NationStates Jolt Archive

Ive heard it described as an anomoly, an abhorence of nature,a useful device for stopping terrorism ect...
but what do you really think?
do we know enough about whats going on there to claim it should be shut down, or should we trust amnesty international?
The crux of the question really is, if there is enough evidence for people to be in Guantanimo then why are the people there not charged or put on trial?
and furthermore,if america want to keep it open is there anything the world can do about it?

The only solution I see, is to force inmates & keepers to switch places for the next 4-5 years. That way, those particular keepers may finally understand that not all orders should be obeyed.

No, GW BUsh and Cheney need a place to call home!

No, GW BUsh and Cheney need a place to call home!
so they do, and all the rest of them

Bah, shut it down.

At least give them a trail and kick their asses in jail or deport them back to face their own governments.

Guantanamo Bay should be shut down and given back to the Cubans!

Guantanamo Bay should be shut down and given back to the Cubans!
Not until the gerontocrat is dead.

Although, if Cuba manages to become the world's second communist monarcy (what an odd concept) then we'll wait until Raoul is dead as well.

Guantanamo Bay should be shut down and given back to the Cubans!
Two separate issues.

regarding Cuba,and human right,yeah it should have never existed(guano)....
Parasiting the island (and the rest of the worlfd)for about 50 years,doesn't make you a friend of democracy,let alone Socialism

The issue isnt whether or not it should be shut down. People are being held there and tortured, most of whom are completely innocent. If you want to do that to someone, give them a trial in which they are proven guilty. Thats how we do things here.

regarding Cuba,and human right,yeah it should have never existed(guano)....
Parasiting the island (and the rest of the worlfd)for about 50 years,doesn't make you a friend of democracy,let alone Socialism

Where is it written that a nation must be a friend of Socialism? What a non-sequitur.

Two separate issues.
two birds with one stone

jsut make it the Cubans problem

The issue isnt whether or not it should be shut down. People are being held there and tortured, most of whom are completely innocent. If you want to do that to someone, give them a trial in which they are proven guilty. Thats how we do things here.


Tortured? Got any proof of that?

two birds with one stone

jsut make it the Cubans problem

There's just one problem with shutting it down.

Even for the current inmates who are identified by the US as being harmless and not involved in terrorism, NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD wants to take them - not even their home countries.

So, if you are closing Gitmo, where would you send the newly released people?

Keep in mind that no nation will take them.

Bah, shut it down.

At least give them a trail and kick their asses in jail or deport them back to face their own governments.


Nobody wants them.

There's just one problem with shutting it down.

Even for the current inmates who are identified by the US as being harmless and not involved in terrorism, NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD wants to take them - not even their home countries.

So, if you are closing Gitmo, where would you send the newly released people?

Keep in mind that no nation will take them.
The Cubans would take the terrorists if it meant getting Guantanamo Bay back

Where is it written that a nation must be a friend of Socialism? What a non-sequitur.
nowhere,but the way the world treat cuba is surely never has been democratic,
Hence why they broke out of battista.
But it is history ,you know those lessons you get a school and forget later on,like how cuba was great when Hemingway was there;)

The Cubans would take the terrorists if it meant getting Guantanamo Bay back
Castro has already said he will never take them.

The Cubans would take the terrorists if it meant getting Guantanamo Bay back

There is no way that the Cubans would take the terrorists, even if it meant getting back Guantanamo. Imagine the scenario: if you let any of the terrorists go, even if your courts find them innocent, you have an angry US government on your hands. If you keep the terrorists, you have the rest of the world angry for unfair treatment of prisoners (which it is). This is a lose-lose scenario for the Cubans if they get the prison.

There is no way that the Cubans would take the terrorists, even if it meant getting back Guantanamo. Imagine the scenario: if you let any of the terrorists go, even if your courts find them innocent, you have an angry US government on your hands. If you keep the terrorists, you have the rest of the world angry for unfair treatment of prisoners (which it is). This is a lose-lose scenario for the Cubans if they get the prison.



What un-fair treatment?

What un-fair treatment?
My question exactly.

Is it "unfair" to keep people whose own nations (and no others as well) will never take them back?

Tortured? Got any proof of that?
thats what amnest in ternational says
also the mental torture of being stuck in a cell with no chance of getting out, with no charge or trial.

There is no way that the Cubans would take the terrorists, even if it meant getting back Guantanamo. Imagine the scenario: if you let any of the terrorists go, even if your courts find them innocent, you have an angry US government on your hands. If you keep the terrorists, you have the rest of the world angry for unfair treatment of prisoners (which it is). This is a lose-lose scenario for the Cubans if they get the prison.
if its Un-fair treatment of prisioners, then letting them go should be no problem, and having the USA be angry at Cuba..... sooo where have you been these last 50-odd years

thats what amnest in ternational says
also the mental torture of being stuck in a cell with no chance of getting out, with no charge or trial.

And tell me, what nation will take them? No nation right now will even take the ones the US has declared are completely harmless and innocent. Not even their home countries.

There is no way that the Cubans would take the terrorists, even if it meant getting back Guantanamo. Imagine the scenario: if you let any of the terrorists go, even if your courts find them innocent, you have an angry US government on your hands. If you keep the terrorists, you have the rest of the world angry for unfair treatment of prisoners (which it is). This is a lose-lose scenario for the Cubans if they get the prison.
No one pays attention to the unfair treatment Cuba lumps on it's current prisoners, political or otherwise. Why would these fellows be any different.

What un-fair treatment?
the torture and all that

and the "not having trials" bit

thats what amnest in ternational says
also the mental torture of being stuck in a cell with no chance of getting out, with no charge or trial.



Please don't tell me thats all you got, because thats not much at all. Tell me you have way more to go off of.

the torture and all that

and the "not having trials" bit
what, like the military tribunals they had?

release them to their 72 virgins - enemy war combatants - lucky not shot during capture - they have no civil roghts in this country so trials are out

you want military tribunal to try - fine by me ymmv

what, like the military tribunals they had?
military tribunals!
haha!

So all those people that got trials before Stalin hauled them off to prision were legitimatly trialed

Please don't tell me thats all you got, because thats not much at all. Tell me you have way more to go off of.
most nations condemn guantanimo,Im not argueing either way Im just the thread starter,or ebven claiming to habve proof, but if we are talking about proof what proof do you have that there arent human rights abuses in gtnmo bay,since amnesty believes ther is, as does the british government.Furthermore it is well known that these people are not charged, or put on trial.If they really are terrorists then why notput them on trial-maybe they dont because there is no evidence!

most nations condemn guantanimo,Im not argueing either way Im just the thread starter,or ebven claiming to habve proof, but if we are talking about proof what proof do you have that there arent human rights abuses in gtnmo bay,since amnesty believes ther is, as does the british government.Furthermore it is well known that these people are not charged, or put on trial.If they really are terrorists then why notput them on trial-maybe they dont because there is no evidence!

No one is going to take them if you release them.

And tell me, what nation will take them? No nation right now will even take the ones the US has declared are completely harmless and innocent. Not even their home countries.
Britain took their back, since they were cleared and all.

Britain took their back, since they were cleared and all.
At this point, there are some in Guantanamo who have been cleared, and NO ONE WILL TAKE THEM. Not even their home country.

And no one will take the others. Not even Cuba.

So, tell me where to drop them off. Antarctica?

At this point, there are some in Guantanamo who have been cleared, and NO ONE WILL TAKE THEM. Not even their home country.

And no one will take the others. Not even Cuba.

So, tell me where to drop them off. Antarctica?
the fact that noone will take them dosent make it right

the fact that noone will take them dosent make it right
No, but it doesn't make it possible to release them, does it? To whom?

So, the yanks rape and torture the poor guys because they don't have a passport? Come on now. :rolleyes:

It seems my last message was ignored.
No, but it doesn't make it possible to release them, does it? To whom?
What about acknowledging their right to stand trial and relocating them to other prisons in the United States if found truly guilty? The innocent should be released in the US if no other country accepts them. Their lives are the US government's responsibility for having them locked up for no apparent reason for so long.

So, the yanks rape and torture the poor guys because they don't have a passport? Come on now. :rolleyes:

Come on now. We've released about 2/3 of the people who were originally detained there.

Of the remainder, some are regarded by the US as cleared, but no country will take them. The remainder are also in the position where no one will take them.

It's your plan to release them. How about downtown Detroit? I'm sure that will go over very well with the voters.

Well, the problem is, after being closed up for 5 years, they would want to kill the gaurds that tortured them. Right? So leave them, even if they're innocent, cuz if you release them, they will become guilty.

I'm sure that if we were talking about American citizens who were being held on an offshore territory, without charge, access to a consulate or embassy, independant legal representation or visitation from the outside world then the tone would be quite different.

The British detainees are home and telling horror stories of what goes on. I have to weigh up who I believe most - them or the American government/military

They can come and live next door to me.

Well, the problem is, after being closed up for 5 years, they would want to kill the gaurds that tortured them. Right? So leave them, even if they're innocent, cuz if you release them, they will become guilty.
Right. So you'd keep them in the nick "just in case". Tell me, what would you do if the police suddenly stormed your room and arrested you: "I'm sorry, but you might commit a crime in the future. We can't take any chances."

No, but it doesn't make it possible to release them, does it? To whom?The Coalition forces kidnapped them. If nobody wants them back, then the coalition forces must accept responsibility for them.

So, send the ones home that can be sent home & devide the rest among the coalition countries. Grant them citizenship, let them stand trial. If they're aquitted, reimbuse them for the time they've served, if not, sentence them in accordance with the law of the land.

it seems my rebuttal to the "military tribunals" has not been responded to


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11190529&postcount=30

The Coalition forces kidnapped them. If nobody wants them back, then the coalition forces must accept responsibility for them.

So, send the ones home that can be sent home & devide the rest among the coalition countries. Grant them citizenship, let them stand trial. If they're aquitted, reimbuse them for the time they've served, if not, sentence them in accordance with the law of the land.

Oooh! Then we send them to the US court system, where there will be around 400 death sentences...

Oooh! Then we send them to the US court system, where there will be around 400 death sentences...
Speculation is running wild, isn't it?

Well, the problem is, after being closed up for 5 years, they would want to kill the gaurds that tortured them. Right? So leave them, even if they're innocent, cuz if you release them, they will become guilty.
not nessesarily

Speculation is running wild, isn't it?
No. Ever seen the rap sheets they accumulated for the ones they regard as dangerous?

Come on now. We've released about 2/3 of the people who were originally detained there.

Of the remainder, some are regarded by the US as cleared, but no country will take them. The remainder are also in the position where no one will take them.

It's your plan to release them. How about downtown Detroit? I'm sure that will go over very well with the voters.

If the yanks put the same effort into finding a place for them as they did finding a way to make it "legal" to torture them, we'd have no problem.
I find it strange that releasing "cleared" prisoners in Detroit would make the voters angrier than the fact that they're being kept without charges or trial in a very dubious camp by the US. government.

You know, there are refugee camps all over the world. Places where people whom no country wants to take live in. They aren't handcuffed, blindfolded, "interrogated" and kept in dog-cages, are they? If what you are saying is true, then technically they are refugees and should be treated as such.

I'm sure that if we were talking about American citizens who were being held on an offshore territory, without charge, access to a consulate or embassy, independant legal representation or visitation from the outside world then the tone would be quite different.

The British detainees are home and telling horror stories of what goes on. I have to weigh up who I believe most - them or the American government/military

yeah, we took em back when they were cleared.
Just because 'no one will take them back' sdoesnt mean it was ritght to detain them without trial.If america is going to be the world policeman , then surely they can give a good example and give these people a fair trial.They could be put on some kind of withness protection programme, after all how many people know what the people in g b look like?If no one will take them back then the USA will have to take responsibility for them, they were the ones who took them and held them without trial.as I said,if there is enough evidence to hold someone in g b then there is enough evidence to put them on trial.It is possible the reason why they dont is that they dont have enough evidence.They held one of the british men because he was a briton is pakistan-he was going to get married!

Oooh! Then we send them to the US court system, where there will be around 400 death sentences...If that's how an impartial court rules, then that's what should happen. Don't you agree?

Please note though, that I didn't mean they should all be granted US citizenship. I think a fair approact would be to randomly assign them citizenship in a coalition country. We got into this shit. Seems perfectly reasonable we all should have to deal with the consequences of our actions.

EDIT: Besides, I'm sure the ones who'd earn 400 death sentences would cheer their little vile hearts out. They're the ones fighting for Sharia law, after all. Swift & painful death should be right up their alley.

The detention facility should be shut down. The sooner the better.

They held one of the british men because he was a briton is pakistan-he was going to get married!

Exactly - thats why we should oppose the 'round 'em up then try and gather evidence' I always thought 'innocent until proven guilty' was the mainstay of justice

most nations condemn guantanimo,Im not argueing either way Im just the thread starter,or ebven claiming to habve proof, but if we are talking about proof what proof do you have that there arent human rights abuses in gtnmo bay,since amnesty believes ther is, as does the british government.Furthermore it is well known that these people are not charged, or put on trial.If they really are terrorists then why notput them on trial-maybe they dont because there is no evidence!

My proof is there isn't any proof they are commited any abuses there. I am not the with the burden of proof, you are the one saying there are human rights violations there, I just asked you to prove it...So go ahead..Prove it.

Exactly - thats why we should oppose the 'round 'em up then try and gather evidence' I always thought 'innocent until proven guilty' was the mainstay of justice

Not anymore. If the Americans think you look funny, you're guilty untill proven guilty and you can be legally raped and tortured all day long...And then when people start asking questions you'll have a bunch of morons on a forum going: "well we raped and tortured him, he might be angry, let's keep him locked up".

The burden of proof is on the american government to prove in a trial that these people are guilty of terrorist offenses.
I am merley suggesting there are human rights abuses, as are amnesty , the british government and many other governments.

The burden of proof is on the american government to prove in a trial that these people are guilty of terrorist offenses.
I am merley suggesting there are human rights abuses, as are amnesty , the british government and many other governments.


You aren't dodging me are you?

You say there are human rights violations...What are they and what proof do you have they are being committed? Thats all I am asking.

If that's how an impartial court rules, then that's what should happen. Don't you agree?

Please note though, that I didn't mean they should all be granted US citizenship. I think a fair approact would be to randomly assign them citizenship in a coalition country. We got into this shit. Seems perfectly reasonable we all should have to deal with the consequences of our actions.

EDIT: Besides, I'm sure the ones who'd earn 400 death sentences would cheer their little vile hearts out. They're the ones fighting for Sharia law, after all. Swift & painful death should be right up their alley.


Well, IMHO, it doesn't matter what we do with them at this point. Someone will say that whatever we choose to do is heinously wrong.

Not anymore. If the Americans think you look funny, you're guilty untill proven guilty and you can be legally raped and tortured all day long...And then when people start asking questions you'll have a bunch of morons on a forum going: "well we raped and tortured him, he might be angry, let's keep him locked up".



You are saying america is raping people at Gitmo? Can you prove that the US is raping and torturing people at Gitmo? Just Gitmo please.

You aren't dodging me are you?

You say there are human rights violations...What are they and what proof do you have they are being committed? Thats all I am asking.
Well, being held indefinetely without a trial for a start.

and as I said,the burden of proof is on the american government to prove in a trial that these people are guilty of terrorist offenses,I am not the one dataining people without trial.I happen to believe that detaining people without trial or charge is a human rights abuse.You cannot say that these people are not being held without trial.as for the other allegations ,of rape and torture and pissing on the koran, I dont know.

Well, IMHO, it doesn't matter what we do with them at this point. Someone will say that whatever we choose to do is heinously wrong.



Damned if you, Damned if you don't.

Damned if you, Damned if you don't.
probably shoulnt have set up g b for instance, or maybe put these people there on trial.We will shut up about it if they all get put on trial and if it i proven one way or another that america were justified in their actions.

and as I said,the burden of proof is on the american government to prove in a trial that these people are guilty of terrorist offenses,I am not the one dataining people without trial.I happen to believe that detaining people without trial or charge is a human rights abuse.You cannot say that these people are not being held without trial.as for the other allegations ,of rape and torture and pissing on the koran, I dont know.
Ummm... Geneva Convention I, Article II, in its entirety.

They aren't "arrested" by "police". They do not retain the right to a trial (according to the Conventions), nor the protections of the Conventions.

Might be a human rights abuse under other treaties.

Would you have suggested holding trials for those captured in WW2, or would you realise that if they were found innocent they'd have to be released back onto the land they were captured from?

Essentially, I'm saying is there any difference between detaining German prisoners in WW2 without trial, to other foreign prisoners now?

and as I said,the burden of proof is on the american government to prove in a trial that these people are guilty of terrorist offenses,I am not the one dataining people without trial.I happen to believe that detaining people without trial or charge is a human rights abuse.You cannot say that these people are not being held without trial.as for the other allegations ,of rape and torture and pissing on the koran, I dont know.


In other words you have nothing.

So many people claim those prisoners are being torture and my quest for proof continues........

if this thread is going about how long a nation state should be vindicative,while promoting democracy ,i'll withdraw...
Making my stand,with any democratic winds that come

Ummm... Geneva Convention I, Article II, in its entirety.

They aren't "arrested" by "police". They do not retain the right to a trial (according to the Conventions), nor the protections of the Conventions.

Might be a human rights abuse under other treaties.

fair enough, doesnt mean that I think its right to hold them without trail tho.If these people are guilty why not try them, or is the american govt trying to dodge the fact that some people in there were taken for no reason.

You aren't dodging me are you?

You say there are human rights violations...What are they and what proof do you have they are being committed? Thats all I am asking.

Well, the ones we *know* of, are the locking-up a bunch of people for years and not giving them a trial, depriving the detainees of sleep, long periods of solitary confinement and subjecting them to extreme temperatures.
If locking you up for no reason, blindfolding you, keeping you in a cage without any protection from the elements, putting you in solitary confinement for long periods and not letting you sleep is not a violation of your rights, then what is?

Evidence suggests that there are worse things going on as we've all seen how the US have tried to redefine the word "torture" (and they do not deny this btw) and we've all heard the tales from the people who have been released.

If locking you up for no reason

For the ones still detained (with a few exceptions), for the same reasons we detained Germany Wehrmacht soldiers during WW II.

Well, the ones we *know* of, are the locking-up a bunch of people for years and not giving them a trial, depriving the detainees of sleep, long periods of solitary confinement and subjecting them to extreme temperatures.
If locking you up for no reason, blindfolding you, keeping you in a cage without any protection from the elements, putting you in solitary confinement for long periods and not letting you sleep is not a violation of your rights, then what is?

Evidence suggests that there are worse things going on as we've all seen how the US have tried to redefine the word "torture" (and they do not deny this btw)) and we've all heard the tales from the people who have been released.


Are you confusing gitmo with Abu Gharib? Sounds like it.

Are you confusing gitmo with Abu Gharib? Sounds like it.
what is different,the one has photo inside,the other doesn't
if you mean, one is in Cuba(not occupied)
And the other ones are not then you are right,it doesn't change anything for the people detained.

Are you confusing gitmo with Abu Gharib? Sounds like it.

No, I'm not. If I was talking about Abu Ghraib I'd have mentioned stuff like rape and sexual abuse. Though, there is no way to know if that sort of thing is going on in Guantanamo, three of the British prisoners that were released say that sort of thing was done to them.

Edit: Two French prisoners, a Swedish one and one from Australia also claim to have been sexually abused.

No, I'm not. If I was talking about Abu Ghraib I'd have mentioned stuff like rape and sexual abuse. Though, there is no way to know if that sort of thing is going on in Guantanamo, three of the British prisoners that were released say that sort of thing was done to them.

Edit: Two French prisoners, a Swedish one and one from Australia also claim to have been sexually abused.



You did mention that stuff about Gitmo...without real proof.

You did mention that stuff about Gitmo...without real proof.

It's all info based on information the USA has released, what visitors to the camp have told and UN complaints. And it's all pretty mild compared to most of the accusations.

You did mention that stuff about Gitmo...without real proof.

You're a bit slow aren't you. The torture camp is surrounded by an american military base whith is surrounded by a shitload of Cuban soldiers, on an island. The kidnapped people inside are being tortured and beaten by cowards in uniform too scared to disobey illegal orders. If those guards are lucky they will escape war crimes tribunals but they should all be prosecuted.

The people being tortured by US troops paid for by US taxes are a collection of random brown skins who have faced no trail, have been charged with nothing and are being denied basic human rights by a bunch of clowns.

You keep squalling on about proof. You don't need proof that any of the imprisoned people did anything, that's unimportant to you. How would you manage to get proof off a prison surrounded by two military bases?

It's all info based on information the USA has released, what visitors to the camp have told and UN complaints. And it's all pretty mild compared to most of the accusations.


Keyword os accusations. Has that stuff ever been proven?


I still think you are thinking about abu and not gitmo.

Keyword os accusations. Has that stuff ever been proven?Has the US allowed anyone to attempt to prove/disprove the accusations?

Keyword os accusations. Has that stuff ever been proven?


I still think you are thinking about abu and not gitmo.

Yes, keyword is accusations, that's why I only mentioned the stuff that is WELL KNOWN.

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

You're a bit slow aren't you. The torture camp is surrounded by an american military base whith is surrounded by a shitload of Cuban soldiers, on an island. The kidnapped people inside are being tortured and beaten by cowards in uniform too scared to disobey illegal orders. If those guards are lucky they will escape war crimes tribunals but they should all be prosecuted.

The people being tortured by US troops paid for by US taxes are a collection of random brown skins who have faced no trail, have been charged with nothing and are being denied basic human rights by a bunch of clowns.

You keep squalling on about proof. You don't need proof that any of the imprisoned people did anything, that's unimportant to you. How would you manage to get proof off a prison surrounded by two military bases?



You are the one who is slow. I asked for proof of torture, noboby has given me what I asked for. You just claimed they are being tortured to...Any proof they are? Nobody has given it so far.

How can you claim they are being tortured without proof they are? It's not like the US hasn't let people inside Gitmo.

Yes, keyword is accusations, that's why I only mentioned the stuff that is WELL KNOWN.

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?



Not to quick are you? You claimed they WERE being tortured. You assumed it was already proven and a fact. I asked for proof they are, you failed to give any.

Has the US allowed anyone to attempt to prove/disprove the accusations?


All I know is Fox News and Australia have gone inside Gitmo. I can't provide anymore than that.

You are the one who is slow. I asked for proof of torture, noboby has given me what I asked for. You just claimed they are being tortured to...Any proof they are? Nobody has given it so far.

How can you claim they are being tortured without proof they are? It's not like the US hasn't let people inside Gitmo.

You're a bit of a retard, like a handicapped troll.

Proof of torture (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-rutten17jun17,1,7259887.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true)

Not to quick are you? You claimed they WERE being tortured. You assumed it was already proven and a fact. I asked for proof they are, you failed to give any.

I claim that they are because it has been proven. The stuff I said that we *know* of is taking place. The US does not deny it and it's documented.

What I said they claim without any proof except the testimony of most of the prisoners that have been released is the sexual abuse.

Ok, let me dumb it down a bit more:

Americans say that they don't let them sleep, give them crappy shelter, use interrogation techniques that are highly questionable, force-feed them and IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT THEY ARE BEING HELD WITHOUT CHARGES, PROOF OR TRIAL.

This we know. Ok? No? Not enough?

Ok, I'll try to simplify some more:

Yankee make boo-boo to brown-skinned people. Papa told me.

All I know is Fox News and Australia have gone inside Gitmo. I can't provide anymore than that.
Yep you can get pics out of abugri,but not from guanti(o)..
It is absuurd,and history will remember it

I claim that they are because it has been proven. The stuff I said that we *know* of is taking place. The US does not deny it and it's documented.

What I said they claim without any proof except the testimony of most of the prisoners that have been released is the sexual abuse.

Ok, let me dumb it down a bit more:

Americans say that they don't let them sleep, give them crappy shelter, use interrogation techniques that are highly questionable, force-feed them and IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT THEY ARE BEING HELD WITHOUT CHARGES, PROOF OR TRIAL.

This we know. Ok? No? Not enough?

Ok, I'll try to simplify some more:

Yankee make boo-boo to brown-skinned people. Papa told me.


So I am just supposed to take your word for it? Not gonna happen. All you been doing is making claims and not backing them up. I could say the US is having dogs knaw at their balls, is it true just because I said it?

Let me dumb it down for you

YOU GIVE ME REAL PROOF OF BAD THING!

Now knock of the flaming.

Three British prisoners, now known in the media as the "Tipton Three", were released in 2004 without charge. Represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the three have alleged ongoing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution being committed by U.S. forces at Guantánamo Bay. The prisoners have released a 115-page dossier detailing these accusations.[24] They have also accused British authorities of knowing about the alleged torture and failing to respond.

The accounts of the British prisoners have been reiterated by two former French prisoners, a former Swedish prisoner, and a former Australian prisoner.

Former Guantánamo detainee, the Swede Mehdi Ghezali was freed on July 9, 2004 after two and half years internment. Ghezali has claimed that he was the victim of repeated torture. His lawyer has declared that he intends to sue the U.S. for their treatment of him.

Former Guantánamo detainee Moazzam Begg, freed in January, 2005, after nearly three years in captivity, has accused his American captors of torturing him and other detainees arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[25] Mr Begg, in his first broadcast interview since his release, claimed he "witnessed two people get beaten so badly that I believe it caused their deaths".

An Associated Press report asserted that some of the detainees were turned over to the United States by Afghan tribesmen in return for cash rewards. Detainees testified during military tribunals that bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000. The allegations were in transcripts the U.S. government released in compliance with a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by AP.[26] There has not been independent confirmation of any of the above allegations since the U.S. government prohibits investigation by any third party.[27]

Forced feeding accusations by hunger-striking detainees began around the beginning of Autumn, 2005: "Detainees said large feeding tubes were forcibly shoved up their noses and down into their stomachs, with guards using the same tubes from one patient to another. The detainees say no sedatives were provided during these procedures, which they allege took place in front of U.S. physicians, including the head of the prison hospital."[28][29] "A hunger striking detainee at Guantánamo Bay wants a judge to order the removal of his feeding tube so he can be allowed to die, one of his lawyers has said."[30] Within a few weeks, the Department of Defense "extended an invitation to United Nations Special Rapporteurs to visit detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station".[31][32] This was rejected by the U.N. considering the restrictions "that [the] three human rights officials invited to Guantánamo Bay wouldn't be allowed to conduct private interviews" with prisoners. [33] Simultaneously, media reports ensued surrounding the question of prisoner treatment.[34] [35] [36] "District Court Judge Gladys Kessler also ordered the U.S. government to give medical records going back a week before such feedings take place."[37] In early November, 2005, the U.S. suddenly accelerated, for unknown reasons, the rate of prisoner release, but this was unsustained. [38] [39] [40] [41]

In December 2005, Amnesty International published the account of Juma Al Dossary, a 32-year-old Bahraini national. Al Dossary says in three years he has been interrogated some 600 times, fed rotten food, beaten many times (by up to eight guards at once), made to walk on broken glass and pushed so that his face hit the glass shards, made to walk on barbed wire, and has had cigarettes put out on his body. He also reports frequent sexual assaults and other degrading treatment, similar to what has been reported from Abu Ghraib. [42]

kk here is some stuff from wikipedia
for those of you who couldnt be arsed to read it ( i know i probably wouldnt)
it gives a load of names of people who have been detained and have said they were tortured or saw torturing.
also theres some stuff about an amnesty international report


that is some proof of torture i guess

You're a bit of a retard, like a handicapped troll.

Proof of torture (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-rutten17jun17,1,7259887.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true)


Flaming is uncalled for.


I am a retard for wanting proof? Gimme a break. I want proof and not somebodies word. Do you know what proof means?


To view that story you have to register at LA Times. :rolleyes:

kk here is some stuff from wikipedia
for those of you who couldnt be arsed to read it ( i know i probably wouldnt)
it gives a load of names of people who have been detained and have said they were tortured or saw torturing.
also theres some stuff about an amnesty international report


that is some proof of torture i guess



Atleast you had the IQ high enough to provide something other than your word.

You are the one who is slow. I asked for proof of torture, noboby has given me what I asked for. You just claimed they are being tortured to...Any proof they are? Nobody has given it so far.

How can you claim they are being tortured without proof they are? It's not like the US hasn't let people inside Gitmo.

how can you say you need proof of their torture but you dont need proof of their guilt.

how can you say you need proof of their torture but you dont need proof of their guilt.



This isn't about whether the detainees are guilty, This is about whether or not the US is torturing them. They should have gotten a trial by now, but that not what I am looking for.

Atleast you had the IQ high enough to provide something other than your word.

ha ha ha ha screw you lot now its not just my opinion that im smarter than everyone else:upyours:

This isn't about whether the detainees are guilty, This is about whether or not the US is torturing them. They should have gotten a trial by now, but that not what I am looking for.

This was not the question asked, I asked whether guantanimo should be shut down or not.The fact of the matter is, people are being held there indefinatly without trial.You cannot deny this.Even the american government dont deny this,should they be held without charge and trial, if there is proof of their guilt(which is why the us is holding them-they claim the detainees are terrorists)then they should put these people on trial!
and stop with the 'youre too stupid to know' attacking someones charicter isnt going to help you win an arguement, or even have an intelligent debate.

So I am just supposed to take your word for it? Not gonna happen. All you been doing is making claims and not backing them up. I could say the US is having dogs knaw at their balls, is it true just because I said it?

Let me dumb it down for you

YOU GIVE ME REAL PROOF OF BAD THING!

Now knock of the flaming.

Sheesh.
I'm not responsible for your ignorance. Read up on what you're discussing.

What we are discussing is the fact that there are people who have been held now for 4 years in Guantanamo without charges or trial. That in itself is a violation of human rights. If you are unaware of this, how on earth do you even know the camp in Guantanamo even exists?


Here is some of the basic stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp

This isn't about whether the detainees are guilty, This is about whether or not the US is torturing them. They should have gotten a trial by now, but that not what I am looking for.

I know what you are looking for, proof of torture.Ive never claimed that there are rapes ect happening in Guantanimo, but there are allegations, allegations have been made and the usa should answer them.All I am claiming is that holding people without trial is mental abuse.As for other allegations, I couldnt say,expet that amnesty international is a reliable source that condems human rights abuses around the world, and is unbiased.

This isn't about whether the detainees are guilty, This is about whether or not the US is torturing them. They should have gotten a trial by now, but that not what I am looking for.

I know what you are looking for, proof of torture.Ive never claimed that there are rapes ect happening in Guantanimo, but there are allegations, allegations have been made and the usa should answer them.All I am claiming is that holding people without trial is mental abuse.As for other allegations, I couldnt say,except that amnesty international is a reliable source that condems human rights abuses around the world, and is unbiased.

I am a retard [...] To view that story you have to register at LA Times. :rolleyes:

No you don't.

This isn't about whether the detainees are guilty, This is about whether or not the US is torturing them. They should have gotten a trial by now, but that not what I am looking for.

No, you asked about human rights violations.

This was not the question asked, I asked whether guantanimo should be shut down or not.The fact of the matter is, people are being held there indefinatly without trial.You cannot deny this.Even the american government dont deny this,should they be held without charge and trial, if there is proof of their guilt(which is why the us is holding them-they claim the detainees are terrorists)then they should put these people on trial!
and stop with the 'youre too stupid to know' attacking someones charicter isnt going to help you win an arguement, or even have an intelligent debate.
The Conventions do not apply to the irregular, non-uniformed personnel fighting on behalf of the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

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

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

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

Additionally, we see in Protocol I, Article 37
Art. 37. Prohibition of Perfidy

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: (a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender; (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness; (c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and (d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

Pretending to be a civilian by day when you are an insurgent at night is therefore prohibited. It's called perfidy, and you can be shot for it under US military law.

Further:
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

This means that if US forces can watch you, you have to carry arms openly. Otherwise, it's perfidy.

And if it's perfidy...

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

Unless, of course, you aren't covered by the Convention - you're not a member of a High Contracting Party, and your group has not offered through the International Red Cross to adhere to the Conventions, and have demonstrated by action (killing prisoners, etc) that you have no intention to become a High Contracting Party. So al-Qaeda, and anyone fighting on their behalf, are not protected, and if committing perfidy (as in appearing before US troops pretending to be civilians) are not entitled to be prisoners of war.

In fact, they fall into the same category as spies, saboteurs, and mercenaries. They can be tried by field court martial and shot on the spot.

No you don't.


yes you do genius. I clicked your little link and thats what I got.

The Conventions do not apply to the irregular, non-uniformed personnel fighting on behalf of the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

See Convention I, Article 2


Additionally, we see in Protocol I, Article 37


Pretending to be a civilian by day when you are an insurgent at night is therefore prohibited. It's called perfidy, and you can be shot for it under US military law.

Further:


This means that if US forces can watch you, you have to carry arms openly. Otherwise, it's perfidy.

And if it's perfidy...



Unless, of course, you aren't covered by the Convention - you're not a member of a High Contracting Party, and your group has not offered through the International Red Cross to adhere to the Conventions, and have demonstrated by action (killing prisoners, etc) that you have no intention to become a High Contracting Party. So al-Qaeda, and anyone fighting on their behalf, are not protected, and if committing perfidy (as in appearing before US troops pretending to be civilians) are not entitled to be prisoners of war.

In fact, they fall into the same category as spies, saboteurs, and mercenaries. They can be tried by field court martial and shot on the spot.

Of course, there is the small matter of needing proof that they are combatants, insurgents or al-qaeda members.

Though, I don't doubt for a second that despite that, they can be legally murdered under some crazy american law.

Sheesh.
I'm not responsible for your ignorance. Read up on what you're discussing.

What we are discussing is the fact that there are people who have been held now for 4 years in Guantanamo without charges or trial. That in itself is a violation of human rights. If you are unaware of this, how on earth do you even know the camp in Guantanamo even exists?


Here is some of the basic stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp


Now everybody who doesn't just take your word for it is ignorant? Can you try not flaming people?

Of course, there is the small matter of needing proof that they are combatants, insurgents or al-qaeda members.

Though, I don't doubt for a second that despite that, they can be legally murdered under some crazy american law.


How about them being caught on the battlefield?

How about them being caught on the battlefield?

Actually, most of them were captured by Mercenaries (according to the US) and they were getting paid to deliver prisoners. So we really have no idea where or how they were caught.

Of course, there is the small matter of needing proof that they are combatants, insurgents or al-qaeda members.

Though, I don't doubt for a second that despite that, they can be legally murdered under some crazy american law.
It's not an American law.

Spies, saboteurs, and mercenaries are traditionally shot when captured - by nearly every armed force in the world.

BTW, it's easy for an insurgent who comes from another country to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan to be considered a "spy".

Art. 46. Spies

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy.
Hmm - any insurgent observing US forces is a spy.

2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces.
They don't wear uniforms, or wear distinctive emblems, or carry ID cards, or wear dog tags, so they're still spies.
3. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who, on behalf of the Party on which he depends, gathers or attempts to gather information of military value within that territory shall not be considered as engaging in espionage unless he does so through an act of false pretences or deliberately in a clandestine manner. Moreover, such a resident shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured while engaging in espionage.

Well, can't hang the locals. But any foreign fighter...
4. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is not a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who has engaged in espionage in that territory shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured before he has rejoined the armed forces to which he belongs.

So if we catch him on the street - get a rope.

It's even easier to make mercenaries out of the foreign fighters that come to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Art. 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Sounds like most of the foreign fighters to me.

Sounds like most of the foreign fighters to me.

I used to be as memberof the French Foreign Legion. By that description I wouldn't have been entitled to POW status.

It's not an American law.

Spies, saboteurs, and mercenaries are traditionally shot when captured - by nearly every armed force in the world.


And where is the proof that they are any of those? That's what's really lacking here, isn't it?

And "traditionally" shot? Even if there is no proof?

I used to be as memberof the French Foreign Legion. By that description I wouldn't have been entitled to POW status.
Yes, you are.

You were sent by a State which is a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Actually, most of them were captured by Mercenaries (according to the US) and they were getting paid to deliver prisoners. So we really have no idea where or how they were caught.


May I have link for that? Never hurts to have back up.

May I have link for that? Never hurts to have back up.

A quote from the wiki article I posted earlier:

A report based on data supplied by the Defense Department showed that 86% of the prisoners were handed over by Afghan and other local bounty-hunters rather than as the result of any American investigation or collection of intelligence.[3] It is alleged that because the bounty-hunters were compensated per-capita, they detained innocent civilians in order to maximize their profits.

A quote from the wiki article I posted earlier:

A report based on data supplied by the Defense Department showed that 86% of the prisoners were handed over by Afghan and other local bounty-hunters rather than as the result of any American investigation or collection of intelligence.[3] It is alleged that because the bounty-hunters were compensated per-capita, they detained innocent civilians in order to maximize their profits.

I guess that's why we've released so many - roughly 2/3rds of the people who've been to Guantanamo.

Maybe military tribunals are fair after all.

I don't have time to review the entire thread, just the linked posts complained about in Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=488416).

That said,

Empress_Suiko: Official Warning - Flamebait
NilbuDcom: Official Warning - Flaming

I expect all further discussion to remain civil.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Forum Moderator

I spilled some coffee earlier on and when I went to mop it up it seemed to spell out the following "kcoc ym okius". It's a mystery to me, perhaps it's a message of some kind?

Where was I oh yeah.

This Illegal combatant isn't a new thing at all. After WWII Eisenhower made the controversial decision to reclassify German prisoners of war (POWs) in U.S. custody as Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEFs). As DEFs, they could be compelled to serve as unpaid conscript labor. An unknown number may have died in custody as a consequence of malnutrition, exposure to the elements, and lack of medical care.

The point is it's a bullshit way of evading the Geneva Convention. George didn't reuse the DEF catagorisation because it was recognised as bad juju but coining a fresh slogan doesn't change the deed.

What would be wrong with holding those guys as POWs? What would be the problem with allowing them lawyers and giving them trials? If the Army really disagreed with the courts verdict they could just appeal and keep them locked up for as long as they liked. It'd amount to exactly the same thing just wouldn't piss off the whole civilised world. I fail to see what George gains by trampling all over the rule of law.

If the Iraqis capture a US soldier what effect will seeing Guantanamo bay on TV have on the guards. If the Iraqi POWs were being shown to be treated humanely that captured US POW might receive reciprocal treatment.

I guess that's why we've released so many - roughly 2/3rds of the people who've been to Guantanamo.

Maybe military tribunals are fair after all.

After how many years again?

And if the yanks were so nice to them, why are they going around saying they've been raped and tortured?

After how many years again?

And if the yanks were so nice to them, why are they going around saying they've been raped and tortured?

Maybe because they know naive ultra-liberals will always come to their rescue.

After how many years again?

And if the yanks were so nice to them, why are they going around saying they've been raped and tortured?

While I do believe they were interrogated, I do not for a second believe they were raped. And torture has many definitions - some of which I do not believe were used.

Threatened with dogs, probably. Loud continuous sounds and sleep deprivation, yes. But the last two by UK standards are not torture - they were commonplace in UK operations against the IRA. Mishandling of the Koran - well, if that's torture, then so is burning the American flag.

There have been claims by other people captured by US forces, including those captured by the FBI. Some have proven to be completely false (such as the young man who claimed to have scars on his back, but on three independent medical exams, including one by his own doctor, showed NO scars and NO signs of physical torture. Even when he showed his back to the judge in court (on the judge's demand) there were no marks at all.

So I don't believe most of the claims of torture.

I'd rather commit "torture" against a bunch of stupid Muslim fanatics, terrorist or not, and "unfairly" hold them than risk a terrorist attack.

While I do believe they were interrogated, I do not for a second believe they were raped. And torture has many definitions - some of which I do not believe were used.

Threatened with dogs, probably. Loud continuous sounds and sleep deprivation, yes. But the last two by UK standards are not torture - they were commonplace in UK operations against the IRA. Mishandling of the Koran - well, if that's torture, then so is burning the American flag.

There have been claims by other people captured by US forces, including those captured by the FBI. Some have proven to be completely false (such as the young man who claimed to have scars on his back, but on three independent medical exams, including one by his own doctor, showed NO scars and NO signs of physical torture. Even when he showed his back to the judge in court (on the judge's demand) there were no marks at all.

So I don't believe most of the claims of torture.


So why don't American policemen wipe their asses on the bible in front of inbred rednecks to get them to talk?

And some of those claims have been proven to be true.
The words of a government who unleashes the likes of Lynndie England on their captives don't carry much weight. And when every captive who walks out of there claims they were tortured I believe them.
Simply put: We've seen evidence of torture, we all know why the base is in Cuba, we know that people HAVE been tortured, raped and even murdered by the americans. The promise that they aren't being tortured comes from the mouth of someone we know to be a liar. There is simply no reason to expect them to behave in a civil manner this time around.
Them saying "we're just not that sort of folk" doesn't fly anymore, because they are.

Of course Donald Rumsfeld went right to the core of the problem a few days after the Abu Ghraib scandal: He banned cameras and cellphones :rolleyes:

I'd rather commit "torture" against a bunch of stupid Muslim fanatics, terrorist or not, and "unfairly" hold them than risk a terrorist attack.

I know you do. :rolleyes: Why not just nuke the whole world so you don't have to deal with it?

And some of those claims have been proven to be true.

And some proven to be false.

The words of a government who unleashes the likes of Lynndie England on their captives don't carry much weight. And when every captive who walks out of there claims they were tortured I believe them.

That's not surprising - the al-Qaeda manual explicitly says that in the event of capture, you are to claim torture of every kind, even if you are not tortured.

we all know why the base is in Cuba
ah, because the base was there for decades...

And some proven to be false.


That's not surprising - the al-Qaeda manual explicitly says that in the event of capture, you are to claim torture of every kind, even if you are not tortured.


ah, because the base was there for decades...

The ones that were proven false were allegations against the FBI according to you? That's a whole different kettle of fish, because in that case you're not just dealing with filthy communist muslim "ragheads" anymore, but people who carry the holy american passport.

So they are releasing al-qaeda members? Not likely.
Sorry, but their words still carry more weight than the words of those who've been known to torture and rape.

Come on now, we both know they placed their victims in Cuba because not even their own laws allow them to do what they want to them.

It's pointless, he's just going to call you a commie liberal socialist or something even though he doesn't know what the words even mean. He has no integrity, doesn't have any ethics, and is prepared to lie for his 'cause'.

Actually saying Guantanamo was used because "it had been there for decades", man that takes some set of balls. To spout such crap without a bother, incredible.

I know you do. :rolleyes: Why not just nuke the whole world so you don't have to deal with it?

I couldn't convert the world to Christianity if everyone is dead. Duh!

I couldn't convert the world to Christianity if everyone is dead. Duh!
Try and convert me and I nuke you!
Im kidding by the way-I respect your belief in christianity, but seriously, dont try converting people unless theyre intrested-it really pisses people off.