to me.

No, we deport people AFTER they are given a trial and found guilty. I'm sorry if MOST of Americans don't want an Open Border policy.

No, we deport people AFTER they are given a trial and found guilty. I'm sorry if MOST of Americans don't want an Open Border policy.

How many of the prisoners in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib have been given trails? Or even lawyers? Had evidence presented against them?

How many of the prisoners in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib have been given trails? Or even lawyers? Had evidence presented against them?

You do realize the key word there is DEPORT, meaning that they have to be within our borders for us to deport them. The converstation I was quoting was about how deportation of crimimals (without trials although we do give them trials) is the mentaility of a police state.

Which of course is a perfect excuse for this sort of thing. Isn't it odd how perfectly normal, fallible human beings such as - to take an example at random - myself, have managed, despite my despicably flawed human nature, to get this far without torturing people?
obviously you've achieved perfection!:D

You do realize the key word there is DEPORT, meaning that they have to be within our borders for us to deport them. The converstation I was quoting was about how deportation of crimimals (without trials although we do give them trials) is the mentaility of a police state.

Camp Delta in Guatanamo is within your borders, since that area is a part of your territory. Yet, no trials, trial dates, lawyers, evidence being given, just arrests without explanations, without care of innocence or even evidence often. Sounds like a Police State to me...

You do realize the key word there is DEPORT, meaning that they have to be within our borders for us to deport them. The converstation I was quoting was about how deportation of crimimals (without trials although we do give them trials) is the mentaility of a police state.

Guatanamo is within our borders.

Wrong answer, Kemo Sabe.
Au contraire Tonto. It definitely was a cheap shot directed at the "far left" that failed miserably. :D

How do you know what I expected??
Because you are sooooo predictable. You wanted to paint the media as "stoopid" and "gullible", and that "very many of the unverifiable and unprovable "torture incidents"" are touted by the "far left". Unfortunately for you, your mission has backfired. Fortunately, many posters here, are not as "stoopid" or "gullible" or as "far left" as you think.

Personally, I believe that you do your country a huge dis-service by dragging stories such as these back into the spotlight. The fact remains that there was abuse and torture at Abu Gharib and it put the US in a bad light. Perhaps you would like to blame that on the "far left" as well?

obviously you've achieved perfection!:D

Oooooh, so that's what that is. I just put it down to eating healthily.

...SNIP...having no trial and being kept even without legal representation.

They have no legal status. They do not meet the definition of Prisoner of War so they do not have that status. They are not common criminals so they do not meet that status. They are Enemy Combatants and as such have no legal standing under either US law or the Geneva Convention.

Yes, they will be tried by a military tribunal or released. No, they should not be tortured. There is no excuse for that.

They have no legal status. They do not meet the definition of Prisoner of War so they do not have that status. They are not common criminals so they do not meet that status. They are Enemy Combatants and as such have no legal standing under either US law or the Geneva Convention.

Yes, they will be tried by a military tribunal or released. No, they should not be tortured. There is no excuse for that.
So, basically they're hostages because the US found a loophole.

You do realize that our rights, our consitution doesn't apply to them right? It only applies to citizens or people who immigrated here.

It even applies to those who are here illegaly. :(

They have no legal status. They do not meet the definition of Prisoner of War so they do not have that status. They are not common criminals so they do not meet that status. They are Enemy Combatants and as such have no legal standing under either US law or the Geneva Convention.

Yes, they will be tried by a military tribunal or released. No, they should not be tortured. There is no excuse for that.

Ohhh, that's okay then. By ensuring that through a legal loophole they have no legal status, it's fine to keep them imprisoned forever with no legal representation. Great example to give, USA!

Ever hear of international law? Geneva convention? (http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

Geneva Convention does not apply to enemy combatents. It applys to members of the military on both sides of the conflict.

Geneva Convention does not apply to enemy combatents. It applys to members of the military on both sides of the conflict.

So because they're not formally in the military it makes it ok to deny them basic human rights?

Geneva Convention does not apply to enemy combatents. It applys to members of the military on both sides of the conflict.
While not all of them would fall under it, a lot would:


Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Camp Delta in Guatanamo is within your borders, since that area is a part of your territory.

No it is not withing or borders. It is within the borders of Cuba. We are there because we had a lease on the property before the revolution in Cuba. No, I do not know how long the lease was for.

No it is not withing or borders. It is within the borders of Cuba. We are there because we had a lease on the property before the revolution in Cuba. No, I do not know how long the lease was for.

99 Years I belive, although extended, and it is within your territory, as the base and land it is on is considered legally US territory.

So because they're not formally in the military it makes it ok to deny them basic human rights?

Because they do meet the definition of a Prisoner of War under the terms of the Geneva Convention they can not be given that status and treated under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

If you tell me what "basic human rights" you feel they are being denied, and what documents define those rights I will be better able to answer this part of the question. If you are refering to torture, no they should not be tortured and anyone who tortures prisoners has been and will be prosicuted.

as the base and land it is on is considered legally US territory.

Not true.

No it is not withing or borders. It is within the borders of Cuba. We are there because we had a lease on the property before the revolution in Cuba. No, I do not know how long the lease was for.

It is territory of the United States just as all our embassy buildings around the world are our territory. It falls under US jurisdiction just as any of our other territories do.

Because they do meet the definition of a Prisoner of War under the terms of the Geneva Convention they can not be given that status and treated under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

If you tell me what "basic human rights" you feel they are being denied, and what documents define those rights I will be better able to answer this part of the question. If you are refering to torture, no they should not be tortured and anyone who tortures prisoners has been and will be prosicuted.

Well you've pretty much hit the nail on the head there - I don't know if anything specifically states it, but I expect it's considered a pretty basic human right to not be tortured. And it's all very well saying 'of course they shouldn't be tortured' but the fact remains that they were/are. My reasoning may be, and probably is knowing me lol, but it just seems that you're arguing for Bush while at the same time saying that he definitely shouldn't have done what he did.

Not true.

Upon further research, conceded. That still doesn't make it right that these prisoners can be held indefinately, without a trial, trial declaration, legal aid and kept in humiliating and god-awful conditions just because it isn't in your territory.

EDIT: Sdaeriji makes a valid point. There is no differene legally between the Camp and the US Embassy in a country

Well if people are so far off base with their assessment of your intented point (in posting the article) Eut, then why not enlighten us all? What exactly do you think this demonstrates?

Let's review the scale, type and effect of the issue described. A man who was mistreated and (according to the sensibilities of every person I know) tortured, claim to be a particular person in a particular photo who was mistreated and (according to the sensibilities of everyone I know) tortured.
Both people were mistreated (and arguably tortured.) The events in the photo did take place and the man claiming to have been mistreated was mistreated by the organisation/entity that he claims mistreated him. No one has been arrested, imprisoned, killed or indeed suffered any particular misfortune as a result of the man's claim to be the person in the photo.

Gee, it's not like anyone got a coalition together and started a war over these 'gullible reports' is it.....? Next to the people believed in the 'active WMD programe in Iraq' and who actually believed Saddam Hussein posed some kind of threat to the US when in fact the weather posed more risk (not to mention the people who actually voted for Bush a 2nd time around - really the mind boggles:confused: ) these reporters look like Einsteins....

Honestly given the creduality of the huge numbers of people who believed in the WMD fairytale, these reporters hardly appear to be either stoopid or gullible, at least what they reported was believable, not like that far-fetched crap continuously streaming out the Whitehouse....
Full court press!! :)

Then you picked a very poor example.
As a matter of fact prisoners were abused in a certain facility.
During the time of these incidents this person was a prisoner at the facility.
The person in the photo has their face and other distinguishing characteristics hidden.
When this man claimed to be the person in the photo no one came forward to claim otherwise (ie no it cant be because that is me).
How exactly was believing this person being 'too quick to believe'? What exactly should have tipped off the media? They are journalists; they are not an intelligence agency charged with national security and given leave to inter people without charge and torture them until they get the information they are after.

Now if these reporters had simply taken all the spam from their email boxes and printed that as though it were gospel truth, that would be gullible...

I'm aware of what you were not addressing. That's exactly my entire point. You're so quick to accuse everyone of bias, I think you should probably look a bit closer to home in that regard. I dont expect you will agree with me, you have a habit of only seeing those things you want to. Given how intelligent you clearly are, it must take an enormous amount of energy to keep kidding yourself. I rather suspect even you are at most only half convinced.....
Slam!! :)

I agree this should be kept in mind, by you.
You are demeaning your own intelligence by posting in this manner - with you on their side America and the US military do not need a 'looney leftist' conspiracy to undermine their credibility.

If you dont want people to 'rail' against America and/or the US military then keep in mind your own reasoning when posting this article. The point (however much you might try to obfusicate it in the face of challenges) was to smear by association 'see this was false and so...'. As you stated you posted it because the media are in your mind 'too quick to believe'.

People reading the artical will see that it doesnt discredit the media generally and in fact supports the premise 'something stinks in the prison of Abu Gharib'.

Rather than discrediting the media, it is you that is discredited and via the 'smear by association' factor that you were intending (or even had actually bought into) many people will then form an impression (or gain further conviction in the impression) that 'Americans are stupid and/or dissembling' or at least that 'Americans that support the military are stupid and or dissembling' and then from there (via the 'smear by association factor') to 'America and/or the US military are stupid and/or dishonest'.

Now personally I dont go in for the whole 'smear by association' thing, but a lot of people do. Why? I dont know - I have some ideas but...however, since this was in essence the reasoning you (if you are entirely honest with yourself) were employing in regards to the article, you really shouldnt need me to explain to you how very real and powerful the 'smear by association' factor is.

So if you dont want the US and the US military railed against, you might help out by not feeding the railers so much fodder. By presenting silliness as though you think it is a reasoned point or a point at all, you are 'smearing by association' the very thing you believe yourself to be defending (not to mention demeaning yourself).


That is not at all relevent so far as I and my comments are concerned. Nor does it make your having posted the article, comments and title as you did anymore sensible or any less damaging to your credibility.


Being as biased as you present yourself as being is entirely escapable.


I dont see that as a good reason to discredit yourself by posting in such a myopic and unreasoned manner. In fact since doing so actually strengthens the impression that not opposing the Bush administration requires extreme myopicism, would it not be more productive to accept reality and argue on its terms rather than appearing to dwell in a fantasy land?

The fact is the US under the Bush administration has made the world a much worse place than it was before. US is part of the world, as is the US military. If you really cared about these things then I find it odd that you dont object as much as anyone to the harm and degredation both have suffered at the hands of the Bush administration. Your attempts to downplay the very wrong turn the US has taken under the Bush administration's steering, achieves the exact opposite of what you intend. Being unreasoned and downplaying the problems doesnt make things look better for a nation currently believed to be unreasoning and notorious for hiding/downplaying and dissembling about the problems it has and is causing.


Right, yet you still felt the need to make the OP in this thread. Go back and read it and tell me that to any 'Jo come lately' that they wouldnt get the impression that you are an apologist for current US military policy. The fact is the US has been implicated in using torture. There are photos proving it, people have been prosecuted, yet reading your OP one would think you were utterly unaware of these things because there seems no point to it but 'see all this torture stuff is probably just fairytales the gullible media foisted on us'.

So which is it? 'The media believes stuff too much' or an attempt to demonstrate that 'the media that prints uncomplimentary stuff about Bush/the US/the US military, is full of it' because if it's the earlier then most of your comments above (in the post I am replying to right now) are irrelevent, and if the comments I am replying to are relevent, then your earlier denials regarding your intended point in making the OP were in fact bald faced lies. Either way you are digging yourself a deeper hole and due to the good ol 'smear by association' factor you are taking down the very things you claim to be defending, with you....


Which illustrates my point nicely. Given this is the only one you have at any given time, you really dont have much of a case. People will notice this and instead of proving your point, you will demonstrate quite the opposite.

This is what I mean about bias. I'm not talking partiality, I'm talking about a myopic view that actually intereferes with basic reasoning and at best leads other people to dismiss you out of hand (due to the silliness of your arguments/actions) and at worst to associate that silliness with the very thing you are trying to defend.

Let me put it this way, if someone else tried on a silly like this on an issue you had no particular bias about (something you were disinterested in), bet you wouldnt be fooled for a moment, yet somehow you've managed to fool yourself...
Dunk!! :)

No it is not withing or borders. It is within the borders of Cuba. We are there because we had a lease on the property before the revolution in Cuba. LOL That Lease ?

It was signed by a US Puppet.

Its like if The USArmy would install a US puppet as President of Panama and immediately signing a perpetual lease on the Canal.. for peanuts.

Or like installing a US Puppet as President in Iran.. and immediately signing perpetual Exploitation contracts for the Oil Fields.

It is territory of the United States just as all our embassy buildings around the world are our territory. It falls under US jurisdiction just as any of our other territories do.

The status of US military bases on foreign soil depends on the Status of Forces agreement signed with the host country. If no Status of Forces exists, then the laws of the host country apply, even to military members. That is the reason a military person in Japan was tried in Japanese court for shooting a Japanese citizen who came on to the base through or over the fence. I do not know if there is a Status of Forces agreement in effect with Cuba concerning Gitmo or not. If there is, or was under the terms of the lease, I do not know what that agreement says. Therefore, it is very possible Gitmo is not sovereign US territory similar to an embassy.

Well you've pretty much hit the nail on the head there - I don't know if anything specifically states it, but I expect it's considered a pretty basic human right to not be tortured. And it's all very well saying 'of course they shouldn't be tortured' but the fact remains that they were/are. My reasoning may be, and probably is knowing me lol, but it just seems that you're arguing for Bush while at the same time saying that he definitely shouldn't have done what he did.

Yes, I would agree that there is a right not to be tortured. No, and have not said anything about Bush. Bush did not torture the prisoners at AG. Individual soldiers did. Those soldiers violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) the law governing the American military. Those people were investigated, tried, convicted, and sentenced under the UCMJ.

They aren't some kind of a hive mind.
Unlike military organizations, which aspire to just that.

Upon further research, conceded. That still doesn't make it right that these prisoners can be held indefinately, without a trial, trial declaration, legal aid and kept in humiliating and god-awful conditions just because it isn't in your territory.

They will not be held indefinatly. In fact several have already been released. Others will be tried by a legally conviened military tribunal (they were used during other wars) and either convicted and sentenced or found inncoent and released.

Yes, that's right - the complete entirity of the Middle East, down to the very last person, hates, despises and rejects all things Western. How very, totally, incredibly true.:rolleyes:

Don't you know Islam is not a religion but an evil entity that possesses the minds of everyone who converts to it? Why else do you think American Muslims have successfully hidden Osama Bin Ladin from the United States military for so long?

Geneva Convention does not apply to enemy combatents. It applys to members of the military on both sides of the conflict.
Ahhhh, thats the ticket. Just make up your own rules and to hell with what the rest of the world thinks? Don't you realize that this throws the US into a horrible light, especially since the US in the past has been synonymous with "democracy" and "freedom"?

What do the courts think of all this jibberish?

Two federal appeals courts ruled Thursday that the Bush administration overstepped its bounds in detaining suspected terrorists, issuing decisions that favored key civil liberties over the power of the government in the post-Sept. 11 legal era.

The decisions, issued separately by U.S. courts of appeal in San Francisco and New York, are significant rebukes to the administration's hard- line approach in combatting terrorism and affirm the rights of both foreigners and American citizens considered suspect by the government.

In one case, judges in New York ruled 2-1 that President Bush does not have the power to order that a U.S. citizen captured in this country be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant. The panel ordered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to release Jose Padilla -- the so-called dirty bomb suspect -- from a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., within 30 days and then turn him over for possible prosecution in a federal court with all the legal rights of a U.S. citizen.

Padilla was detained in Chicago 18 months ago on suspicion of plotting to detonate a radioactive bomb in the country and receiving explosives training from the al Qaeda network, but he has not been charged with a crime.

Hours later in San Francisco, federal judges ruled 2-1 that the administration's policy of imprisoning about 660 non-citizens on a naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to U.S. legal protections "raises the gravest concerns under both American and international law."

Overshadowing that ruling is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last month to review a case that upheld the Bush policy, which denies court access to the prisoners at the base. Whatever the high court rules will be the final word, though that did not stop human-rights advocates from praising Thursday's opinion.

"It reaffirms the courts' critical role in providing a check on unilateral presidential power," said Lucas Guttentag, head of the national American Civil Liberties Union's immigrants' rights project in Oakland. "That role is especially important in times of national crisis."

But a U.S. Justice Department spokesman sounded unfazed.

"Our position that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over non-U.S. citizens being held in military control abroad is based on long-standing Supreme Court precedent,'' said Mark Corallo, director of public affairs for the department.

Corallo did not say what the department will do next, but legal experts see two options. One would be to ask the San Francisco court to rehear the case. The other, more likely course would be to ask the Supreme Court to put the decision on hold and either review it or dispose of it consistent with the outcome of the cases now before the justices. If the Justice Department does nothing, the case would go back to U.S. District Court in Los Angeles for a hearing on the merits.

The decision by the San Francisco judges came down to the issue of whether the naval base at Guantanamo is U.S. territory. If it is, American courts have jurisdiction to hear the prisoners' complaints that they are being held in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva conventions. If the base is not U.S. territory, as the Justice Department argued, then the prisoners essentially have no right to complain, a position that the federal appeals court in San Francisco found untenable.

"We simply cannot accept the government's position,'' wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt for the court's majority, "that the executive branch possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign citizens included, on territory under the sole jurisdiction and control of the United States, without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement."

Wake up citizens of the US. Your great country is being hijacked, and it isn't through the efforts of those of the "far left".

Ahhhh, thats the ticket. Just make up your own rules and to hell with what the rest of the world thinks?

If I am not mistaken, the US did not make up the Geneva Convention. Although I do not know the history of it, I presume many nations made it up and then signed it. So how are "we" making up our own rules? Clearly we are not, but we are following the rules that were made up and agreed to by many nations including the US.

Yes, I would agree that there is a right not to be tortured. No, and have not said anything about Bush. Bush did not torture the prisoners at AG. Individual soldiers did. Those soldiers violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) the law governing the American military. Those people were investigated, tried, convicted, and sentenced under the UCMJ.

True, bu surely you concede that an awful lot has gone on (not just at AG) that Bush had the power to stop/prevent, but didn't. The whole sending-prisoners-to-other-countries-to-be-tortured thing springs to mind.

But I'm glad you're not saying it's ok to torture them :)

If I am not mistaken, the US did not make up the Geneva Convention. Although I do not know the history of it, I presume many nations made it up and then signed it. So how are "we" making up our own rules? Clearly we are not, but we are following the rules that were made up and agreed to by many nations including the US.

I think he means that by breaking the Geneva Convention (I'm not arguing whether or not the US actually have) you are effectively making up your own rules. Maybe.

In one case, judges in New York ruled 2-1 that President Bush does not have the power to order that a U.S. citizen captured in this country be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant. The panel ordered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to release Jose Padilla -- the so-called dirty bomb suspect -- from a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., within 30 days and then turn him over for possible prosecution in a federal court with all the legal rights of a U.S. citizen.

1. Apples and oranges. Those being detained in Gitmo are not US citizens, were not captured in this country, and are not detained in this country.

2. If I am not mistaken, a higher court overturned this ruling and Padilla is still in custody.

3. All of your quotes are from the US, not the "rest of the world."

If I am not mistaken, the US did not make up the Geneva Convention. Although I do not know the history of it, I presume many nations made it up and then signed it. So how are "we" making up our own rules? Clearly we are not, but we are following the rules that were made up and agreed to by many nations including the US.
Well, since the Conventions do not clearly define the Iraqi or Afghan "insurgents", the US decided to list them as "enemy combatants" and in so doing, firmly believe that they do not have to provide them any rights whatsoever. Lets just call it a policy of convenience?

You did read the judges dissents?

True, bu surely you concede that an awful lot has gone on (not just at AG) that Bush had the power to stop/prevent, but didn't. The whole sending-prisoners-to-other-countries-to-be-tortured thing springs to mind.

But I'm glad you're not saying it's ok to torture them :)

No I will not concede that. Bush did not send prisoners to other countries to be tortured.

No I will not concede that. Bush did not send prisoners to other countries to be tortured.

Oh come on. If not, then what's your explanation for it all? And don't say 'Bush wasn't the one who actually ordered it done' because he would have been informed at least, and could therefore have stopped it.

Wake up citizens of the US. Your great country is being hijacked, and it isn't through the efforts of those of the "far left".
True words, the sad irony being that those who actually do care about this attack on the US from within are so often accused by those who endorse and support the attack of being anti-American. Surely the Anti-Americans are those who are willing to see US values, traditions and freedoms thrown out the window just so they can keep supporting their favourite political colours, and never mind that they chose those colours due to values that appear anathema to the Bush administration.

For future reference: anti-Bush is pro-American, pro-Bush is far from it.

Well, since the Conventions do not clearly define the Iraqi or Afghan "insurgents", the US decided to list them as "enemy combatants" and in so doing, firmly believe that they do not have to provide them any rights whatsoever. Lets just call it a policy of convenience?

You did read the judges dissents?

Let's go back to one of my earlier posts where I said those people being held in Gitmo do not fit the legal definition of Prisoners of War, nor are they criminals. They were people who were captured on the battlefield who did not wear a uniform, were not the members of any military or organized militia, and were trying to kill allied forces. How would you classify them? What would you do with them?

1. Apples and oranges. Those being detained in Gitmo are not US citizens, were not captured in this country, and are not detained in this country.
Nevermind the fruit salad approach. :rolleyes: The fact remains that the detainees were captured in other countries and should have remained there? Gitmo is technically US jurisdiction? Like I said, a policy of convenience. Arrest them as "enemy combatants" and remove them to nowhere land. Brilliant, just brilliant!!

2. If I am not mistaken, a higher court overturned this ruling and Padilla is still in custody.
If that is the case, then that is even more reason to believe that the US no longer believes in justice?

3. All of your quotes are from the US, not the "rest of the world."
There is a problem with that?

Oh come on. If not, then what's your explanation for it all? And don't say 'Bush wasn't the one who actually ordered it done' because he would have been informed at least, and could therefore have stopped it.

I will not concede that prisoners were sent to other countries to be tortured. Interrogated in other countries maybe, but not tortured.

I will not concede that Bush knew people were being taken to other countries for interrogation. Reagan didn't know about Iran/Contra either. There is a lot going on in the world and the country and the President isn't informed of everything, just as the CEO of the company I work for doesn't know everything that goes on withing the company. No one can micro-manage a company or a nation.

Let's go back to one of my earlier posts where I said those people being held in Gitmo do not fit the legal definition of Prisoners of War, nor are they criminals. They were people who were captured on the battlefield who did not wear a uniform, were not the members of any military or organized militia, and were trying to kill allied forces. How would you classify them? What would you do with them?
Well, if they are not criminals, you let them go?

If someone invades the US and your army is in disarray, are you not free to defend your country as an ordinary citizen?

If the invaders captured you, would you rather be considered a POW with rights or an "enemy combatant" without any rights?

Prisoners captured on the battlefield should be considered as prisoners of war.

Let's go back to one of my earlier posts where I said those people being held in Gitmo do not fit the legal definition of Prisoners of War, nor are they criminals. They were people who were captured on the battlefield who did not wear a uniform, were not the members of any military or organized militia, and were trying to kill allied forces. How would you classify them? What would you do with them?

As hapless victims of greedy Pakistani bounty hunters and a U.S. military willing to look the other way to bolster its image of fighting terrorism. (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29231265.htm)

True words, the sad irony being that those who actually do care about this attack on the US from within are so often accused by those who endorse and support the attack of being anti-American. Surely the Anti-Americans are those who are willing to see US values, traditions and freedoms thrown out the window just so they can keep supporting their favourite political colours, and never mind that they chose those colours due to values that appear anathema to the Bush administration.

For future reference: anti-Bush is pro-American, pro-Bush is far from it.
I totally agree. I support your efforts to wrest your country back from the destructive forces that are tearing her apart.

Well, if they are not criminals, you let them go?

If someone invades the US and your army is in disarray, are you not free to defend your country as an ordinary citizen?

If the invaders captured you, would you rather be considered a POW with rights or an "enemy combatant" without any rights?

Prisoners captured on the battlefield should be considered as prisoners of war.

Many of those captured were not Afghans but people from other countries, so please don't give me the "defending their country bit."

You want to go by international law, but you want to disregard that law when it comes to classifying people who were captured on the battlefield? It could be worse, as according to the Geneva Convention they could have been classified as spies and shot without trial.

I must sign off for now but I will check back in later. Thank you for the debate.

Well, it's a good thing we rooted out that liar, now it's all come out! There was no abuse at all!! YAY!!

Task Force 6-26

Before and After Abu Ghraib, a U.S. Unit Abused Detainees (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/international/middleeast/19abuse.html?ex=1300424400&en=e8755a4b031b64a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Oh, crap!

I will not concede that prisoners were sent to other countries to be tortured. Interrogated in other countries maybe, but not tortured.

I will not concede that Bush knew people were being taken to other countries for interrogation. Reagan didn't know about Iran/Contra either. There is a lot going on in the world and the country and the President isn't informed of everything, just as the CEO of the company I work for doesn't know everything that goes on withing the company. No one can micro-manage a company or a nation.

There's no excuse for ignorance of such a horrendous act - and I still go with 'torture' rather than 'interrogation' because why on earth would they need to be sent elsewhere to be interrogated? - especially when it created such a major public backlash. He had the resources available to find out, so why didn't he?

Well, if they are not criminals, you let them go?

If someone invades the US and your army is in disarray, are you not free to defend your country as an ordinary citizen?

If the invaders captured you, would you rather be considered a POW with rights or an "enemy combatant" without any rights?

Prisoners captured on the battlefield should be considered as prisoners of war.
The Geneva Convention is rather specific about that. Don't wear a uniform, you're not a combatant ... period.

I totally agree. I support your efforts to wrest your country back from the destructive forces that are tearing her apart.
Well Destiny Church is a worry, but it's not like they crossed the 5% threshold or won a seat last election.....(obscure 'localised' reference)

Thanks for your support, although I feel obliged to point that I am not American....dont want to be accused of appropriating someone else's national identity....

I know I'm not American because it took till the 'dunk' before I got the whole basket ball reference....yes we do have basket ball here, but mostly it's played by imported Americans (imported 'cause we're non-too-hot at basket ball, rugby and netball's more our thing, and pavlova, dont listen to the Aussies, the pavlova is ours - they can keep Russel Crowe)....;)

Sorry, enough off-topic. Clearly I am overdue for a caffeine break....:D

The Geneva Convention is rather specific about that. Don't wear a uniform, you're not a combatant ... period.
So you're saying they are being illegally held at Gitmo? They're not combatants, not American and they didn't commit any crimes in America. Thus America has no right to do anything with them.

The Geneva Convention is rather specific about that. Don't wear a uniform, you're not a combatant ... period.
If you actually read the geneva convention it mentions nothing about uniforms. it does however say that people who aren't part of the organised military will be treated as POW's. sorry the US is bang out of order on this one, you signed the convention so you have to abide by it.

I will not concede that prisoners were sent to other countries to be tortured. Interrogated in other countries maybe, but not tortured.
Ignorance is bliss?

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

Further down in the article:

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.

Why ask for an exemption unless there are plans to inflict "cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody"?

I will not concede that Bush knew people were being taken to other countries for interrogation.
Bush didn't know huh? :eek: Well, now that Bush does know, what is he doing to stop the practice? Oh, he isn't....he sends Dick Cheney to Congress to ask for an exemption that would allow the US to inflict "cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody".

Reagan didn't know about Iran/Contra either.
Mmmmmkay!!

There is a lot going on in the world and the country and the President isn't informed of everything, just as the CEO of the company I work for doesn't know everything that goes on withing the company. No one can micro-manage a company or a nation.
Bush apologists couldn't have stated it better!!

The Geneva Convention is rather specific about that. Don't wear a uniform, you're not a combatant ... period.
It all depends on who we're talking about here, if we're talking about the iraqi insurgents they don't fall under it...
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
...but some might fall under A3(sadams soldiers), A6 the non-regular resistence encountered when first invading Iraq or B1 (former-sadams soldiers again)

They were people who were captured on the battlefield who did not wear a uniform, were not the members of any military or organized militia, and were trying to kill allied forces. How would you classify them? I would call them militia.. classify them as POWs What would you do with them?nothing... or whatever is ususally done with any other POWs.

The Geneva Convention is rather specific about that. Don't wear a uniform, you're not a combatant ... period.
It appears that your country disagrees with you? The US is calling them "enemy combatants". Now are they combatants or not?

So you're saying they are being illegally held .of course its Illegal.. Its a WarCrime.

may BUSH burn in hell.

I think someone should make a sitcom about a tight-knit group of inmates at Guantanamo Bay. Call it 'Akbar's Heroes' and feature an idiotic guard played by a corpulent buffoon. Every week the wacky camp commandant tries to cook up some new way to dehumanize the hilarious Akbar and his fun-loving, unjustly-accused crew in the serious if forlorn pursuit of information that they simply don't have, or that in all honesty - doesn't exist. But plucky Akbar is actually secretly cleverly manipulating his thuggish captors into allowing him to remain at Gitmo, making it easier for him to surreptiously send valuable intel back to the boys at Al-Qaida HQ.

I'd watch it. At least the once.

I think someone should make a sitcom about a tight-knit group of inmates at Guantanamo Bay. Call it 'Akbar's Heroes' and feature an idiotic guard played by a corpulent buffoon. Every week the wacky camp commandant tries to cook up some new way to dehumanize the hilarious Akbar and his fun-loving, unjustly-accused crew in the serious if forlorn pursuit of information that they simply don't have, or that in all honesty - doesn't exist. But plucky Akbar is actually secretly cleverly manipulating his thuggish captors into allowing him to remain at Gitmo, making it easier for him to surreptiously send valuable intel back to the boys at Al-Qaida HQ.

I'd watch it. At least the once.
What an odd thing to say.

Oh, it's about the media being stupid and gullible, not the stupidity and gullibility of those consuming media. My bad.

'Cause you gotta admit, my idea really appealed to the absolute lowest common denominator, there.

What an odd thing to say.

You've never seen Hogan's Heroe's then?

Yea, it's not like OTHER countries has abused the Geneva convention too *cough*Vietnam*cough*. Nooo, it's just big ol' nasty America. Jeez, get over yourself. America is not the only country that abused the Geneva Convention, and it won't be the last. Jeez I am getting sick and tired of leftist trying to paint America as the bad guy.

Some advice:

1. Read what I posted one more time:

I personally find it despicable that some Americans think they can just piss on the Geneva convention and consider that it does not exist or apply to them.

2. Notice how I have not stated that the US has disregarded the geneva convention.
3. Notice how I have not ruled out in any way that the Geneva convention is being and has been ignored by several nations.
4. Notice how I have not pinned the US as having ignored the Geneva convention.
5. Shoot yourself in the head.

You've never seen Hogan's Heroes then?
nope.

Holy shit, I can't believe this.

Or. Not quite. I've read more than one report about whitewashing war crimes. But this is just too thick a lie to be even plausible. Because a fraudulent torture "poster boy" surfaces, then the entire torture scandal was a hoax, right? Holy shit this is unbelievable. If the Bush administration has the gall to publish this kind of war propaganda crap, they must have essentially perfect control of the United States media.

Is this an American forum (despite the .co.uk domain)?

Dicksmaller... discslammer... um, I'm drunk, ... discrlaimer: I'm a right-winger. But I don't believe in consistently misleading the public. I think that's evil.

Holy shit, I can't believe this.

Or. Not quite. I've read more than one report about whitewashing war crimes. But this is just too thick a lie to be even plausible. Because a fraudulent torture "poster boy" surfaces, then the entire torture scandal was a hoax, right? Holy shit this is unbelievable. If the Bush administration has the gall to publish this kind of war propaganda crap, they must have essentially perfect control of the United States media.

Is this an American forum (despite the .co.uk domain)?
I think the largest group is American but everone else combined outnumbers them.

Holy shit, I can't believe this.
Or. Not quite. I've read more than one report about whitewashing war crimes.
...
Is this an American forum (despite the .co.uk domain)?majority of members are from the US.

What they did at Abu Grahib probably wasn't torture, if the soldiers were just following orders. (Now that's an original excuse, isn't it)

At least, that seemed to be the arguement in this case that took place in Afghanistan...
Brand told correspondent Scott Pelley what he did wasn’t torture, it was his training, authorized and supervised by his superiors.
...from this (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/02/60minutes/main1364163.shtml) report from 60 minutes. And the punishment for assault and maiming? A reduction in rank. Now that's harsh! :rolleyes:

I do not believe that all those american soldiers who have commited acts of torture and abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq have been punished for their misdeeds, and some of the people who have been convicted has gotten ridiculously lenient punishments.

As for the topic of the thread, well, I guess there really isn't much to say about it, as I failed to grasp the point of the OP.

So you're saying they are being illegally held at Gitmo? They're not combatants, not American and they didn't commit any crimes in America. Thus America has no right to do anything with them.

Well as I pointed out earlier, (do people read these threads?) they are combatants, not American and most not Afghan, who were picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan trying to kill allied (that included American) military personnel. So no, they are not being illegally held and yes the US has a right to hold them.

If you actually read the geneva convention it mentions nothing about uniforms. it does however say that people who aren't part of the organised military will be treated as POW's. sorry the US is bang out of order on this one, you signed the convention so you have to abide by it.

So, if we abide by the Convention and we pick people up on the battlefield that are shooting at the allied forces, who are not a part of the military (distinguished by some type of uniform), who are not part of an organized militia, who are not from Afghanistan, we should shoot them as spies?

"Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities such as, murder prisoners or target and kill noncombatants may be shot by firing squads."

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/l/blgenevaconv.htm

If you actually read the geneva convention it mentions nothing about uniforms. it does however say that people who aren't part of the organised military will be treated as POW's. sorry the US is bang out of order on this one, you signed the convention so you have to abide by it.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Celtlund that's BS and you know it.

Well as I pointed out earlier, (do people read these threads?) they are combatants, not American and most not Afghan, who were picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan trying to kill allied (that included American) military personnel. So no, they are not being illegally held and yes the US has a right to hold them.

But were they? Trying to kill allied military personell, I mean? It seems that some were delivered to US forces by afghanis who claimed that they were linked to al-Qaeda (but may just have been handed over for the bounties the US were willing to pay). And some did indeed have such connections and some were probably trying to kill allied troops, but how do we, the public, know that the detainees aren't really POW and entitled to the protections og Geneva? After all, the tribunals to determine their status (if they are ever held) are secret, and it's wasn't before just recently we even knew the names of the people held at Guantanamo for more than three years.

I just don't trust the government enough to just take their word for it anymore...

There is really no point. Some americans feel it is their god given right to murder, invade, take and detain as they please with total disregard for rules, morals or codes of conduct. The are amoral as they act in their nations interest. This amorality makes them imoral.

Celtlund on the other hand is just a simple plain liar. The geneva convention does not make provisions for firing squads under any circumstances.

So, if we abide by the Convention and we pick people up on the battlefield that are shooting at the allied forces, who are not a part of the military (distinguished by some type of uniform), who are not part of an organized militia, who are not from Afghanistan, we should shoot them as spies?

"Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities such as, murder prisoners or target and kill noncombatants may be shot by firing squads."

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/l/blgenevaconv.htm
This article might help clarification:

Memo Lets CIA Take Detainees Out of Iraq
Practice Is Called Serious Breach of Geneva Conventions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57363-2004Oct23.html)

At the request of the CIA, the Justice Department drafted a confidential memo that authorizes the agency to transfer detainees out of Iraq for interrogation -- a practice that international legal specialists say contravenes the Geneva Conventions.

One intelligence official familiar with the operation said the CIA has used the March draft memo as legal support for secretly transporting as many as a dozen detainees out of Iraq in the last six months. The agency has concealed the detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other authorities, the official said.


Further down in the article:

During the war in Afghanistan, the administration ruled that al Qaeda fighters were not considered "protected persons" under the convention. Many of them were transferred out of the country to the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere for interrogations. By contrast, the U.S. government deems former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and military, as well as insurgents and other civilians in Iraq, to be protected by the Geneva Conventions.

As for the topic of the thread, well, I guess there really isn't much to say about it, as I failed to grasp the point of the OP.

Forrest Horn is the worst kind of sell-out; a Vietnam vet who worships and serves as a willing political attack dog for a draft dodging chicken-hawk incompetent like George W. Bush. Despite his claims to being "centrist" and not worshipping Bush, his actions on General speak a hell of a lot louder. This was just the latest in his masturbatory obcession with "Liberals are the suxx0rs!!!!Oneone" posts.

...Gauthier, you forgot to mention his penchant for soft-pedalling war to young people as some sort of hetero-male bonding encounter group experience. That's what really gets my goat.

...Gauthier, you forgot to mention his penchant for soft-pedalling war to young people as some sort of hetero-male bonding encounter group experience. That's what really gets my goat.

Oh yeah. And let's not forget how he puts up a sanctimonious stance on Islamic extremists threatening cartoonists and newspapers while not even batting an eyelid with his admitted willingness to murder someone who doesn't kowtow to the military like a peasant.

Oh yeah. And let's not forget how he puts up a sanctimonious stance on Islamic extremists threatening cartoonists and newspapers while not even batting an eyelid with his admitted willingness to murder someone who doesn't kowtow to the military like a peasant.
My sole hope is that some day soon, life imitates art.
http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW02-15-06.jpg
Urk!

COMMENTARY: Unlike so very many of the unverifiable and unprovable "torture incidents" touted by the far left, this article stands on its own ... totally!

Cited as Symbol of Abu Ghraib, Man Admits He Is Not in Photo (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/18/international/middleeast/18ghraib.html?th&emc=th)

By KATE ZERNIKE <snippage> It does? Not only does it not prove what you think it does, Kate Zernike has quite the reputation as a reporter who never met a conservative issue she didn't like. For you to use her to tout media bias is to laugh.

It does? Not only does it not prove what you think it does, Kate Zernike has quite the reputation as a reporter who never met a conservative issue she didn't like. For you to use her to tout media bias is to laugh.
Sledge hammer irony?

So, if we abide by the Convention and we pick people up on the battlefield that are shooting at the allied forces, who are not a part of the military (distinguished by some type of uniform), who are not part of an organized militia, who are not from Afghanistan, we should shoot them as spies?

"Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities such as, murder prisoners or target and kill noncombatants may be shot by firing squads."

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/l/blgenevaconv.htm
*JUMPS UP AND DOWN*HELLO!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10596355&postcount=108

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10596927&postcount=148


http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

It doesn't mention spies or firing scuads either. I haven't checked the other conventions yet but I will.

Right:
"Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities such as, murder prisoners or target and kill noncombatants may be shot by firing squads."

The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm)
Article 5

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. It mentions nothing of firing scuads or any other type excutions, that needs a fair regular trial!

Of course maybe it says it in "The Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" or "The Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea"? ;)

Where did you get: "Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities such as, murder prisoners or target and kill noncombatants may be shot by firing squads." from?

I believe that was lined up right next to the WMDs in Iraq.

I believe that was lined up right next to the WMDs in Iraq.
What would that be doing in my attic? Oops, I've said too much!

bump

Sump bump.

Sump bump.
We should wait till celtlund is online.

*JUMPS UP AND DOWN*HELLO!

Feeling a tad ignored, are we? :p

Feeling a tad ignored, are we? :p
yes :(


:D

yes :(
You poor thing... Here, have a Geneva-convention sanctioned cookie :D

Mmm... Cookies :fluffle:

You poor thing... Here, have a Geneva-convention sanctioned cookie :D

Mmm... Cookies :fluffle:
Is that the first, second, third or fourth Geneva convention?

Or is it first or second "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions" which the US hasn't signed?

Err wait, *takes cookie* Thanks!

So, if we abide by the Convention and we pick people up on the battlefield that are shooting at the allied forces, who are not a part of the military (distinguished by some type of uniform), who are not part of an organized militia, who are not from Afghanistan, we should shoot them as spies?

"Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities such as, murder prisoners or target and kill noncombatants may be shot by firing squads."

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/l/blgenevaconv.htm

Well then it seems that the US military also has trouble reading and understanding the conventions. Article 4.A.1.(c) clearly states that any combatant "carrying arms openly" must be treated as a POW. Now it may just be me but if I capture a man who is shooting at me or is on a battlefield with a gun then I would class that as "carrying arms openly". Now if he doesn't have a gun then what are you doing arresting himas an enemy combatant?

NB: The article in question doesn't stipulate that they must be from the country that they were fighting for.

Is that the first, second, third or fourth Geneva convention?

Or is it first or second "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions" which the US hasn't signed?

Err wait, *takes cookie* Thanks!

Haven't you learned never to look a gift cookie in the Geneva convention? :p