NationStates Jolt Archive

And in the US too...

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060613/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_yemen_dc_1;_ylt=ArbN2FWaFOLzCj_QkdRE9bw3NiUi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUC Ul)

The family of the Yemeni chap who "comitted suicide" says they think he was killed by the military. The name released by the US was the prisoner's father's name. /the father has demanded an autopsy and the body be brought home, but some red tape is in the way.

Come on, it's a goddam dead body. Just send it home...unless you're trying to coverup. Now we just need Amnesty International to confirm his death as a murder.

Now can we as real Americans protest and threaten to only elect congressmen who will impeach bush and co.

This administration ahs about 5% approval from me: only because they put troops on the border.

was he one of the 3 that hanged himself in club gitmo?

was he one of the 3 that hanged himself in club gitmo?


That's what the source said.

That's what the source said.

So his father is upset that his son committed suicide?

So his father is upset that his son committed suicide?

I think the father is angry his son was murdered.

I think the father is angry his son was murdered.

There was no murder so how can he be upset at something that didn't occur?

HE thinks the soldiers murdered his son and that hed did not commit suicide. SA said Biko committed suicide, trying to be a martyr, but it was later found out that he was beaten to death by jailers.

Yes...

I didn't give a yes or no question.

Sorry, that was to an earlier thing, but I forgot to click submit...hehe

And in the US too...

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060613/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_yemen_dc_1;_ylt=ArbN2FWaFOLzCj_QkdRE9bw3NiUi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUC Ul)

The family of the Yemeni chap who "comitted suicide" says they think he was killed by the military. The name released by the US was the prisoner's father's name. /the father has demanded an autopsy and the body be brought home, but some red tape is in the way.

Come on, it's a goddam dead body. Just send it home...unless you're trying to coverup. Now we just need Amnesty International to confirm his death as a murder.

Now can we as real Americans protest and threaten to only elect congressmen who will impeach bush and co.

This administration ahs about 5% approval from me: only because they put troops on the border.

The International Red Cross has a permanent office there, and they have access to the prisoners, including during interrogations.

Are you saying that the IRC is in on it?

Come on, it's a goddam dead body. Just send it home...unless you're trying to coverup. Now we just need Amnesty International to confirm his death as a murder.

I wouldn't count on Amnesty too much for reliable information when it comes down to that type of thing. They're rather shifty with the way they analyze evidence as demonstrated in this recent article from Reuters:

EU-US "partners in crime" on CIA flights: Amnesty (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-14T102449Z_01_L13774337_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-CIA-EU.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2)

Amnesty does not produce "smoking gun" evidence either. But it says the "converging evidence" should be enough.

That is, don't expect hard, physical evidence. They want you to believe based on the circumstantial evidence alone.

why would you want to insult Biko like that ? You just marginalized a great person by starting this thread using him as a comparison to the suicidal former jihadist . What was the jihadist protesting exactly ..?? You compare radical Islam to Apartheid somehow ?:rolleyes:

Ultra, you have to understand.

In the eyes of some people on the forum, the US is the embodiment of everything that has ever been wrong about anything in all of history, and anything the US is accused of is TRUE until proven FALSE beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So, by extension, any terrorist is the best combination of Mahatma Gandhi and Stephen Biko. And never commits suicide, much less commit any wrongdoing.

Notice how everyone arguing against the thread glazes over the Biko fact.

Notice how everyone arguing against the thread glazes over the Biko fact.

Biko was a fact in South Africa. Not a fact in the United States. Right now, there is no reason to believe that anything even remotely similiar to what happened to Biko occured in Gitmo. Considering that there were three suicides, and only one dead man's family is claiming that he was murdered, we've got quite a bit of inconsistency.

And don't we have autopsy reports to confirm this thing? Or are those part of the big Bikoesque conspiracy too?

When no one will accept the evidence presented to them, and continue to entertain the ideas of conspiracy theories, then there is no evidence that can be presented or any refutation of those theories. People will continue to believe whatever they are biased for and bent on believing, regardless of the evidence.

Notice how everyone arguing against the thread glazes over the Biko fact.
Am I arguing that Biko was not a suicide?

Didn't think I was.

But until you have some evidence, you're pulling accusations out of your butt.

I say it's highly doubtful that they were murdered, but it's bad enough that they committed suicide, that alone tells me something needs to be done.

I say it's highly doubtful that they were murdered, but it's bad enough that they committed suicide, that alone tells me something needs to be done.

Well, let's see. I bet that at this point, there's not much point in questioning any of them, as their info is either old or they already gave it up. So no value there.

They've built a facility comparable to a modern Fed prison - most of them live in communal groups. No one lives in the original outdoor cells.

We should repatriate the ones who are harmless. I suggest overflying their country of origin and dropping them by parachute, even if their home country doesn't want them back.

As for the ones we consider to be a permanent danger, they face the psychological effects of isolation and hopelessness. I suggest that we hold field court martials (as they would satisfy the requirement of getting them a lawyer, having a trial, etc), and if found guilty, execute them. Any that are acquitted should be airdropped by parachute in their country of origin.

Ultra, you have to understand.

In the eyes of some people on the forum, the US is the embodiment of everything that has ever been wrong about anything in all of history, and anything the US is accused of is TRUE until proven FALSE beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So, by extension, any terrorist is the best combination of Mahatma Gandhi and Stephen Biko. And never commits suicide, much less commit any wrongdoing.


Malcontent monkies flinging shit all day, trying to cover their own shortcomings.

Am I arguing that Biko was not a suicide?

Didn't think I was.

But until you have some evidence, you're pulling accusations out of your butt.
You ignore the issue. Which I will have to spell out for you - the military has lied in the recent past about these things for propaganda reasons, why isn't it possible they are doing it now?

You ignore the issue. Which I will have to spell out for you - the military has lied in the recent past about these things for propaganda reasons, why isn't it possible they are doing it now?
It's possible.

But you have to prove they are lying.

Can you? Terrorists have lied about mistreatment before - note the one Saudi who was recently convicted of plotting to kill Bush - he claimed he was tortured to the extent that his back was "a mass of scars".

No scars were seen by three independent medical examiners. He was unable to produce any photos of his back showing scars. The judge made him take off the shirt so the judge (a civilian judge in Alexandria, Va) could look for himself - none were seen.

It's possible.

But you have to prove they are lying.
It will be proven true or false, but until then I won't sit here and argue like the military is fucking squeeky clean and has never done this shit before.
Nor will I except that from you jingoists.

I think we need to go over the basics of debating again...
If we take your assumption...

Party X has lied in the recent past. Therefore, we must assume that they are lying now.

Aside from the fallacious nature of that statement, if we accept it, then you must accept...

Captured terrorist suspects have lied in the recent past. Therefore, we must assume that they are lying now.

If we take your assumption...

Party X has lied in the recent past. Therefore, we must assume that they are lying now.

Aside from the fallacious nature of that statement, if we accept it, then you must accept...

Captured terrorist suspects have lied in the recent past. Therefore, we must assume that they are lying now.
Wow, can we stay on-topic please? We arn't talking about terrorists, we are talking about the US military, more specifically, the guards at Gitmo.

Nor will I except that from you jingoists.

Sorry, not a jingoist. You must be mistaking me for someone else.

Amoral, yes. But not a jingoist. You're making the mistake that I am somehow white (terribly brown-skinned, sorry to disappoint), and somehow all for one politics or another.

Wow, can we stay on-topic please? We arn't talking about terrorists, we are talking about the US military, more specifically, the guards at Gitmo.
I am on topic.

You're saying that just because the military lied in the past, we shouldn't trust them.

And I pointed out that was fallacious - after all, if we accept that statement, then because terrorist suspects have lied in the past, we shouldn't trust them either.

Admit that your statement is fallacious, which is certainly is.

Sorry, not a jingoist.
I call bullshit, let's play an easier game.

PS. We arn't talking about terrorists or even suspected terrorists making an accusation. Please start reading what people write instead of what you imagine in your bigoted head.

And I pointed out that was fallacious - after all, if we accept that statement, then because terrorist suspects have lied in the past, we shouldn't trust them either.
There are no terrorists suspects making accusations here, thus your bullshit counter is, well, bullshit.

I say it's highly doubtful that they were murdered, but it's bad enough that they committed suicide, that alone tells me something needs to be done.

People commit suicide in jails all the time, all around the world. So my question is this.

Do you think something needs to be done about every jail that has a suicide, or only Gitmo?

Sorry, not a jingoist. You must be mistaking me for someone else.

I think jingoist is his favorite word. He uses it to describe virtually everyone, in any context. I hear it in every other thread with him.

Its actually a rather ethnocentric term to use at all.

I think jingoist is his favorite word. He uses it to describe virtually everyone, in any context. I hear it in every other thread with him.

Its actually a rather ethnocentric term to use at all.
Again, some one reading what is in their little imaginary world inside their head.

He fits the definition of jingoist to a T, the rest of you are mainly obsessive nationalists, though a few fall into jingoist.

I call bullshit, let's play an easier game.

PS. We arn't talking about terrorists or even suspected terrorists making an accusation. Please start reading what people write instead of what you imagine in your bigoted head.


There are no terrorists suspects making accusations here, thus your bullshit counter is, well, bullshit.

These people were accused of being terrorists. Therefore, they were "terrorist suspects".

As are the remaining inmates. Suspects.

Well, I've given a recent example of a terrorist suspect who lied in court repeatedly about being tortured. So, by your logic, we should ignore what "terrorist suspects" have to say - because we are going to use that logic to ignore what the military has to say.

It's inescapable logic.

These people were accused of being terrorists. Therefore, they were "terrorist suspects".
Where was the family accused of being terrorists? They are making accusations, not the one who committed "suicide." Dead men tell no tales as they say.

Well, I've given a recent example of a terrorist suspect who lied in court repeatedly about being tortured. So, by your logic, we should ignore what "terrorist suspects" have to say - because we are going to use that logic to ignore what the military has to say.

It's inescapable logic.
And this has nothing to do with that. Entirely different situation.

And this has nothing to do with that. Entirely different situation.


No.

The essence of your statement is:

"A specific party has lied in the past. Therefore, we should not trust them, and assume they are lying (and therefore assume they are guilty and have done something reprehensible"

Insert anyone you want into "a specific party" and you see the idiocy of your statement.

I am illustrating, by putting the recently lying convicted terrorist (and his lying family members) in that sentence, that you would be forced to come to the same conclusion about the Guantanamo families and inmates.

So, you have only a fallacy to fall back on, and if you persist, you'll be forced to say the people making the accusations are liars as well.

*more bullshit without paying attention*
Listen, if you can't tell the difference between an alive ex-prisoner and the family of a dead ex-prisoner, I can't help you.

(and his lying family members)
Which you havn't exemplified.

At least the Biko example is a direct relationship instead of a quasi-similarity.

I say it's highly doubtful that they were murdered, but it's bad enough that they committed suicide, that alone tells me something needs to be done.
I agree. More terrorists need to be sent to Guantanamo and given the means to kill themselves.

Listen, if you can't tell the difference between an alive ex-prisoner and the family of a dead ex-prisoner, I can't help you.
You're evading the argument entirely.

You said, 'we shouldn't trust the military because they lied recently'.

So, I pointed out that a recent "terrorist suspect" (or "prisoner") who was later convicted, lied about being tortured. His family also lied on his behalf, especially his father.

Turned out to be a big lie - no scars, no torture.

So, by simple extension, a "prisoner" and his family lied about their treatment at the hands of the US.

So, by your logic, we should believe that all "prisoners" are lying - especially their family members - when they talk about their treatment at the hands of the US.

Well, let's see. I bet that at this point, there's not much point in questioning any of them, as their info is either old or they already gave it up. So no value there.

They've built a facility comparable to a modern Fed prison - most of them live in communal groups. No one lives in the original outdoor cells.

We should repatriate the ones who are harmless. I suggest overflying their country of origin and dropping them by parachute, even if their home country doesn't want them back.

As for the ones we consider to be a permanent danger, they face the psychological effects of isolation and hopelessness. I suggest that we hold field court martials (as they would satisfy the requirement of getting them a lawyer, having a trial, etc), and if found guilty, execute them. Any that are acquitted should be airdropped by parachute in their country of origin.I'm not certain that airdropping them is a good idea, and neither is executing anyone, but, yes, at the very least what you said is progress as opposed to the limbo they're in now.

People commit suicide in jails all the time, all around the world. So my question is this.

Do you think something needs to be done about every jail that has a suicide, or only Gitmo?Yes, I would say that something should be done in every jail that has a suicide, but in the instance of a single isolated suicide, that something would be relatively small; three suicides either in conjunction or as a chain signifies, to me, a systemic problem that needs to be addressed.

I agree. More terrorists need to be sent to Guantanamo and given the means to kill themselves.The people in Guantanamo aren't terrorists, they're simply terror suspects. Not the same thing.

Yes, I would say that something should be done in every jail that has a suicide, but in the instance of a single isolated suicide, that something would be relatively small; three suicides either in conjunction or as a chain signifies, to me, a systemic problem that needs to be addressed.

So when one person is so mentally or emotionally disturbed from their jail experience, its a smaller issue than when three people commit suicide to protest? It would seem to me that the former is more valid than the latter.

The people in Guantanamo aren't terrorists, they're simply terror suspects. Not the same thing.

I was half joking with the "kill themselves" comment, but I think the majority in Guantanamo are terrorists. They just haven't been convicted yet.

You're evading the argument entirely.

You said, 'we shouldn't trust the military because they lied recently'.
About an incident mirroring this one.

You arn't even on the same argument. Finding ways to excuse the military of any wrongdoing is not a valid argument.

About an incident mirroring this one.
You're even evading the logic of your statement.

Seems like you only want to apply "not trusting recent liars" to the US military. Not very logical.

You're even evading the logic of your statement.

Seems like you only want to apply "not trusting recent liars" to the US military. Not very logical.
I'm done "arguing" with you since you refuse to do anything but blindly defend the military.

So when one person is so mentally or emotionally disturbed from their jail experience, its a smaller issue than when three people commit suicide to protest? It would seem to me that the former is more valid than the latter.I disagree, for a couple of points:

It hasn't been proven that they were protesting.
If they were protesting, what were they protesting? The war in Iraq? Their treatment there at the Bay? That they have been there for four years with no end in sight?
It seems to me that at this wouldn't have occurred, at least in part, because they weren't mentally or emotionally disturbed from their jail experience.

I was half joking with the "kill themselves" comment, but I think the majority in Guantanamo are terrorists. They just haven't been convicted yet.To me, that is the problem. They haven't been convicted, and it's unlikely that they will be, since it's unlikely that they will be tried.

I'm doing "arguing" with you since you refuse to do anything but blindly defend the military.

Looks like he caught you being illogical with a double standard and you're trying to slip out of it.

I'm doing "arguing" with you since you refuse to do anything but blindly defend the military.
How am I "blindly" defending the military?

You haven't presented one scrap of evidence that this was anything except a suicide.

Looks like he caught you being illogical with a double standard and you're trying to slip out of it.
My entire point was that the military lied about an incident paralleling this one. He, and apparently you, are going off on a tangent in order to defend the military regardless.

You haven't presented one scrap of evidence that this was anything except a suicide.
Refusal to turn over a body is suspicious for one.

Thing is, if they actually WERE terrorists, Teh Pantless One thinks they oughta be released as well, eh?

Forget it DK and TS.

TPH is always like this. Give him facts and he'll run.

Forget it DK and TS.

TPH is always like this. Give him facts and he'll run.
As opposed to just ignoring facts like you and your jingoist pals?

Forget it DK and TS.

TPH is always like this. Give him facts and he'll run.

So give him another whiff of grapeshot, I mean facts...
:fluffle:

My entire point was that the military lied about an incident paralleling this one. He, and apparently you, are going off on a tangent in order to defend the military regardless.


Refusal to turn over a body is suspicious for one.

None of which are evidence of a murder.

Thing is, if they actually WERE terrorists, Teh Pantless One thinks they oughta be released as well, eh?
This is totally not putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. Totally not.

None of which are evidence of a murder.
No, but there is enough justification for an investigation.

I disagree, for a couple of points:

It hasn't been proven that they were protesting.
If they were protesting, what were they protesting? The war in Iraq? Their treatment there at the Bay? That they have been there for four years with no end in sight?
It seems to me that at this wouldn't have occurred, at least in part, because they weren't mentally or emotionally disturbed from their jail experience.

I'm not sure that we can ever have that type of proof of their motives, since they are dead. But so far the investigations, and the modus operandi of the suicide, would lead one to conclude it was in protest.

For one, it was carefully carried out to be successful. Most suicides of the truly mentally ill fail; they only manage to kill themselves after multiple failed attempts.

Second, virtually all suicides of the mentally ill are carried out alone. Its implausible to believe that three people were equally distraught, that they confided in one another for support, and then killed themselves. The exceptions to this rule are almost always when a group is trying to make a statement, such as suicide pacts between lovers.

Third, protest suicides are a part of their culture. These are the people who made an art out of suicide bombings, suicide attacks (without bombs) and suicide for propaganda (like 'suicide by soldier'). Thus, its within its cultural context to conclude that it was likely a protest suicide as well.

This is totally not putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. Totally not.


As I will always do to those who are not Patriots first, second and third.
Better be sure at whose side you stand and fight.
Lest BOTH sides conclude you are collaterally damageable.

Even neutrals need friends - a fact you tend to forget.

As opposed to just ignoring facts like you and your jingoist pals?

I have not ignored any facts whatsoever. This was clearly a suicide. Nothing else but a suicide. Even the Red Cross is saying its a suicide. Now that we have the IRC saying it was a suicide, logic dictates its a suicide.

This is totally not putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. Totally not.
Ah, but terrorists never lie, and neither do their parents or family, in your opinion, even though it's been proven that they have in the past.

I see. You're the one with the unquenchable anti-US military bias. I see both could be liars, so I reserve my judgment until I see direct evidence.

Of course, you're in the same illogical worldview as Human Rights Watch, where hard evidence is, by their own admission, no longer necessary to convict anyone who deals with terrorists - in their eyes, "converging" evidence, or "a pattern of past behavior" is enough for true guilt.

No, but there is enough justification for an investigation.
In order to have an investigation, you need probable cause.

Assertions of a parent do not constitute probable cause.

Nor do past accusations of lying.

Read up on the law - it's not the fairytale you imagine it to be.

My entire point was that the military lied about an incident paralleling this one. He, and apparently you, are going off on a tangent in order to defend the military regardless.

Actually, in response, no one said anything about the military. I certainly never did.

What was being pointed out to you is that you have a fallacious double standard when it comes to evaluating evidence. You refuse to admit the US military testimony as evidence, because "they lied", but you do not refuse to admit terrorist testimony as evidence, or the claims of the parents of the suicide victims, even though both the former group and the latter family have lied at some point in the past as well.

The fact is, its a logical fallacy. Logic is a science, fallacies are facts. Its good when people point them out and recognize them, because you can't really slip through them.

Normally have completely different views to Cornelieu, but if the Red Cross accept this as suicide then it probably was. They are sufficiently independent to be taken at their word.

I'm not sure that we can ever have that type of proof of their motives, since they are dead. But so far the investigations, and the modus operandi of the suicide, would lead one to conclude it was in protest.I can agree with the first, and tentatively agree with the second.
For one, it was carefully carried out to be successful. Most suicides of the truly mentally ill fail; they only manage to kill themselves after multiple failed attempts.Hm. Well, it's theoretically possible that there were multiple attempts, but there is no evidence of this so I won't assert that this was the case.
Second, virtually all suicides of the mentally ill are carried out alone. Its implausible to believe that three people were equally distraught, that they confided in one another for support, and then killed themselves. The exceptions to this rule are almost always when a group is trying to make a statement, such as suicide pacts between lovers.Are you familiar with the Heaven's Gate cult? It was made up of a group of people who were mentally ill, some more so than others. They committed suicide for reasons not related to depression, but to their illness nonetheless.
Third, protest suicides are a part of their culture. These are the people who made an art out of suicide bombings, suicide attacks (without bombs) and suicide for propaganda (like 'suicide by soldier'). Thus, its within its cultural context to conclude that it was likely a protest suicide as well.Lately this has been the case, so I can agree with this, but what were they protesting?

Ah, but terrorists never lie, and neither do their parents or family, in your opinion, even though it's been proven that they have in the past.
I would argue with you what the people in Guantanamo qualify as, but you consider all Muslims terrorists.

Of course, you're in the same illogical worldview as Human Rights Watch, where hard evidence is, by their own admission, no longer necessary to convict anyone who deals with terrorists - in their eyes, "converging" evidence, or "a pattern of past behavior" is enough for true guilt.
I hate to tell you, but in America, suspicion of a felony warrants an investigation.
Then there is cirumstantial evidence which, while not proving them wrong, proves an investigation to be needed.

Normally have completely different views to Cornelieu, but if the Red Cross accept this as suicide then it probably was. They are sufficiently independent to be taken at their word.
I pointed out earlier that the International Red Cross has a permanent office ON SITE at Guantanamo (for the past few years, in fact), and they have access to the inmates 24/7, including during interrogations.

But I guess Pantless thinks the Red Cross is in on it.

What was being pointed out to you is that you have a fallacious double standard when it comes to evaluating evidence.
I bet you can't explain how in a sensical manner.

I have not ignored any facts whatsoever. This was clearly a suicide. Nothing else but a suicide. Even the Red Cross is saying its a suicide. Now that we have the IRC saying it was a suicide, logic dictates its a suicide.

People keep saying this. Is there any actual evidence that it was a suicide?

Or - is the simple fact that some guy turns up dead in prison, sufficient grounds to ASSUME.

I find myself recalling protestations that claims of abuses in a certain other prison were all 'obviously' false...

I'm not sure that we can ever have that type of proof of their motives, since they are dead. But so far the investigations, and the modus operandi of the suicide, would lead one to conclude it was in protest.

For one, it was carefully carried out to be successful. Most suicides of the truly mentally ill fail; they only manage to kill themselves after multiple failed attempts.

Second, virtually all suicides of the mentally ill are carried out alone. Its implausible to believe that three people were equally distraught, that they confided in one another for support, and then killed themselves. The exceptions to this rule are almost always when a group is trying to make a statement, such as suicide pacts between lovers.

Third, protest suicides are a part of their culture. These are the people who made an art out of suicide bombings, suicide attacks (without bombs) and suicide for propaganda (like 'suicide by soldier'). Thus, its within its cultural context to conclude that it was likely a protest suicide as well.
Your first two points also speak to the possibility of the men being murdered and the suicide story being a cover-up.

If you read the OP, "the father has demanded an autopsy and the body be brought home, but some red tape is in the way."

This suggests to me that no autopsy is being performed. Given your first two points of how unusual a successful group suicide in prison is, that should be enough of a red flag to at least demand an autopsy by a disinterested third party. If anything, the military should be facilitating this to show that their hands really are clean.

Given that the IRC in the area hasn't raised a stink, I suspect it to be a protest suicide myself, but fulfilling the father's requests would be a good step toward demonstrating that conclusively.

I can agree with the first, and tentatively agree with the second.
Hm. Well, it's theoretically possible that there were multiple attempts, but there is no evidence of this so I won't assert that this was the case.
Are you familiar with the Heaven's Gate cult? It was made up of a group of people who were mentally ill, some more so than others. They committed suicide for reasons not related to depression, but to their illness nonetheless.
Lately this has been the case, so I can agree with this, but what were they protesting?


I think we can be fairly sure they were 'pious' political muslims.
Anything that might be construed as a Jihad-context death would be an acceptable reason for them to suicide their way into 72 virgins.

Of course there is a reason behind every action -
but there is no reason to assume that that reason is reasonable.

I bet you can't explain how in a sensical manner.
Well, I tried using English, and using very small words, but you still didn't understand.

Well, I tried using English, and using very small words, but you still didn't understand.
Are you admitting you are Tropical Sands?

Are you familiar with the Heaven's Gate cult? It was made up of a group of people who were mentally ill, some more so than others.

Yes, I suppose that could be one of the exceptions I mentioned. I'm familiar with how cults like that can induce a mob mentality or groupthink where everyone gets pretty brainwashed. I guess that could be a mental illness.

But like you said, it wasn't related to depression. What I was trying to do is draw a dichotomy between suicides as a statement and suicides as a result of depression and forlorness. A lot of the arguments in support of the suicide victims claim that they did it because conditions were so bad, they were so depressed, etc. I'm just not buying that, I'm proposing it was a suicide for another reason, specifically to protest or achieve a goal.

Lately this has been the case, so I can agree with this, but what were they protesting?

The existence of Gitmo as far as I know. I think they wanted to get it shut down and get everyone sent home. Reuters or the BBC ran an article a while back that said there was a rumor in the camp that if three people died then it would be shut down.

Are you admitting you are Tropical Sands?

Are you admitting you are Arafat?

The military needs to do one thing only: release the bodies. How hard is that?

Are you admitting you are Arafat?
You're a silly puppet account.

I bet you can't explain how in a sensical manner.

I think I already did, I tried to be as clear as possible. DK also explained it. This is what I wrote:

"What was being pointed out to you is that you have a fallacious double standard when it comes to evaluating evidence. You refuse to admit the US military testimony as evidence, because "they lied", but you do not refuse to admit terrorist testimony as evidence, or the claims of the parents of the suicide victims, even though both the former group and the latter family have lied at some point in the past as well."

The fact that you don't apply the criteria of "they lied" as a universal when evaluating evidence makes it the fallacy of the double standard.

The military needs to do one thing only: release the bodies. How hard is that?

Autopsy has to be performed as is standard procedure.

You're a silly puppet account.

You're a Islo Fanishi.

Are you admitting you are Tropical Sands?
Contrary to popular belief, I have no puppets.

I even invite the Moderators to examine my IP addresses.

Is that what you resort to when you're losing an argument badly?

If you read the OP, "the father has demanded an autopsy and the body be brought home, but some red tape is in the way."

I actually thought an autopsy had been performed already. If not, my mistake.

I also support that the bodies should be sent home, to the parents, and let parents have an autopsy performed if they like. Based on what we know now, I'm pretty certain an autopsy would find that the man died of suicide.

Autopsy has to be performed as is standard procedure.

And, the evidence is...?

What is 'standard procedure' if an autopsy is questioned?

And, the evidence is...?

What is 'standard procedure' if an autopsy is questioned?

Then you outsource it to Halliburton.

Contrary to popular belief, I have no puppets.

I even invite the Moderators to examine my IP addresses.

Is that what you resort to when you're losing an argument badly?
I was insinuating I wasn't talking to you. Was it that hard to grasp?

The body should be turned over for independent autopsy then sent home. The end. What the fuck is redtape for around dead bodies? Did they accidently feed them to the sharks? Or Karl Rove or what?

You're a silly puppet account.

You know, the posts are timestamped. For anyone to be a puppet they would have to be The Flash, considering the length of posts and how closely the posts are together.

Plus its silly to accuse people of being puppets just because a few people have pointed out that you're wrong.

I was insinuating I wasn't talking to you. Was it that hard to grasp?
Wow, accusing me of being a puppet account is "insinuating I wasn't talking to you".

Your illogic is harder and harder to follow.

I was insinuating I wasn't talking to you. Was it that hard to grasp?


Do you know that the Shrub just mentioned you in a speech?

You know, the posts are timestamped. For anyone to be a puppet they would have to be The Flash, considering the length of posts and how closely the posts are together.
I didn't say who he is the puppet of.

Wow, accusing me of being a puppet account is "insinuating I wasn't talking to you".

Your illogic is harder and harder to follow.
Only in your head because you are making no sense. My reply was to tropical sands not you. Apparently you wern't clever enough to pick up on the fact I was talking to some other person.

Yes, I suppose that could be one of the exceptions I mentioned. I'm familiar with how cults like that can induce a mob mentality or groupthink where everyone gets pretty brainwashed. I guess that could be a mental illness.

But like you said, it wasn't related to depression. What I was trying to do is draw a dichotomy between suicides as a statement and suicides as a result of depression and forlorness. A lot of the arguments in support of the suicide victims claim that they did it because conditions were so bad, they were so depressed, etc. Ah, I see. Well, the most likely mental illness to develop would probably be depression, but they could have developed some other illness also, as a result of the treatment, but I think this is unlikely.

I'm just not buying that, I'm proposing it was a suicide for another reason, specifically to protest or achieve a goal.

The existence of Gitmo as far as I know. I think they wanted to get it shut down and get everyone sent home. Reuters or the BBC ran an article a while back that said there was a rumor in the camp that if three people died then it would be shut down.Ah. Well, this is a different reason, this could be the case. However, I believe that the people there should at least be tried, not only because they may or may not kill themselves if they aren't, but because it is the just thing to do, in my mind.

What is 'standard procedure' if an autopsy is questioned?

In the US you can request an autopsy by a third party, kind of like a 'second opinion.' I'm not sure what an autopsy in Saudi Arabia would be like.

Maybe you can just tip the doctor and have them say anything you want them to say on the autopsy, "Oh yeah, he was murdered all right."

Or perhaps there is some special Shariah autospy.

I didn't say who he is the pupper of.

So why don't you tell me whose puppet you think I am, Islo Fanishi?

So why don't you tell me whose puppet you think I am, Islo Fanishi?
Are you people high?

Ah. Well, this is a different reason, this could be the case. However, I believe that the people there should at least be tried, not only because they may or may not kill themselves if they aren't, but because it is the just thing to do, in my mind.

Well, they should be tried or released eventually. Its just easier said than done. I think someone did point out that the majority of people held there have already been released, if that says something positive about the process. In any case, it takes a lot of time to investigate the circumstances of each prisoner and make a decision on if they should be tried or released yet.

Are you people high?

Am I a puppet, ( and if so, whose? ), a people, or high?

You're an Islo Fanishi.
Shrub has mentioned you in a speech.
And there even is a thread about it...
( A New Word )

I didn't say who he is the puppet of.

Only in your head because you are making no sense. My reply was to tropical sands not you. Apparently you wern't clever enough to pick up on the fact I was talking to some other person.

What makes you even funnier is that after I quote you, you go back and change your post completely.

Really hilarious to see how you react when you are pwned with your illogic. First, the name calling (jingoist, or worse), then the attempt to stifle the debate from a logic standpoint, then the puppet accusations, then editing your own posts severely.

What makes you even funnier is that after I quote you, you go back and change your post completely.
Not my fault you people quote me while I am fixing my post.

Really hilarious to see how you react when you are pwned with your illogic.
Because of course trying to argue an example similar to this one is far mor illogical than arguing a totally different example.

First, the name calling (jingoist, or worse)
You are still a jingoist.

then the attempt to stifle the debate from a logic standpoint
What?

then the puppet accusations
I never accused you of being a puppet outside of your own imaginary world.

then editing your own posts severely.
If you quote me while I am fixing my posts, that is your fault. Fix yours.

In the US you can request an autopsy by a third party, kind of like a 'second opinion.' I'm not sure what an autopsy in Saudi Arabia would be like.

Maybe you can just tip the doctor and have them say anything you want them to say on the autopsy, "Oh yeah, he was murdered all right."

Or perhaps there is some special Shariah autospy.

I'm not sure where you think this is going.

Was an autopsy performed in Cuba?


If performed: Is there 'evidence'?

Is the evidence available?

Was it performed 'in-house' or independently?

Was it corroborated or otherwise externally validated?


If questioned: Is there a 'fallback' procedure?

Can an 'independent' autopsy be performed?

Is it possible to have an autopsy performed in the home country?

Why are you talking about sending the body to Saudi Arabia, when the person in question is from Yemen?

In any case, it takes a lot of time to investigate the circumstances of each prisoner and make a decision on if they should be tried or released yet.

Off topic, but that sentence is what outlines the problem of Gitmo for me.
Why are they prisoners if we don't know whether they should be tried?

That's a rather scary precedent.

I'm not sure that we can ever have that type of proof of their motives, since they are dead. But so far the investigations, and the modus operandi of the suicide, would lead one to conclude it was in protest.

For one, it was carefully carried out to be successful. Most suicides of the truly mentally ill fail; they only manage to kill themselves after multiple failed attempts.

Second, virtually all suicides of the mentally ill are carried out alone. Its implausible to believe that three people were equally distraught, that they confided in one another for support, and then killed themselves. The exceptions to this rule are almost always when a group is trying to make a statement, such as suicide pacts between lovers.

Third, protest suicides are a part of their culture. These are the people who made an art out of suicide bombings, suicide attacks (without bombs) and suicide for propaganda (like 'suicide by soldier'). Thus, its within its cultural context to conclude that it was likely a protest suicide as well.
So far all you've done is that you ruled out that they were mentally ill. You also alluded to a culture of protest. You didn't not bring enough evidence to conclude that it was in protest.

Besides, every suicide need to be investigated. If it was mentally ill, why were they? What caused it? Can it be changed?
If it was a protest, what caused it? Why did they? Can it be changed?

That is, if it was a suicide at all...

Off topic, but that sentence is what outlines the problem of Gitmo for me.
Why are they prisoners if we don't know whether they should be tried?

That's a rather scary precedent.

They actually have a different status, they aren't technically prisoners but detainees. It could be argued that they are ipso facto prisoners, but thats another story. As of now, they are just being detained during an investigation. So, the argument is that they are being kept for the sake of security. If they are terrorists, it would be a disservice to humanity to just let them go. Thus, they are detained on suspicion until they are investigated, and then after their investigations they are either released, or tried, or returned to their home state for trial, etc. A number of scenarios are possible.

This really isn't that uncommon in countries around the world, as many states do not have laws that grant due process to people who are detained, or charged of a crime. In fact due process and the right to a fair and speedy trial was essentially an American invention. But lets not confuse the two issues, its only granted to people charged with a crime on US soil. The detainees aren't criminals for all we know, they are just suspects.

If you quote me while I am fixing my posts, that is your fault. Fix yours.

reminds me of OceanDrive, who when he was losing arguments, would go back and edit or remove entire posts.

reminds me of OceanDrive, who when he was losing arguments, would go back and edit or remove entire posts.

Ain't that the sad and sorry truth?

Well, they should be tried or released eventually. Its just easier said than done. I think someone did point out that the majority of people held there have already been released, if that says something positive about the process. In any case, it takes a lot of time to investigate the circumstances of each prisoner and make a decision on if they should be tried or released yet.If they aren't ready to try them, then they shouldn't be there in the first place.
I realize that there is a loophole in U.S. law that allows for this, but that strikes me as absurd.

So far all you've done is that you ruled out that they were mentally ill. You also alluded to a culture of protest. You didn't not bring enough evidence to conclude that it was in protest.

As oppossed to the zero evidence that it was murder? Do we have another double standard case?

What we've been told so far by officials at the prison is that it was a propaganda stunt. The fact that we have those reports, coupled with the fact that it does not fit the characteristics of a suicide via mental illness and that protest suicides are part of their culture is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in any court that it was suicide.

But, if people categorically reject what they are told in the reports, so far with no validation, then there is no amount of evidence that will convince you. It just comes down to that double standard again - we can't trust US reports because the US <insert excuse here>, while at the same time the excuse is also applicable to virtually any other source that would investigate.

But lets be realistic about the situation. I think anyone even remotely familair with Islamic culture could see right away that this had all the hallmarks of a protest suicide. The TIME covered it as such, in its article by Richard Corliss and Adam Zagorin:

Death Comes to Guantanamo (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1202946-2,00.html)

It was equally in the prisoners' interests for one of their number to die. In a global jihad in which suicide bombers are cheered as heroes, suicide at Guantanamo could be seen as an act of passive resistance, like the self-immolations of Buddhist monks in the early days of the Vietnam War. The Gitmo deaths may have had religious significance for the men who committed them. Colonel Mike Bumgarner, who oversees the detention camps, said in May that several inmates told him of a "vision, or a dream--implicitly a message from God--that if three detainees die, it will attract enough attention so that they will all get out of Guantanamo."

But hey, I guess we can ignore that and go back to conspiracy theories. :rolleyes:

If they aren't ready to try them, then they shouldn't be there in the first place.
I realize that there is a loophole in U.S. law that allows for this, but that strikes me as absurd.

International law allows it as well. And remember, the US isn't the only place that does things like this. The US is just the only place being singled out for criticism of it - because it is on the global stage, and it is trendy to criticize the US administration at this point. Once Gitmo is closed, I would bet money that no one even acknowledges the fact that detentions far worse than Gitmo are still occuring all around the world.

International law allows it as well. And remember, the US isn't the only place that does things like this. The US is just the only place being singled out for criticism of it - because it is on the global stage, and it is trendy to criticize the US administration at this point. Once Gitmo is closed, I would bet money that no one even acknowledges the fact that detentions far worse than Gitmo are still occuring all around the world.The fact that this stuff happens elsewhere is lamentable, but most of those other places aren't attempting to spread "democracy and freedom" either. At best it's hypocrisy.

As oppossed to the zero evidence that it was murder? Do we have another double standard case?

What we've been told so far by officials at the prison is that it was a propaganda stunt. The fact that we have those reports, coupled with the fact that it does not fit the characteristics of a suicide via mental illness and that protest suicides are part of their culture is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in any court that it was suicide.

But, if people categorically reject what they are told in the reports, so far with no validation, then there is no amount of evidence that will convince you. It just comes down to that double standard again - we can't trust US reports because the US <insert excuse here>, while at the same time the excuse is also applicable to virtually any other source that would investigate.

But lets be realistic about the situation. I think anyone even remotely familair with Islamic culture could see right away that this had all the hallmarks of a protest suicide. The TIME covered it as such, in its article by Richard Corliss and Adam Zagorin:

Death Comes to Guantanamo (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1202946-2,00.html)



But hey, I guess we can ignore that and go back to conspiracy theories. :rolleyes:
So you ruled out suicide because of depression, hopelessness or despair out because you wanted them to be protesting, right?

And the fact that some people are saying it's not a suicide does not mean it's not. Just that it should be investigated. Just because the US army says it's a suicide doesn't mean it is, however. Hence the suspicion.

And that has not yet touched my point that it should be investigated and that something should be done to stop suicides EVEN if it is protest.

So you ruled out suicide because of depression, hopelessness or despair out because you wanted them to be protesting, right?

The International Red Cross says it's suicide.

Isn't that good enough for you, or do you not trust the ICRC?

The International Red Cross says it's suicide.

Isn't that good enough for you, or do you not trust the ICRC?

Did the ICRC see an autopsy?

So you ruled out suicide because of depression, hopelessness or despair out because you wanted them to be protesting, right?

This is the strawman fallacy. I never cited "because I wanted them to be protesting" as a criteria. Try being logical when you talk to me, and skipping the fallacies.

Its ruled out as a suicide because of depression because it doesn't have any of the hallmarks of a depression suicide.

For one, there weren't multiple attempts. Suicides a la depression are what we call 'suicidal gestures' and rarely suceede. Thus, it fails to meet that criteria. Credibility is dropping.

Second, because there were no suicidal gestures, these people are 23 times less likely to be genuinely suicidal. Credibility dropping further

Third, three people carried out an organized, coordinated act. Suicide a la depression is solitary. Credibility near nil.

And the fact that some people are saying it's not a suicide does not mean it's not. Just that it should be investigated. Just because the US army says it's a suicide doesn't mean it is, however. Hence the suspicion.

The fact that the coroner said it was suicide doesn't make it so, right? You've yet to actually explain your reason for suspicion. So far, its just "Well, its the Army..." Its not going to cut it. In fact, its another fallacy called poisoning the well. So far, no one has genuinely disputed that this is anything but suicide. The whole conspiracy theory came from the emotionally distraught parents of the child.

But again, if you are unwilling to listen to the coroner's report, which would stand up as solid evidence in court, then you're obviously not being an impartial and reasonable judge of the evidence at hand.

The International Red Cross says it's suicide.

Isn't that good enough for you, or do you not trust the ICRC?
I haven't seen where the Red Cross said it's a suicde. So far, I've only heard Corneliu (who's knows for making stuff up) claim it is.

Any kind of link can be helpful.

But condescendance coming from someone who advocate genocide is really annoying. Cut it out.

As oppossed to the zero evidence that it was murder? Do we have another double standard case?

What we've been told so far by officials at the prison is that it was a propaganda stunt. The fact that we have those reports, coupled with the fact that it does not fit the characteristics of a suicide via mental illness and that protest suicides are part of their culture is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in any court that it was suicide.

But, if people categorically reject what they are told in the reports, so far with no validation, then there is no amount of evidence that will convince you. It just comes down to that double standard again - we can't trust US reports because the US <insert excuse here>, while at the same time the excuse is also applicable to virtually any other source that would investigate.

But lets be realistic about the situation. I think anyone even remotely familair with Islamic culture could see right away that this had all the hallmarks of a protest suicide. The TIME covered it as such, in its article by Richard Corliss and Adam Zagorin:

Death Comes to Guantanamo (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1202946-2,00.html)



But hey, I guess we can ignore that and go back to conspiracy theories. :rolleyes:

So - a military agent representing the camps, made a statement that could now be seen to protect military agents representing the camps.

You shock me.

But - you don't demonstrate that the deaths WERE suicides.

Did the ICRC see an autopsy?
Good question, but they're calling it a suicide.

They have a permanent staff there at Guantanamo, with access to the prisoners, including during interrogations.

Did the ICRC see an autopsy?

I don't think an autopsy has been done. An autopsy is usually only done in a case where the method of death is questionable. If the coroner doesn't request an autopsy, and the coroner says that its suicide, thats about as far as it goes.

Not to mention that cutting up dead bodies is considered dishonorable to the dead in Islam as it is in Judaism. Its unlikely that the parents of the man would actually have an autopsy done on him, and if the US did an autopsy we'd probably have cries of protest for violating the sanctity of death.

Good question, but they're calling it a suicide.

They have a permanent staff there at Guantanamo, with access to the prisoners, including during interrogations.

Indeed true.

So - a military agent representing the camps, made a statement that could now be seen to protect military agents representing the camps.

You shock me.

It shouldn't be that shocking, since its logic.

The argument "its a military agent so it can't be used to talk about actions inside a military camp" is illogical, its the fallacy of poisoning the well. You could be paranoid and suspicious, and view it as a big conspiracy theory to protect military agents, but unless you have evidence of that being a fact in this case then the conclusions drawn as a result are baseless and it results in the fallacy.

But - you don't demonstrate that the deaths WERE suicides.

The deaths have already been demonstrated as being suicides by the coroner's statements to the military. Is there a reason you have a problem with the findings, or is it just because its a military coroner (poisoning the well)?

This is the strawman fallacy. I never cited "because I wanted them to be protesting" as a criteria. Try being logical when you talk to me, and skipping the fallacies.

Its ruled out as a suicide because of depression because it doesn't have any of the hallmarks of a depression suicide.

For one, there weren't multiple attempts. Suicides a la depression are what we call 'suicidal gestures' and rarely suceede. Thus, it fails to meet that criteria. Credibility is dropping.

Second, because there were no suicidal gestures, these people are 23 times less likely to be genuinely suicidal. Credibility dropping further

Third, three people carried out an organized, coordinated act. Suicide a la depression is solitary. Credibility near nil.

There could have been repeated attempts. Gitmo is known for attempted suicide. What tells us these guys never attempted it before?

I consider a suicide a suicidal gesture, do you? We know nothing of these men, so we can't know if there was no telltale signs beforehand.

Suicide pacts are a well observed phenomenon. It changes nothing to the logic behind the attempt.


The fact that the coroner said it was suicide doesn't make it so, right? You've yet to actually explain your reason for suspicion. So far, its just "Well, its the Army..." Its not going to cut it. In fact, its another fallacy called poisoning the well. So far, no one has genuinely disputed that this is anything but suicide. The whole conspiracy theory came from the emotionally distraught parents of the child.

But again, if you are unwilling to listen to the coroner's report, which would stand up as solid evidence in court, then you're obviously not being an impartial and reasonable judge of the evidence at hand.
Read the OP?

The family says it's a murder. We are before two contradicting versions. That makes me suspicious of both sides. Therefore, I will not believe the army unless a third party examine the case. Therefore, I will also not believe the family unless a third party examine the case. Happy?

When the coroner is involved in a case, his testimony is invariably counter-verified in a trial. I will not believe a coroner's report if his brother is involved in a case so I will not believe an Army's coroner report when the army is involved in the affair. They have motive to lie.

Has it been pointed out that suicide notes were found too? Is anyone going to acknowledge this fact, or dismiss it as part of the great Crusader Zionist conspiracy against Islam? I guess the military forged the suicide notes, or just made it up all together, right?

Has it been pointed out that suicide notes were found too? Is anyone going to acknowledge this fact, or dismiss it as part of the great Crusader Zionist conspiracy against Islam? I guess the military forged the suicide notes, or just made it up all together, right?
Link?

Has it been pointed out that suicide notes were found too? Is anyone going to acknowledge this fact, or dismiss it as part of the great Crusader Zionist conspiracy against Islam? I guess the military forged the suicide notes, or just made it up all together, right?Oh? What did the notes say?

Good question, but they're calling it a suicide.

They have a permanent staff there at Guantanamo, with access to the prisoners, including during interrogations.

Yes - I heard that much already.

However, if three guys turned up simultaneously dead in a prison I ran, in identical circumstances... I'd consider there MIGHT be several possible ways it could have happened... gang/racial/religious motivations being high on the list.

I've seen nothing to SUPPORT the idea that it was suicide, except that the coroner report (which I haven't seen, obviously) agreed with the statement they made right-off-the-bat. They'd decided it was suicide. The coroner didn't argue - if an examination was even DONE.

TTherefore, I will also not believe the family unless a third party examine the case. Happy?


The International Committee of the Red Cross has declared it a suicide. Happy?

Has it been pointed out that suicide notes were found too? Is anyone going to acknowledge this fact, or dismiss it as part of the great Crusader Zionist conspiracy against Islam? I guess the military forged the suicide notes, or just made it up all together, right?

I heard about the notes. I also heard they were being withheld, and none of the content being released DESPITE the fact that there are translators 'on-site'.

Relevence?

The International Committee of the Red Cross has declared it a suicide. Happy?

But - we don't know if they saw bodies, or a report, or anything. We don't know if a coroner MADE a report, do we?

Indeed - we don't know if even the most cursory of 'forensic' investigations was made... even to check if there had been anyone else in the cells when the 'suicides' took place.

But - we don't know if they saw bodies, or a report, or anything. We don't know if a coroner MADE a report, do we?

Indeed - we don't know if even the most cursory of 'forensic' investigations was made... even to check if there had been anyone else in the cells when the 'suicides' took place.
So I guess the ICRC is in on a US-led conspiracy....

*adjusts tinfoil hat for better protection*

It shouldn't be that shocking, since its logic.

The argument "its a military agent so it can't be used to talk about actions inside a military camp" is illogical, its the fallacy of poisoning the well. You could be paranoid and suspicious, and view it as a big conspiracy theory to protect military agents, but unless you have evidence of that being a fact in this case then the conclusions drawn as a result are baseless and it results in the fallacy.

The deaths have already been demonstrated as being suicides by the coroner's statements to the military. Is there a reason you have a problem with the findings, or is it just because its a military coroner (poisoning the well)?

It might be a 'poisoning the well' fallacy, if I were implying it somehow affected the actual argument. As it is - I've seen NO evidence pertinent to the case (or the topic)... and the only thing that I saw as 'worthwhile' in the source you presented, was that a military agent potentially excuses any future actions by military agents.

I'm not saying the evidence should be ignore because of it... I don't see that the 'evidence' matters... but I AM skeptical as to the purpose behind the original statements.

Link?

Alright, the suicide notes have been mentioned in virtually every article. I'll link to one article that explictly states there are three suicide notes, this interview with Carol Rosenburg of the Miami Herald. It should clear things up a bit:

Guantanamo Suicides Stir Criticism of U.S. Policy (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june06/guantanamo_06-12.html)

JIM LEHRER: Carol, is there anything new, first of all, today on possible motives these three men might have had for taking their own lives?

CAROL ROSENBERG: They're not talking about those sorts of things. They say that the Navy criminal investigators are in control, I believe, of the suicide notes and all of the forensic material and are compiling a report. And the autopsies have been completed in the labs here, and now the pathologists have gone back to the States to analyze the findings.

So, it would seem that there have been autopsies of the bodies. Keep in mind, this was from June 12. I doubt we're going to be hearing anything on these autopsies aside from the fact, as has been reported, that it was suicide. But I'm sure some people will reject that, too.

JIM LEHRER: It's going back. And on the notes, each one had a separate note; is that correct?

CAROL ROSENBERG: Yes, the military says that each one left a note behind, and we aren't going to see them any time in the near future. The commander I spoke to said he hadn't seen them himself.

And I'm sure that someone will be suspicious that the military isn't going to make the suicide notes public. Not that they would expect all military and police evidence to be made public - just this evidence. Because its a double standard to support the conspiracy theories.

So I guess the ICRC is in on a US-led conspiracy....

*adjusts tinfoil hat for better protection*

I think you have your 'tin-foil' hat on too tight.

Who said anything about conspiracy? Is that the best you can manage to address my points?

But - it is a simple fact - we really DON'T know who knows what, in this case. We DON'T know what procedure was followed.

Try addressing the issues, rather than making flippant gestures.

So I guess the ICRC is in on a US-led conspiracy....

*adjusts tinfoil hat for better protection*

I bet the ICRC forged the suicide notes for the US military. ;)

And I'm sure that someone will be suspicious that the military isn't going to make the suicide notes public. Not that they would expect all military and police evidence to be made public - just this evidence. Because its a double standard to support the conspiracy theories.

Don't be intentionally an object of ridicule.

If a person turns up dead, and it is assumed to be suicide... but then it comes to light that some people believe it might have been murder... is that not worth an investigation? Or - at the very least - a re-examination of all the evidence?

I think the father is angry his son was murdered.
It's unlikely that the US military would do something so damaging to its own image so as to murder three inmates. Considering the dozens of suicides attempted at the camp, three successful suicides are no surprise.

I bet the ICRC forged the suicide notes for the US military. ;)

The only 'conspiracy theories' I'm hearing, here... are amongst those inventing them as a strawman defense against having to deal with the actual issue.

Nobody has suggested (well, one person, now...) that the notes were 'forged'. But, unless you have different sources to the rest of us - we don't KNOW what the ICRC has had access to. The simple fact that they are 'on-site' doesn't mean a whole lot.

Don't be intentionally an object of ridicule.

If a person turns up dead, and it is assumed to be suicide... but then it comes to light that some people believe it might have been murder... is that not worth an investigation? Or - at the very least - a re-examination of all the evidence?

No, it isn't worth an investigation because someone cries 'its a murder! zionist conspriacy!' The parents of the son were in an entirelly different country, and they are the only people claiming it was a murder. There is no possible way for them to conclude such a thing that would merit further investigation.

So far, we have the report given by the military, who was there, vs this:

Aljazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A8853B89-9575-4F0B-AC11-E43BADAC52D3.htm)

"Ali Abdullah, father of a Yemeni detainee found dead at the US prison on June 10, said: "This idea of suicide is a lie. My son wouldn't commit suicide. My son was among those who memorised the Quran and was committed to his religion.

"He was assassinated by American soldiers and I call on the Yemeni and American governments for an international investigation," he told Aljazeera."

A father in a different country crying murder does not equal reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

No, it isn't worth an investigation because someone cries 'its a murder! zionist conspriacy!' The parents of the son were in an entirelly different country, and they are the only people claiming it was a murder. There is no possible way for them to conclude such a thing that would merit further investigation.

So far, we have the report given by the military, who was there, vs this:

Aljazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A8853B89-9575-4F0B-AC11-E43BADAC52D3.htm)

"Ali Abdullah, father of a Yemeni detainee found dead at the US prison on June 10, said: "This idea of suicide is a lie. My son wouldn't commit suicide. My son was among those who memorised the Quran and was committed to his religion.

"He was assassinated by American soldiers and I call on the Yemeni and American governments for an international investigation," he told Aljazeera."

A father in a different country crying murder does not equal reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Why?

Because you don't want it to?

Why?

Because you don't want it to?
No, because in a US court, it doesn't constitute probable cause, which is what you would require for an investigation.

Why?

Because you don't want it to?

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are legal terms, not my subjective opinion.

Both require circumstantial or physical evidence. In this case, there is neither circumstantial nor physical evidence that a murder occured.

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are legal terms, not my subjective opinion.

Both require circumstantial or physical evidence. In this case, there is neither circumstantial nor physical evidence that a murder occured.

Indeed correct.

Thanks for the link TS.

I'm with GnI on this, it doesn't remove my doubts. But at least, it shed some new light on my view of the situation.

reminds me of OceanDrive, who when he was losing arguments, would go back and edit or remove entire posts.
Check the timestamps then. I edit them within less than a minute or two of posting, unless I correct a spelling error. I corretc them while you are posting your reply. Maybe you should jump down the rabbithole that leads to the real world instead of the Deep Kimchi one where everything you say is right and everyone is against you.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has declared it a suicide. Happy?
Unless you can cite a source, you know, like news, like, not Corneliu, no.

Indeed correct.
Nothing like not contributing to the thread.

Unless you can cite a source, you know, like news, like, not Corneliu, no.


Nothing like not contributing to the thread.

You're not worth arguing with - you don't understand logic, you never accept a source from anyone else, and you change your posts completely.

That's not called correction. And yes, I did check the timestamps.

You're not worth arguing with - you don't understand logic, you never accept a source from anyone else, and you change your posts completely.
Yes, I change them so soon that rarely does the change stamp even appear. That should tell you something, but obviously it doesn't.
I've seen no sources.
Apples do not relate to bananas.
And I have explained the post thing, thrice.

That's not called correction. And yes, I did check the timestamps.
"Looking at" is not the same as "checking" - "checking" involves a level of understanding.

I just had to post this, because it made me giggle at the absurdity. This is from the Yemeni suicide victim's father:

Father queries Guantanamo suicide (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5079744.stm)

"I reiterate that neither my son nor any other Muslim would ever commit suicide," said Ali Abdullah.

Riiight. No Muslim would ever commit suicide.

Yes, I change them so soon that rarely does the change stamp even appear. That should tell you something, but obviously it doesn't.


"Looking at" is not the same as "checking" - "checking" involves a level of understanding.

There are threads where you've changed 1 out of 2 posts - remarkably, ones that I quote.

I guess you want to make it look like you never said those stupid things.

Just to fuck with Kimchi.

I just had to post this, because it made me giggle at the absurdity. This is from the Yemeni suicide victim's father:

Father queries Guantanamo suicide (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5079744.stm)



Riiight. No Muslim would ever commit suicide.

Riight! I'm sure the terrorists in Palastine, the 9/11 terrorists and the suicide bombers in Iraq agree with that statement.

He could be implying those that commit suicide arn't true Muslims, not like a little reading between the lines or forethought means anything...

Quoted to see if you change it.

He could be implying those that commit suicide arn't true Muslims, not like a little reading between the lines or forethought means anything...

Your the one to talk.

There are threads where you've changed 1 out of 2 posts - remarkably, ones that I quote.
While you were in the process of quoting them. Otherwise, I would have posted the new stuff in a new post.

I guess you want to make it look like you never said those stupid things.
Yeah, because I meant to say something else - within a minute of saying the first thing.

Your the one to talk.
Practicing your thread contribution some more?

Practicing your thread contribution some more?

You are the one that is not listening to reason. You and Gni both come to think of it.

While you were in the process of quoting them. Otherwise, I would have posted the new stuff in a new post.


Yeah, because I meant to say something else - within a minute of saying the first thing.

Oh, I see - something completely different, so that everyone has to wait around for a day while you make up your mind.

Doesn't sound plausible for you to have done it so much, and only with the posts I quote.

Looks like you want to make it look like I'm not really quoting you.

You are the one that is not listening to reason. You and Gni both come to think of it.
What reason? That kiwis are soft and therefore are peaches?

Doesn't sound plausible for you to have done it so much, and only with the posts I quote.
Getting a bit of a persecution complex? Remember, no one is out to get you.. probably.

If they aren't ready to try them, then they shouldn't be there in the first place.
I realize that there is a loophole in U.S. law that allows for this, but that strikes me as absurd.

I thought that they were there because they were all captured on the battlefield, fighting against American/Coalition troops, but not wearing uniforms.

So that would make them military prisoners, not regular criminals...

I thought that they were there because they were all captured on the battlefield, fighting against American/Coalition troops, but not wearing uniforms.

So that would make them military prisoners, not regular criminals...

No. Yet another person who believes in the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions, rather than the actual "letter".

Don't be intentionally an object of ridicule.

If a person turns up dead, and it is assumed to be suicide... but then it comes to light that some people believe it might have been murder... is that not worth an investigation? Or - at the very least - a re-examination of all the evidence?

When the people who say it might have been murder are the parents of the dead, that is always suspect.

It is similar to parents saying "my son would never have done that, he is a good boy," when the police find him sitting in a pool of blood, clutching a big knife, with several dismembered body parts in his lap.

Of course, sometimes the parents' suspicions are true. But mere accusation should not be enough to cause investigations.

On the other hand, because of the sensitivity of this issue, I would imagine that full and complete investigations have already been done.

And I hope that they do not release all evidence. It will not convince those who believe that there is a conspiracy, and the rest of us will accept the word of the ICRC...

I thought that they were there because they were all captured on the battlefield, fighting against American/Coalition troops, but not wearing uniforms.All? Not by any means. An alarmingly large portion of them were being held in Pakistan and turned over en masse to US forces. Nor it seems was there much evidence against them for anything warranting detention.

Of course, sometimes the parents' suspicions are true. But mere accusation should not be enough to cause investigations.

On the other hand, because of the sensitivity of this issue, I would imagine that full and complete investigations have already been done.As to the former, all deaths of prisoners (regardless of their legal status) should be thoroughly investigated due to the high potential of abuse. Let's be real, these prisoners were in maximum security with frequent visual checks. Even if they were suicides, something went terribly wrong on the part of the facility.

Full and complete investigations will require involvement of an objective source. Watch us turn blue in the face while waiting for that to happen.

No. Yet another person who believes in the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions, rather than the actual "letter".

DK-are you saying that they were not captured on the battlefield

or that they are not military prisoners?

As to the former, all deaths of prisoners (regardless of their legal status) should be thoroughly investigated due to the high potential of abuse. Let's be real, these prisoners were in maximum security with frequent visual checks. Even if they were suicides, something went terribly wrong on the part of the facility.

Actually what went wrong is easy to explain. Here is something from Fox News. I know everyone hates that media source (including myself), but I recall a similiar story being on CNN at some point as well:

Inside Guantanamo Bay (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199260,00.html)

Inside Guantanamo Bay
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
By Bill O'Reilly

ust hours after I left the prison at Gitmo last Friday, three detainees committed suicide, the first fatalities at the camp since it was set up shortly after 9/11.

The Joint Army/Navy Task Force granted “The Factor” almost total access to the prison. And ironically, I asked the colonel in charge of the cells why some of the detainees had covered the small windows that allowed guards to observe them.

The colonel replied that the International Red Cross wants as much privacy for the prisoners as possible. That privacy may have allowed the suicides.

So it would appear that they covered up their windows, thus the guards couldn't observe them. And that the guards didn't inforce whatever regulations they were suppossed to regarding supervision due to pressure from the Red Cross.

In retrospect, I think the similiar report I heard on the CNN news stated that some windows had actually been blacked out completely, rather than just covered up, due to privacy pressures from the Red Cross.

As to the former, all deaths of prisoners (regardless of their legal status) should be thoroughly investigated due to the high potential of abuse. Let's be real, these prisoners were in maximum security with frequent visual checks. Even if they were suicides, something went terribly wrong on the part of the facility.

Full and complete investigations will require involvement of an objective source. Watch us turn blue in the face while waiting for that to happen.

As far as I can tell, the only "objective source" that would satisfy most everyone would have to be aliens from the Andromeda Galaxy...:rolleyes:

Wow, it isn't even the news portion of FOX new, it's fucking Bill O'Reilly.

Wow, it isn't even the news portion of FOX new, it's fucking Bill O'Reilly.

So, aside from being Bill O'Reilly, do you dispute that he saw the windows covered and that the military stated that the International Red Cross made them do so? Did Billy make it all up?

Or is this just going the way of the poisoning the well fallacy again - "Its BS because fucking Bill O'Reily did the story!"

So, aside from being Bill O'Reilly, do you dispute that he saw the windows covered and that the military stated that the International Red Cross made them do so? Did Billy make it all up?

Or is this just going the way of the poisoning the well fallacy again - "Its BS because fucking Bill O'Reily did the story!"
Face it, the only source Rosie O'Donnell here would believe would be if they showed video of US soldiers eating the raw entrails of detainees.

Face it, the only source Rosie O'Donnell here would believe would be if they showed video of US soldiers eating the raw entrails of detainees.

Unfortunately true. He's just as blinded to the facts as Kazus is and other posters.

Actually what went wrong is easy to explain. Here is something from Fox News. I know everyone hates that media source (including myself), but I recall a similiar story being on CNN at some point as wellStop right there (and I'll promise to laugh quietly). Fox (and especially O'Reilly) are far from an objective source of information. You may recall a similar story on CNN (also not particularly objective), but you haven't presented it, so I have no way of knowing whether you misremembered that there even was a story, or misremembered what that story actually said.

So it would appear that they covered up their windows, thus the guards couldn't observe them.And now we've ventured into speculation. That's why an investigation is necessary.

So, aside from being Bill O'Reilly, do you dispute that he saw the windows covered and that the military stated that the International Red Cross made them do so? Did Billy make it all up?He's done similar in the past. Until you have second-source confirmation you have no source.

Face it, the only source Rosie O'Donnell here would believe would be if they showed video of US soldiers eating the raw entrails of detainees.
Maybe you would like to grow up on occasion?

I wouldn't count on Amnesty too much for reliable information when it comes down to that type of thing. They're rather shifty with the way they analyze evidence as demonstrated in this recent article from Reuters:
.

That article demonstrates nothing of the sort. In fact the allegations come from an investigation by officials in the EU.


We arn't talking about terrorists, we are talking about the US military, more specifically, the guards at Gitmo..

Yes, lets differentiate between our Fundamentalist "terrorists" and the "True believer" crypto-facist.


TPH is always like this. Give him facts and he'll run...

Shouldn't you be in basic training by now? O sorry - I forgot......


I pointed out earlier that the International Red Cross has a permanent office ON SITE at Guantanamo (for the past few years, in fact), and they have access to the inmates 24/7, including during interrogations....

They have access on the condition that all complaints or comments they make on the camp are made to Washington. Heres an article from 2003 in which they link mental health and suicide attempts with the indefinite length of detention - publicly - as the US was ignoring their concerns.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179858.stm

And this from 2006, where not suprisingly the same phenomena rumbles on

"In November, however, it refused "to publicly confirm or deny" media reports that it had determined the U.S. military used psychological and physical coercion "tantamount to torture" at the prison. The allegation was contained in an ICRC report to U.S. officials after visits to Guantanamo, newspapers reported. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/03/terror/main658980.shtml

Perhaps after these last few years they are beginning to realise they're being led on........

Theres no mention of being present during interrogations in the section below. And I do believe that the first concerns raised about interrogations were in the FBI...
"Procedures

ICRC detention visits are usually carried out by a team of specialised delegates as well as interpreters and medical personnel when appropriate. The organisation follows the same standard working procedures wherever it visits detainees. These include:

ICRC delegates must be able to speak in total privacy to each and every detainee held; delegates inspect all cells and other facilities.
Visits are carried out at a frequency of the ICRC's choice and for as long as people are held in detention.
All detainees have the opportunity to write to their families using the Red Cross message system and to receive Red Cross messages from their next of kin.
Delegates conduct confidential discussions with the camp authorities before and after each visit to raise concerns and make recommendations where appropriate.
The ICRC individually registers the identities of detainees falling within its area of concern. This makes it possible to monitor the situation of each detainee throughout his or her period in detention. "

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList454/85C5BCF85E7A57A4C12570D5002E6889

Face it, the only source Rosie O'Donnell here would believe would be if they showed video of US soldiers eating the raw entrails of detainees.
Now, not only are all Muslims terrorists, but Bill O'Reilly is a newsreporter and not a pundit with a talkshow.

Ah, but terrorists never lie, and neither do their parents or family, in your opinion, even though it's been proven that they have in the past.

I see. You're the one with the unquenchable anti-US military bias. I see both could be liars, so I reserve my judgment until I see direct evidence.

Of course, you're in the same illogical worldview as Human Rights Watch, where hard evidence is, by their own admission, no longer necessary to convict anyone who deals with terrorists - in their eyes, "converging" evidence, or "a pattern of past behavior" is enough for true guilt.

The pantless one needs occams razor ...he may use it for suicide...but he should use it for something . His attempts at logic are making me dizzy .

. His attempts at logic are making me dizzy .

Its more likely to be your precarious seating arrangements on the high stool.

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are legal terms, not my subjective opinion.

Both require circumstantial or physical evidence. In this case, there is neither circumstantial nor physical evidence that a murder occured.

In this case there is neither circumstantial nor physical evidence that a murder occured.

Or - maybe - no evidence was FOUND (which might happen if no one LOOKED), or none was presented (which might happen if evidence WAS found, but an investigation was not wanted).

Its more likely to be your precarious seating arrangements on the high stool.


And whats your excuse ?

You are the one that is not listening to reason. You and Gni both come to think of it.

So - because I don't accept what you preach, without evidence... I am 'not listening to reason'?

Popular opinion, and anecdotal testimony are fine... just don't expect them to be the be-all and end-all of forum debate.

When the people who say it might have been murder are the parents of the dead, that is always suspect.

It is similar to parents saying "my son would never have done that, he is a good boy," when the police find him sitting in a pool of blood, clutching a big knife, with several dismembered body parts in his lap.

Of course, sometimes the parents' suspicions are true. But mere accusation should not be enough to cause investigations.

On the other hand, because of the sensitivity of this issue, I would imagine that full and complete investigations have already been done.

And I hope that they do not release all evidence. It will not convince those who believe that there is a conspiracy, and the rest of us will accept the word of the ICRC...

WHY do you 'accept the word of the ICRC', when you don't even know if they saw any evidence?

Isn't that just immediately swallowing whatever you are told, by anyone in a uniform?

I wan't more than propaganda.