NationStates Jolt Archive

Despite some assurances by some posters on these boards that Gitmo detainees lead the life of Riley, these kind of stories keep popping up. This one, no less by US army personnel. I cannot imagine that these people would make frivolous claims. There must be some truth to this allegation? What are we to believe?

2 ordered not to discuss Gitmo claims (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061015/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_abuse_probe)

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - A paralegal and a military lawyer who brought forward allegations about prisoner abuse at the Guantanamo Bay detention center have been ordered not to speak with the press, lawyers and a military spokeswoman said Saturday.

Marine Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, who represents a detainee at the U.S. naval base in eastern Cuba, filed a complaint with the Pentagon last week alleging that abuse was ongoing at the prison. He attached a sworn statement from his paralegal, Sgt. Heather Cerveny, in which she said several Guantanamo guards bragged in a bar about beating detainees, describing it as common practice.

Muneer Ahmad, a civilian defense lawyer for Omar Khadr, a Canadian detainee whose military counsel is Vokey, said that Vokey and Cerveny were ordered Friday by the U.S. Marines not to speak with the press.

A spokeswoman for the Marines confirmed the order, saying Vokey's supervisor — Col. Carol Joyce, the Marines' chief defense counsel — had directed him not to communicate with the media "pending her review of the facts."

"This is necessary to ensure all actions of counsel are in compliance with regulations establishing professional standards for military attorneys," the spokeswoman, 1st Lt. Blanca E. Binstock, said in a statement.

Reached by telephone, Vokey declined to comment, saying, "I can't even talk about it." When asked if he was going to abide by the order for the time being, he said, "Yes."

Cerveny, reached by telephone late Saturday, said she disagreed with the order but also would abide it. She declined to comment further.

Telephone calls placed to a Pentagon spokesman were not immediately returned.

Ahmad said Vokey was also barred from talking to the media about anything related to the military commissions — tribunals set up to try detainees. He said he didn't know how the order was issued and that Vokey previously had the military's authorization to speak with the media.

"I think he is very concerned about his ability to perform his job as a lawyer," Ahmad said. "It's really quite troubling ... at this point I'm not sure what our next steps will be."

Cerveny, 23, visited Guantanamo last month and has said she spent an hour with the guards at the military club. She said the guards stopped discussing beating detainees after finding out that she works for a detainee's legal team.

"It was a general consensus that I (detected) that as a group this is something they did. That this was OK at Guantanamo, that this is how the detainees get treated," Cerveny said in a telephone interview Thursday.

Gen. John Craddock, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, said Friday that he had ordered an investigation headed by an Army colonel.

The military Joint Task Force that runs the detention camps in Guantanamo Bay pledged to work with investigators from the Southern Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Caribbean and Latin America.

There are now 454 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, according to Vincent Lusser, a spokesman for the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross.

Guantanamo Bay began receiving prisoners, most of them captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in January 2002. Only 10 of the detainees have been charged with crimes.
Something is terribly wrong here?

Despite some assurances by some posters on these boards that Gitmo detainees lead the life of Riley, these kind of stories keep popping up. This one, no less by US army personnel. I cannot imagine that these people would make frivolous claims. There must be some truth to this allegation? What are we to believe?

2 ordered not to discuss Gitmo claims (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061015/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_abuse_probe)


Something is terribly wrong here?

Yeah. That some people love our enemies so much.

This isn't the Hanoi Hilton, nor is it the Newport Beach Hilton. They're prisoners from a war zone, what do you expect, that they're being served tea & crumpets and being asked to please tell us everything they know?

Yeah. That some people love our enemies so much.
Why do you assume that people love your enemies? This isn't about loving enemies, it is about democracy and basic human rights.

This isn't the Hanoi Hilton, nor is it the Newport Beach Hilton. They're prisoners from a war zone, what do you expect, that they're being served tea & crumpets and being asked to please tell us everything they know?
I expect them to be treated as human beings. Did you read the bottom line? Out of 454 detainees, only 10 have been actually charged. Pretty sad, especially if they are being tortured.

gitmo or gulag it's the same thing.
see the road to guantanamo bay (a movie) says a great deal.

Yeah. That some people love our enemies so much.

This isn't the Hanoi Hilton, nor is it the Newport Beach Hilton. They're prisoners from a war zone, what do you expect, that they're being served tea & crumpets and being asked to please tell us everything they know?

Are you stupid? THEY'VE NOT EVEN HAD A FUCKING TRIAL! How the fuck can you know whether they've done anything wrong? Cus Bush says so (yeh, cus he's really honest isn't he?)? The deserve to be treated like human beings, not pieces of shit, and don't deserve to be punished if the president is too scared of being proved wrong in a Court of Law that he won't even allow trials for the prisoners. Sure prisons aint sposed to be fun, but they are not supposed to be total hellholes either where people are forced to commit suicide due their treatment, and there has been not one single conviction for the prisoners, because bush is too scared to allow trials as most will probably be proved innocent and he proved a muslim-hater (and I'm becoming Christian by the way, and have never been religious before, so this post has nothing to do with a muslim trying to defend islam or muslims for no good reason).

Why do you assume that people love your enemies? This isn't about loving enemies, it is about democracy and basic human rights.

It seems at least some have enjoyed Gitmo... again, the Red Cross inspects the place regularly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/08/wguan08.xml

...most have put on weight:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_he_me/guantanamo_fat_detainees

Look, it's a PRISON. It's not supposed to be a nice place to be. But they're fed, clothed, sheltered, allowed to pray, etc. They are there for a reason: because they're assumed dangerous.

How many (fake!) Koran flushing stories do we have to listen to?

I expect them to be treated as human beings. Did you read the bottom line? Out of 454 detainees, only 10 have been actually charged. Pretty sad, especially if they are being tortured.

Ah. So we need to do something about that? Look, no system is perfect, but at least SOME of these are the same people that decapitate westerners and blow us up. They were all captured in a war zone.

(BTW: I don't believe that anything that doesn't leave a permanent physical scar is torture.)

In fact, at least 100 were caught in terrorist activities after being released from Gitmo!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825317/
But the court arguments may have obscured a potentially bigger embarrassment for the Pentagon: some of the more than 100 Gitmo prisoners who have been released have since turned up back in Afghanistan—fighting with Taliban forces against the U.S. military.

Are you stupid? THEY'VE NOT EVEN HAD A FUCKING TRIAL! How the fuck can you know whether they've done anything wrong?

Ahem. If you insist on throwing insults, you show exactly how ignorant you are.

us Bush says so (yeh, cus he's really honest isn't he?)? The deserve to be treated like human beings, not pieces of shit, and don't deserve to be punished if the president is too scared of being proved wrong in a Court of Law that he won't even allow trials for the prisoners. Sure prisons aint sposed to be fun, but they are not supposed to be total hellholes either where people are forced to commit suicide due their treatment, and there has been not one single conviction for the prisoners, because bush is too scared to allow trials as most will probably be proved innocent and he proved a muslim-hater (and I'm becoming Christian by the way, and have never been religious before, so this post has nothing to do with a muslim trying to defend islam or muslims for no good reason).

Have you been there? No. So until you HAVE been there, I think you need to start taking your news a lot less selectively. :rolleyes:

Look, it's a PRISON. It's not supposed to be a nice place to be. But they're fed, clothed, sheltered, allowed to pray, etc. They are there for a reason: because they're assumed dangerous.

Assumed is the key word. At one it was assumed that North America was India, assumptions are not always correct.

(BTW: I don't believe that anything that doesn't leave a permanent physical scar is torture.)

So you don't believe in the psychological effects of war and torture? I suppose you also believe soliders go into war messed up too?

off topic: dryks: I liked the last part of your sig

Assumed is the key word. At one it was assumed that North America was India, assumptions are not always correct.

*That's* the best example you can give?!?

So you don't believe in the psychological effects of war and torture? I suppose you also believe soliders go into war messed up too?

The human mind is an interesting thing. Given enough training/work, it can cope with nearly anything.

We need information. There is a process to determine if inmate X has any information. We use whatever method we need to get said information.

It's not like the bloody Inquisition here. No one is having their eyes gouged out or being put on a rack. :rolleyes:

As for combat stress/fatigue: of course that exists. I just don't care if we inflict it upon others to keep ourselves safe. After all, we aren't the ones blowing people up at random. (USS Cole, Embassies, Pentagon, WTC x2, Madrid, London, etc.)

They were all captured in a war zone.

]

No they werent. Some were grabbed in Pakistan.

You can't accuse others of not having been there or of believing information that they have read pertaining to the mistreatment of detainess when you are A) quite clearly desperate for these men to be terrorists and B) are trying to persuade others that their existence isn't that bad....

You say it yourself they are prisoners, naturally they are treated badly. But prisoners of war? Were they fighting a war? It's been years now, with no sign of a trial, no proof other than there presence on the 'battlefield' to hold them with:

We're talking basic human rights and treatment that even men and women on death row are afforded - and these men haven't been tried, let alone accused.

I'm quite shocked at your description of torture. Some of the most extreme and painful tortures are entirely mental, sending men mad and effecting them for the rest of their days.

You say that it doesn't matter if some of these men are innocent if one or two are terrorists: by that logic would you simple like to lock up all non-white, non-christian, non-Americans? You know, like, just in case?

Quantanamo is one of the biggest travesties of our time and we should all be ashamed that people can still be treated like this in our time: I bet any of the men released DO become terrorists on returning home.....I would.

*That's* the best example you can give?!?


I just don't care if we inflict it upon others to keep ourselves safe. After all, we aren't the ones blowing people up at random. (USS Cole, Embassies, Pentagon, WTC x2, Madrid, London, etc.)

no you just carpet bomb select villiages and such, no random killing there...:rolleyes:

No they werent. Some were grabbed in Pakistan.

So, were they just taken at random off the street? :rolleyes:

no you just carpet bomb select villiages and such, no random killing there...:rolleyes:

1) So you make no differentiation between bombing a place where KNOWN enemies are (that purposefully make their hideouts in Mosques and among innocent people) vs. flying jetliners into buildings where there is no military presence?

2) Show me a single example of US carpet bombing in the war on terrorism. You can't, because it has never happened. Every effort is made to limit collateral damage with smart munitions.

Want proof? Why didn't the US blow up the funeral where the terrorists were hiding? http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/09/taliban_in_our__1.html

1) So you make no differentiation between bombing a place where KNOWN enemies are (that purposefully make their hideouts in Mosques and among innocent people) vs. flying jetliners into buildings where there is no military presence?

2) Show me a single example of US carpet bombing in the war on terrorism. You can't, because it has never happened. Every effort is made to limit collateral damage with smart munitions.



no such thing as "smart" munitions the margin of error is big.
how do you know its never happened? but anyway i'm too lazy to search the net, to try to convince you, you believe what you what, and so shall I

Yeah. That some people love our enemies so much.
Don't attack Christians.... don't think that reference went over my head!

Anyway, something is terribly wrong because they're holding people permanently without giving them the basic legal rights practiced in the west for centuries.

They were all captured in a war zone.


Fatuous crap.

Most of those rounded up by military sweeps in Iraq and Afghanistan for imprisonment at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo had nothing to do with terrorism. A recent analysis of the Pentagon listing of Guantanamo's 517 detainees reveals that 86 percent were arrested not by U.S. forces but by Northern Alliance and Pakistani warlords eager to collect a $5,000 bounty for every "terrorist" captured. (http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=20060915100101878)

no such thing as "smart" munitions the margin of error is big.
how do you know its never happened? but anyway i'm too lazy to search the net, to try to convince you, you believe what you what, and so shall I

Of course the margin of error exists. But it is a margin, not wanton death like the terrorists have engaged in.

The US doesn't carpet bomb populated areas. Had it happened, it'd have been all over the news. C'mon, you know better than that.

Fatuous crap.

Most of those rounded up by military sweeps in Iraq and Afghanistan for imprisonment at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo had nothing to do with terrorism. A recent analysis of the Pentagon listing of Guantanamo's 517 detainees reveals that 86 percent were arrested not by U.S. forces but by Northern Alliance and Pakistani warlords eager to collect a $5,000 bounty for every "terrorist" captured. (http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=20060915100101878)

Ah, the mercenary aspect: Yes, it's HORRIBLE that the local authorities did their jobs. :rolleyes:
I assume you work without getting paid?

Am I saying that there is a 0% chance no one who isn't supposed to be there is there? No. But then that's any prison.

Don't attack Christians.... don't think that reference went over my head!

Anyway, something is terribly wrong because they're holding people permanently without giving them the basic legal rights practiced in the west for centuries.

Permanently? The SCOTUS only recently ruled that the tribuneral concept wasn't legal. And more than 100 have been RECAPUTURED after being released. The people in Gitmo are not static... a significant number have rotated in and out!

Of course the margin of error exists. But it is a margin, not wanton death like the terrorists have engaged in.

The US doesn't carpet bomb populated areas. Had it happened, it'd have been all over the news. C'mon, you know better than that.

All over the news, huh? Just like the 86% of detainees at Gitmo are actually human beings trafficked for profit has been all over the news?

You aren't just willfully naive, Markreich - your naivete is so pronounced as to constitute depraved indifference from where I sit. So excuse me if I take your unilateral pronouncement that the US doesn't carpet-bomb populated areas with a 20-tonne grain of salt.

All over the news, huh? Just like the 86% of detainees at Gitmo are actually human beings trafficked for profit has been all over the news?

You aren't just willfully naive, Markreich - your naivete is so pronounced as to constitute depraved indifference from where I sit. So excuse me if I take your unilateral pronouncement that the US doesn't carpet-bomb populated areas with a 20-tonne grain of salt.

You could be right, or it could be another phony flushed Koran or (falsely alleged) blown up levee in Louisiana.

Human trafficking or reward for captured terrorists? Sounds like we have a ever so slight difference in opinion. :rolleyes:

If you can explain away the regular Red Cross inspections, the fact that there have been hundreds released over the years, or that no one has EVER died there... fine.

However, I'm anything but naive nor am I depravedly indifferent. I'm actually HAPPY these people are locked up, as no one has bombed my workplace in 5 years now. I don't see these as unrelated events.

Can you *prove* the US has carpet bombed any populated areas in the War on Terror? Hmm... I think the answer here is "no".
If the Jihadis use human shields, that's hardly the fault of the US military whom (as I have shown by example) strive to minimize collateral damage when bombing. QED.

So, were they just taken at random off the street? :rolleyes:

yes, in some of the cases.

I'm actually HAPPY these people are locked up, as no one has bombed my workplace in 5 years now. I don't see these as unrelated events.

I'm not responsible for keeping track of your delusions, but this one's a stretch even by your standards.

So, to sum up, these men are criminals, but only 10 have been charged with crimes. They are prisoners of war, I mean, but the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them. In other words they're terrorists, because they're prisoners, because, uh, because that would be really nice for the Administration if it were true. Nice = true.

And anyone who disagrees is a stupid ignorant bleeding heart limp-wristed liberal commie terrorist muslim. ;)

So, to sum up, these men are criminals, but only 10 have been charged with crimes. They are prisoners of war, I mean, but the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them. In other words they're terrorists, because they're prisoners, because, uh, because that would be really nice for the Administration if it were true. Nice = true.

And anyone who disagrees is a stupid ignorant bleeding heart limp-wristed liberal commie terrorist muslim. ;)

You forgot baby-eating, you must be one of the stupid ignorant baby-eating bleeding heart limp-wristed liberal commie terrorist muslims! Get him!

I don't know what's more disgusting: The fact that this hellhole still exists, or the fact that fascists like Markreich defend this bullshit.

I mean, god damn it, America. What the fuck is wrong with you, for allowing this to happen?

Canada looks awfully appealing these days.

You forgot baby-eating, you must be one of the stupid ignorant baby-eating bleeding heart limp-wristed liberal commie terrorist muslims! Get him!

No no, we're baby killers, not eaters. In fact, all stupid ignorant baby-killing bleeding heart limp-wristed liberal commie terrorist muslims are vegetarian hippies, didn't you know?

No no, we're baby killers, not eaters. In fact, all stupid ignorant baby-killing bleeding heart limp-wristed liberal commie terrorist muslims are vegetarian hippies, didn't you know?

No I didn't. I must be one of them, get me!



I mean......eh......oh snap.

No no, we're baby killers, not eaters. In fact, all stupid ignorant baby-killing bleeding heart limp-wristed liberal commie terrorist muslims are vegetarian hippies, didn't you know?

When are you two going to get tired of beating that strawman?

When are you two going to get tired of beating that strawman?

You'd be suprised how long I can beat it for.

So, were they just taken at random off the street? :rolleyes:

No, your CIA paid out 5000 USD a head for whoever was brought to them. Obviously in a country with various armed tribal groups this means that only those not affiliated, local or dangerous will be grabbed.

You'd be suprised how long I can beat it for.

You will go blind in the end, you know....

Ah. So we need to do something about that? Look, no system is perfect, but at least SOME of these are the same people that decapitate westerners and blow us up. They were all captured in a war zone.
Weeeell... It's a long way from perfect, actually. Quite at the opposite side of the spectrum, really.

(BTW: I don't believe that anything that doesn't leave a permanent physical scar is torture.)
Then you have very little knowledge of the psychology of torture and what techniques that are being used in this modern world. I need only mention creative use of electricity as an example.

In fact, at least 100 were caught in terrorist activities after being released from Gitmo!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825317/
But the court arguments may have obscured a potentially bigger embarrassment for the Pentagon: some of the more than 100 Gitmo prisoners who have been released have since turned up back in Afghanistan—fighting with Taliban forces against the U.S. military.
See the highlighted part? You're incorrect - not at least hundred, nor "more then 100" as you claim later - according to the article:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alluded to the problem last month, telling reporters there had been "a mistake in one case" and that a detainee let go last year "has gone back to being a terrorist." But administration officials tell NEWSWEEK that military intelligence has identified at least three additional "revolving door" cases of Gitmo detainees' returning to the battlefield.
So 1) They have 4 out of 100 that's either gone back to being a terrorist or returned to the battlefield.

and 2) of these 4, the article only mentiones one that's gone back to "being a terrorist".

Al Quaida =/= The Taliban
Ah, the mercenary aspect: Yes, it's HORRIBLE that the local authorities did their jobs. :rolleyes:
I assume you work without getting paid?
Well, it wasn't the authorities as such you know.


If you can explain away the regular Red Cross inspections, the fact that there have been hundreds released over the years, or that no one has EVER died there... fine.
Except the suicides you're forgetting about.

However, I'm anything but naive nor am I depravedly indifferent. I'm actually HAPPY these people are locked up, as no one has bombed my workplace in 5 years now. I don't see these as unrelated events.
I think you are naive if you think that they aren't.

Can you *prove* the US has carpet bombed any populated areas in the War on Terror? Hmm... I think the answer here is "no".
As do I. I doubt there has been any instance of carpet bombing.

If the Jihadis use human shields, that's hardly the fault of the US military whom (as I have shown by example) strive to minimize collateral damage when bombing. QED.
Pfft! At times it doesn't seem like they strive very hard.

Let's hope Bush's successor shuts the damn place down.

Let's hope Bush's successor shuts the damn place down.

Let's hope Bush's successor gives the damn land back to Cuba.

Permanently? The SCOTUS only recently ruled that the tribuneral concept wasn't legal. And more than 100 have been RECAPUTURED after being released. The people in Gitmo are not static... a significant number have rotated in and out!
To re-inforce what Gravlen has already stated, only SOME, as in like a few went back to the battlefield. ONLY just over a 100 were released.

The fact remains that there are 454 detainees at Gitmo and only 10 have been charged. Is that the American way of justice?

appearantly

Look, it's a PRISON. It's not supposed to be a nice place to be. But they're fed, clothed, sheltered, allowed to pray, etc. They are there for a reason: because they're assumed dangerous.
In the US can you be held in custody, and tortured for 4 years, without being charged, because it is ASSUMED that you are dangerous?

How many (fake!) Koran flushing stories do we have to listen to?
Oh, I don't know? How many times are we going to hear about prisoners being beaten at Guantanamo?

Look, no system is perfect,
The "system" at Gitmo is far from perfect. It is totally broken!!

but at least SOME of these are the same people that decapitate westerners and blow us up.
Perhaps some of the bombs dropped in Iraq fell on their houses killing their loved ones?

They were all captured in a war zone.
Some not all. And, if they are POWs then they should be treated according to the Geneva Conventions and that rules out all torture.

(BTW: I don't believe that anything that doesn't leave a permanent physical scar is torture.)
In another thread, you stated this about Pope John Paul:

The only man to change the world peacefully since Ghandi and one of the few wholly good examples in all of humanity.
He may be a good example but you do not want to heed his words? You do support the War in Iraq?

Pope condemns war in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2654109.stm)

Also, do you think that Pope John Paul would haved condoned abuse of civil rights at Guantanamo and the use of torture?

Anyone can be a Christian in name. I have seen more than enough bloodthirsty, angry, hateful so called Christians on these boards. The irony is mind boggling.

In fact, at least 100 were caught in terrorist activities after being released from Gitmo!
This is absolutely not true:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825317/
But the court arguments may have obscured a potentially bigger embarrassment for the Pentagon: some of the more than 100 Gitmo prisoners who have been released have since turned up back in Afghanistan—fighting with Taliban forces against the U.S. military.
Guantanamo is a black eye for the US. Continued support of this uncivilized practice is like leading with the chin in a fist fight.

Geez it is amazing how some people cry rivers for the murderous thugs in Gitmo, yet didn't give one damn about the people of Iraq under Saddam.

They get more exercise, eat more meals and have more freedom than any civilian prisoner in the United States. Hell, their conditions are better, I am sure, than what they had in the caves of Afghanistan. Only here, they can not plot the destruction of America or Israel or any other westernized Democracy.

I remember one "human rights" group complained about the prisoners having blackened out windows. Yet the reasons they were blackened out were because another "human rights" group demanded it for the privacy of the inmates. what happened? a few inmates killed themselves and their was no way the guards could see what they were doing.

It is Club Gitmo...not a Gulag.

Geez it is amazing how some people cry rivers for the murderous thugs in Gitmo, yet didn't give one damn about the people of Iraq under Saddam.

They get more exercise, eat more meals and have more freedom than any civilian prisoner in the United States. Hell, their conditions are better, I am sure, than what they had in the caves of Afghanistan. Only here, they can not plot the destruction of America or Israel or any other westernized Democracy.

I remember one "human rights" group complained about the prisoners having blackened out windows. Yet the reasons they were blackened out were because another "human rights" group demanded it for the privacy of the inmates. what happened? a few inmates killed themselves and their was no way the guards could see what they were doing.

It is Club Gitmo...not a Gulag.
So it is okay for the US to detain people for 4 years without charging them with anything, and torture them, as long as they get 3 square meals a day? Club Gitmo my ass!! Actually that may very well be an appropriate name, since the prisoners get clubbed during their extended stay.

Ah, the mercenary aspect: Yes, it's HORRIBLE that the local authorities did their jobs.
The local authorities were the Taliban. The Northern Alliance was an equally unreliable alternative, buying who they were selling was just sloppy.

Permanently? The SCOTUS only recently ruled that the tribuneral concept wasn't legal. And more than 100 have been RECAPUTURED after being released. The people in Gitmo are not static... a significant number have rotated in and out!
Only ten have been charged yet most have been there for years. That's what I'm talking about.

I don't know what's more disgusting: The fact that this hellhole still exists, or the fact that fascists like Markreich defend this bullshit.

It's all part of Markreich's "centrism".

Geez it is amazing how some people cry rivers for the murderous thugs in Gitmo, yet didn't give one damn about the people of Iraq under Saddam.
You're another right-wing ignorant troll.

murderous thugs in Gitmo
Innocent until proven guilty, a basic tenet of civilisation. You're a barbaric traitor to the west.

didn't give one damn about the people of Iraq
That's bullshit, it's the pro-Bush side that's saying that the people of Iraq deserve the terrorists and bombings that they're getting.

Since when was compassion a part of conservative foreign policy? You're a liar if you're saying that the war was in any way motivated by concern for the people of Iraq.

Well, Bush would be a flip flopper if he made any of this crazy shit stop!

So it is okay for the US to detain people for 4 years without charging them with anything, and torture them, as long as they get 3 square meals a day? Club Gitmo my ass!! Actually that may very well be an appropriate name, since the prisoners get clubbed during their extended stay.


Actually they can get up to 6 meals a day and have 90 minutes of exercise time in a state of the art gym every day to work off any weight they might gain.

You're another right-wing ignorant troll.


Innocent until proven guilty, a basic tenet of civilisation. You're a barbaric traitor to the west.


That's bullshit, it's the pro-Bush side that's saying that the people of Iraq deserve the terrorists and bombings that they're getting.

Since when was compassion a part of conservative foreign policy? You're a liar if you're saying that the war was in any way motivated by concern for the people of Iraq.

LOL!

LOL!
Oh noes, intelligent, well-reasoned points!

Why do you assume that people love your enemies? This isn't about loving enemies, it is about democracy and basic human rights.
How is this about Democracy? It’s the fact that the majority don’t give a shit about these kinds of abuses which allows them to happen. If anything, democracy is a serious contributing factor to these crimes.

I'm not responsible for keeping track of your delusions, but this one's a stretch even by your standards.

Dude, when you look out the window and see two of the tallest buildings on Earth have passenger jets flown into them live, come back and talk to me about delusions.

Seriously. I'm far past the point of caring about 500 captured guys rights allegedly being violated as long as nothing around me goes boom again.

I don't know what's more disgusting: The fact that this hellhole still exists, or the fact that fascists like Markreich defend this bullshit.

I mean, god damn it, America. What the fuck is wrong with you, for allowing this to happen?

Canada looks awfully appealing these days.

I'm all for closing Gitmo if or when it serves no further purpose. Obviously, that hasn't happened yet since the US Gov't would close the place to get rid of all the bad press.

Allowing what to happen? The Taliban taking power in Afghanistan and allowing Osama a safe haven? Sorry about that, we were worried about securing the former USSR's nukes and dealing with the Cold War aftermath.

It's a free country, you can stay or leave as you choose.

No, your CIA paid out 5000 USD a head for whoever was brought to them. Obviously in a country with various armed tribal groups this means that only those not affiliated, local or dangerous will be grabbed.

Ah. Because you go our right now on the streets and capture wanted men for free, ala "Batman", right? :rolleyes:

Again, I'm not saying that everyone in Gitmo is necessarily supposed to be there. Likewise, many of those that were turned in never were shipped to Gitmo, either.

How is this about Democracy? It’s the fact that the majority don’t give a shit about these kinds of abuses which allows them to happen. If anything, democracy is a serious contributing factor to these crimes.

that's a point.

Weeeell... It's a long way from perfect, actually. Quite at the opposite side of the spectrum, really.

If you've got a better system when dealing with a country that was only marginally run by extermists that blew up ancient Buddas and forbid children from flying kites, you let us know.

Then you have very little knowledge of the psychology of torture and what techniques that are being used in this modern world. I need only mention creative use of electricity as an example.

As long as it gets the information, I really don't care. Really. I'm sick and tired of these bastards blowing up and beheading Westerners. Or can you defend the bombing of the African Embassies or the 1993 attack on the WTC or ANY OTHER terrorist attack on the West over the last 30 years?

See the highlighted part? You're incorrect - not at least hundred, nor "more then 100" as you claim later - according to the article:

1) They have 4 out of 100 that's either gone back to being a terrorist or returned to the battlefield.

and 2) of these 4, the article only mentiones one that's gone back to "being a terrorist".

Al Quaida =/= The Taliban

They're like cockroaches: for every Jihadist you see, there are dozens you haven't. That's why urban warfare is so damned hard.

Yeah, and Waffen SS =/= Wehrmacht. Your point? In both examples, both fought against tolerance and for an extermist ideology.

Well, it wasn't the authorities as such you know.

Nor you. But they most certainly were.

Except the suicides you're forgetting about.

I think you are naive if you think that they aren't.

As do I. I doubt there has been any instance of carpet bombing.

Pfft! At times it doesn't seem like they strive very hard.

People kills themselves in prison every day. Big deal.

I think you're naive if you think that they are.

Well, at least we agree on that.

You may not think so, but war is not World of Warcraft. One doesn't get to respawn in the graveyard, and certainly doesn't get to keep redoing a scenario until it's done right.

Well if they are beating them, they are doing a damn poor job of it. If they beat them like they should there would be far fewer terrorists in Gitmo.

Well if they are beating them, they are doing a damn poor job of it. If they beat them like they should there would be far fewer terrorists in Gitmo.

Indeed. I say we need to get some of those Canadian baby seal clubbers down there! :D

You may not think so, but war is not World of Warcraft. One doesn't get to respawn in the graveyard, and certainly doesn't get to keep redoing a scenario until it's done right.

LOL

Indeed. I say we need to get some of those Canadian baby seal clubbers down there! :D

heh! Baby terrorist clubbers and regular terrorist clubbers I suppose.

If you've got a better system when dealing with a country that was only marginally run by extermists that blew up ancient Buddas and forbid children from flying kites, you let us know.
Yessir, I do have one. Several ideas, in act. One simple one is to follow the set rules and procedures for prisoners of war, OR treat them like criminals and give them a day in court.

As long as it gets the information, I really don't care. Really. I'm sick and tired of these bastards blowing up and beheading Westerners. Or can you defend the bombing of the African Embassies or the 1993 attack on the WTC or ANY OTHER terrorist attack on the West over the last 30 years?
Soooo... What's this got to do with your extremely narrow definition of "torture"?

They're like cockroaches: for every Jihadist you see, there are dozens you haven't. That's why urban warfare is so damned hard.

Yeah, and Waffen SS =/= Wehrmacht. Your point? In both examples, both fought against tolerance and for an extermist ideology.
You call them terrorists, yet they don't belong to Al Quaida. That organisation and the Taliban are two seperate enteties - much more seperate than your Waffen SS / Wehrmacht example.

Nor you. But they most certainly were.
:confused:

Huh? So you think random mercenaries, warlords and fighters from the northern alliance constituted the "authorities" in Afghanistan?


People kills themselves in prison every day. Big deal.
Yes, it is a very big deal. In both situations. But it does tell a lot that you don't care.

I think you're naive if you think that they are.
Soo... I've got this rock that wards of elephants. Never been stepped upon by one since the day I got it.

It might be a factor, but I doubt it.

You may not think so, but war is not World of Warcraft. One doesn't get to respawn in the graveyard, and certainly doesn't get to keep redoing a scenario until it's done right.
No, but sometimes they can try a little better. They've fucked up so many times my faith in the armed forces has taken a nose dive since all of this began.

I'm all for closing Gitmo if or when it serves no further purpose. Obviously, that hasn't happened yet since the US Gov't would close the place to get rid of all the bad press.

Allowing what to happen? The Taliban taking power in Afghanistan and allowing Osama a safe haven? Sorry about that, we were worried about securing the former USSR's nukes and dealing with the Cold War aftermath.

It's a free country, you can stay or leave as you choose.

I am financialy incapable of leaving, are you voulunteering to give me the money I need?

It's a free country, you can stay or leave as you choose.

Where do you live again? Bizarro Earth?

























Thought so.

Ah, the mercenary aspect: Yes, it's HORRIBLE that the local authorities did their jobs. :rolleyes:
I assume you work without getting paid?

Am I saying that there is a 0% chance no one who isn't supposed to be there is there? No. But then that's any prison.

True enough, but most people in most other prisons have at least had their day in court.

Dude, when you look out the window and see two of the tallest buildings on Earth have passenger jets flown into them live, come back and talk to me about delusions.
And how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and how many human rights abuses by your government will it take to heal your hatred?

Seriously. I'm far past the point of caring about 500 captured guys rights allegedly being violated as long as nothing around me goes boom again.
Unfortunately this ill conceived war on terror is actually making the world a less safe place to be. Your lack of concern for human rights is appalling.

Where do you live again? Bizarro Earth?

Thought so.

Ah, Dobbsy. So snide, yet so very intolerant of other points of view.
Look, if you disagree that the US is a free country, then say why.

And how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and how many human rights abuses by your government will it take to heal your hatred?


Unfortunately this ill conceived war on terror is actually making the world a less safe place to be. Your lack of concern for human rights is appalling.


Who gives humans these "rights". I believe the only rights humans have are those than can defend. Everyone has rights in their own country but that does not mean a larger once should/would/or could recognize them. From my perspective only Americans have rights and they are given those rights from the constituion of the United States of America. As well we should also ensure that our closest allies people have rights other that, might makes right.

True enough, but most people in most other prisons have at least had their day in court.

Touche! But then most of them weren't captured in a war zone, either.

No, I don't consider 160th street a bona-fide warzone. Tough neighborhood, maybe.

Who gives humans these "rights". I believe the only rights humans have are those than can defend. Everyone has rights in their own country but that does not mean a larger once should/would/or could recognize them. From my perspective only Americans have rights and they are given those rights from the constituion of the United States of America. As well we should also ensure that our closest allies people have rights other that, might makes right.
Well, all I can suggest to you is that you learn a little more about your Constitution. Through the US Constitution, your government signed many treaties of international design. Those treaties are the law of your land. That means that when the US signed the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they were bound by the Constitution to uphold those treaties. It would appear that your country is failing to do so.

If you really think that "might makes right", then I truly feel sorry for you. No man is an island.

From my perspective only Americans have rights and they are given those rights from the constituion of the United States of America.

thats pathetic stuff.

are you saying only the yank constitution is legitimate? do tourists to america have rights? children of americans living overseas? or are you another empty soundbite american?

And how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and how many human rights abuses by your government will it take to heal your hatred?

I take exception to that, CH! Make no mistake, I have no hatred at all of the Iraqis, nor of Arabs in general -- just of Jihadists.

BTW, I thought we were talking about Gitmo? Oh, that's right. One can't debate one without the other, eh? No matter what is being done, just bring out Iraq as a posterboy. Just like a die-hard GOP'er brings out 9/11. It's two sides of the same coin.

It's not a matter of healing, CH. It's a matter of winning. If the West blinks, we WILL see a more dangerous world. I for one would prefer that the entire planet doesn't have to live every day like Israel, thank you very much.

See, I grew up in (the former) Czechoslovakia in the 80s. I saw what a true police state is, how it operates, and what foreign occupation is like. In my youth, I also saw parts of East Germany and Poland.
The America of today is so far from that as McDonalds is to a fine meal or your elementary school's hockey team would be to the NHL.

Maybe my POV is not to your liking. Maybe its not comprehensible to you. But there it is. And I'd really appreciate you stop assuming I'm some blood-thirsty intolerant bastard.

Unfortunately this ill conceived war on terror is actually making the world a less safe place to be. Your lack of concern for human rights is appalling.

I love human rights, the Constution, and the Bill of Rights.
I just believe one must be human to have them. These terrorists... these jihadists are no better than vermin.

I will agree with you on one thing, though: the war was not conducted nearly as well as it should have been.

thats pathetic stuff.

are you saying only the yank constitution is legitimate? do tourists to america have rights? children of americans living overseas? or are you another empty soundbite american?


If you are not an ally of American you have no business being here for any reason. If your government or your people do no harm to America Americans should do no harm to you. Though if your country attack America I do believe it should show no restriction in its revenge.

Well, all I can suggest to you is that you learn a little more about your Constitution. Through the US Constitution, your government signed many treaties of international design. Those treaties are the law of your land. That means that when the US signed the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they were bound by the Constitution to uphold those treaties. It would appear that your country is failing to do so.

If you really think that "might makes right", then I truly feel sorry for you. No man is an island.

I find all international law pitiful but that is not the issue. My personal belief is that the United States should enter into treaties(for rights of civilians or rights of captured soldiers) with countries to ensure that both sides uphold the treaty. I know about the constituion though it does not mean that I agree with all of it. In my previous post I did not advocate just killing or hurting people for the sake of doing it just that in cases where we must we should show no restraint in doing so.

In this issue these terrorists have no rights and should be treated as such. I think they are being treated far to well.

Might does make right, it is sad that it does but it is a fact of life evident everywhere.

You could be right, or it could be another phony flushed Koran or (falsely alleged) blown up levee in Louisiana.

Human trafficking or reward for captured terrorists? Sounds like we have a ever so slight difference in opinion. :rolleyes:

If you can explain away the regular Red Cross inspections, the fact that there have been hundreds released over the years, or that no one has EVER died there... fine.

However, I'm anything but naive nor am I depravedly indifferent. I'm actually HAPPY these people are locked up, as no one has bombed my workplace in 5 years now. I don't see these as unrelated events.

Can you *prove* the US has carpet bombed any populated areas in the War on Terror? Hmm... I think the answer here is "no".
If the Jihadis use human shields, that's hardly the fault of the US military whom (as I have shown by example) strive to minimize collateral damage when bombing. QED.


I wouldn't have admitted to this if I were you. Indifference would have made you look like less of a prick. Are you that afraid, or are you just that hateful?

I find all international law pitiful but that is not the issue. My personal belief is that the United States should enter into treaties(for rights of civilians or rights of captured soldiers) with countries to ensure that both sides uphold the treaty. I know about the constituion though it does not mean that I agree with all of it. In my previous post I did not advocate just killing or hurting people for the sake of doing it just that in cases where we must we should show no restraint in doing so.

In this issue these terrorists have no rights and should be treated as such. I think they are being treated far to well.

Might does make right, it is sad that it does but it is a fact of life evident everywhere.

You sad, pathetic little man. You're what's wrong with this nation.

You sad, pathetic little man. You're what's wrong with this nation.

Do you dispute that it does not? Just because I am willing to state how things are I do not always agree with it. Sure my views are more extreme than most peoples are but it does not mean that I am automatically wrong.

I wouldn't have admitted to this if I were you. Indifference would have made you look like less of a prick. Are you that afraid, or are you just that hateful?

Neither. Read the whole thread, Luke.

Neither. Read the whole thread, Luke.

I did, Obi-wan. I stand by my assessment of you.

Do you dispute that it does not? Just because I am willing to state how things are I do not always agree with it. Sure my views are more extreme than most peoples are but it does not mean that I am automatically wrong.

Are you saying that you think it's wrong for might to make right? If so, I apologize. If not, I stand by my post.

Are you saying that you think it's wrong for might to make right? If so, I apologize. If not, I stand by my post.

I do not agree with might making right. I would like to see world peace and end of world hunger but I understand due to human nature that is impossible. I also agree with defending ones own nation at any cost. As well as I think that people captured without a uniformed fighting against us has no rights. A country that attacks my country, I believe that we should repsond in a way to see that others think very carefully about doing it ever again.

What it comes down to is, I would like to see everyone in the world happy but I would like to see my own fellow Americans happy more.

I am financialy incapable of leaving, are you voulunteering to give me the money I need?

You're indignant? Or are you a minor?

I did, Obi-wan. I stand by my assessment of you.

If you're still asking that after posts #50, 54 & 69, then nothing else I post is going to make a difference, either.

I do not agree with might making right. I would like to see world peace and end of world hunger but I understand due to human nature that is impossible. I also agree with defending ones own nation at any cost. As well as I think that people captured without a uniformed fighting against us has no rights. A country that attacks my country, I believe that we should repsond in a way to see that others think very carefully about doing it ever again.

What it comes down to is, I would like to see everyone in the world happy but I would like to see my own fellow Americans happy more.

You had me until these parts. I'll only defend the country if it's in the right. They haven't been given a trial, or even been charged. How do you know they were in arms against us? Maybe they were, in whuch case, they become POWs (but then the Geneva conventions apply) but why just assume? And wanting to see any one group happy and safe over any others is exactly what's wrong with the world. You say you oppose the idea of might makes right, yet your words espouse the concept.

If you are not an ally of American you have no business being here for any reason. If your government or your people do no harm to America Americans should do no harm to you. Though if your country attack America I do believe it should show no restriction in its revenge.

and Vietnam and Iraq did what to you? when was the last government to do harm to you? Japan?

America harms others regularly, thats the point of the thread.

and i have to be an 'ally' to go on business trips to NY? a holiday in vegas? speak at the UN? is there criterea for alliedness? or is it another soundbite that means fuck all?

you are doing a rain man impression there

If you're still asking that after posts #50, 54 & 69, then nothing else I post is going to make a difference, either.

Those posts actually prove my point. Thank you for pointing them out.

(Oh, and I did see them fall. I haven't always lived in Maine.)

To Markreich, Enodscopia and Daemonocracy
What you seem to be unable to understand is that the United States is a nation bound by laws.
Under the law you are guaranteed a trial if you are accused of criminal behavior.
If the alleged terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay are considered criminals they are entitled to a trial.
If they are considered prisoners of war then they are covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Bush claims that the terrorists hate our freedom but Bush, by flaunting the Constitution and Bill of Rights, has done more harm to our freedom and way of life than any terrorist could ever do.

Just how are we any better than them if we allow torture?
Can't you people understand that by living in fear and violating the very principles this country was founded upon that we have in fact let the terrorists win?
Their goal is for us to live in fear.
You people are shining examples of their victory.

You had me until these parts. I'll only defend the country if it's in the right. They haven't been given a trial, or even been charged. How do you know they were in arms against us? Maybe they were, in whuch case, they become POWs (but then the Geneva conventions apply) but why just assume? And wanting to see any one group happy and safe over any others is exactly what's wrong with the world. You say you oppose the idea of might makes right, yet your words espouse the concept.


I do not know that they were in arms against us. The government says they were and I will believe them because I have no evidence so say otherwise. If they were not in a uniform we could hang them as spies but we do not.

Wanting to see one's own country prosper, is I though only natural.

I do oppose might makes right but if we must use our might to ensure our safe then I would consider it right to see that the people of America are kept safe.

You're indignant? Or are you a minor?

One can lack the money to emigrate without being indigent.

I do oppose might makes right but if we must use our might to ensure our safe then I would consider it right to see that the people of America are kept safe.

and when its deemed time to imprison you to keep america safe?

I do not know that they were in arms against us. The government says they were and I will believe them because I have no evidence so say otherwise. If they were not in a uniform we could hang them as spies but we do not.

Wanting to see one's own country prosper, is I though only natural.

I do oppose might makes right but if we must use our might to ensure our safe then I would consider it right to see that the people of America are kept safe.

The Government has offered no proof that they were. Indeed, they seem to feel that they are under no obligation to offer proof.

You're indignant? Or are you a minor?

One can lack the money to emigrate without being indignant.

Would either one of you do yourselves a great big ol' favour and look up the word, "indignant"? And then do yourselves (and us) an even bigger favour and look up the word "indigent"?

Thanks in advance.

classic

Would either one of you do yourselves a great big ol' favour and look up the word, "indignant"? And then do yourselves (and us) an even bigger favour and look up the word "indigent"?

Thanks in advance.

Hey Dobbs, no need to be an asshole about it. My spelling is bad enough that I tend to assume others have the correct spelling and copy from them when using a word I am unsure how to spell.

To Markreich, Enodscopia and Daemonocracy
What you seem to be unable to understand is that the United States is a nation bound by laws.
Under the law you are guaranteed a trial if you are accused of criminal behavior.
If the alleged terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay are considered criminals they are entitled to a trial.
If they are considered prisoners of war then they are covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Bush claims that the terrorists hate our freedom but Bush, by flaunting the Constitution and Bill of Rights, has done more harm to our freedom and way of life than any terrorist could ever do.

Just how are we any better than them if we allow torture?
Can't you people understand that by living in fear and violating the very principles this country was founded upon that we have in fact let the terrorists win?
Their goal is for us to live in fear.
You people are shining examples of their victory.

No the terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay were atleast as we are told capture as non uniformed fighers which are given no rights by any document or body.

"Bush claims that the terrorists hate our freedom but Bush, by flaunting the Constitution and Bill of Rights, has done more harm to our freedom and way of life than any terrorist could ever do."

What has he done?

I have no problem with dropping to any level if the enemy is willing to fight that way first. If they chop our peoples heads off why shouldn't we? We are not living in fear right now we are protecting our way of living. I do not fear them I just have no problem killing them as I have no problem with killing any enemy of the United States.

I am financialy incapable of leaving, are you voulunteering to give me the money I need?

You want to leave? write about how you want to kill Bush and then praise Allah on your Myspace. I guarantee you will wake up in the nice tropical setting of Club Gitmo. All expenses paid for!

Yessir, I do have one. Several ideas, in fact. One simple one is to follow the set rules and procedures for prisoners of war, OR treat them like criminals and give them a day in court.

They *are* getting their day in court. SCOTUS recently voted saying that the military tribunerals would be illegal. IMO, after 5 years, there is probably little information we can gain from them at this point that is valuable. But for the first year or three? Oh yeah.

Soooo... What's this got to do with your extremely narrow definition of "torture"?

That if the enemy isn't giving us quarter, we should not give him any, either.
As it is, Gitmo inmates have been treated MANY times better than ours have been. For example, there have been remarkably few beheadings in Gitmo, nor a single forced conversion to capitalism or conspicuous consumption.

You call them terrorists, yet they don't belong to Al Quaida. That organisation and the Taliban are two seperate enteties - much more seperate than your Waffen SS / Wehrmacht example.

Some belong to the Taliban, some to Al-Qaeda, some to both. The point here is that they are two of a kind: religious extermists that want to destroy everything that isn't theirs. :(

:confused:

Huh? So you think random mercenaries, warlords and fighters from the northern alliance constituted the "authorities" in Afghanistan?

We can't always like the local authorities. But they are whom they are.

Yes, it is a very big deal. In both situations. But it does tell a lot that you don't care.

You're right -- I don't care if someone else kills themselves in prison.
Same way as I do care if a child dies of a gunshot wound, or someone's house burns down.
Suicide is a personal choice, whom am I (or you for that matter) to question what a person wants to do?

Soo... I've got this rock that wards off elephants. Never been stepped upon by one since the day I got it.

It might be a factor, but I doubt it.

Chuckle. Fair enough, but not nearly as good as "I've never been mugged again since I started carrying this Smith & Wesson".

No, but sometimes they can try a little better. They've fucked up so many times my faith in the armed forces has taken a nose dive since all of this began.

How? What on Earth can be reasonably done? The US & Allies aren't going around with orders to shoot anti-occupation or radical Imams. We have Iraqis storm Mosques and only do support for those ops. We don't attack in highly populated areas during common gathering times, and have passed on many valuable targets because of that.

Nevermind that we're putting BILLION of dollars into rebuilding a country that was in poor shape when we invaded. But then, other than the cost that rarely makes the news.

Would either one of you do yourselves a great big ol' favour and look up the word, "indignant"? And then do yourselves (and us) an even bigger favour and look up the word "indigent"?

Thanks in advance.

Thanks! Would you do yourself a favor and look up the word "pedant"?

One can lack the money to emigrate without being indigent.

I can't find the site I was looking at when Bush was re-elected that said I needed a specific and large amount of money in my bank acount to imigrate to Canada but I am currently looking at a site stating that there is an aplication fee of $550/adult. This is money I can not afford. If one of you assholes who keeps saying "love it or leave it" wants to pony up the dough for me and my wife to apply I will gladly do so.

and when its deemed time to imprison you to keep america safe?

Yes, I am considered a prime threat to America(if it was communist). Ohh my family has only been settled in this town since around 1840 in Virginia much long than that. Had countless members of the family serve in the Armed forces since the civil war starting with my Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfather a colonel in the confederacy.

Me being a white, conservative, a very patriotic person, and active in the community. If it came to a point where I was arrested to keep America safe, America would either be communist or a dicatatorship that saw my patriotism as a threat.

To Markreich, Enodscopia and Daemonocracy
What you seem to be unable to understand is that the United States is a nation bound by laws.
Under the law you are guaranteed a trial if you are accused of criminal behavior.
If the alleged terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay are considered criminals they are entitled to a trial.
If they are considered prisoners of war then they are covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Bush claims that the terrorists hate our freedom but Bush, by flaunting the Constitution and Bill of Rights, has done more harm to our freedom and way of life than any terrorist could ever do.

Just how are we any better than them if we allow torture?
Can't you people understand that by living in fear and violating the very principles this country was founded upon that we have in fact let the terrorists win?
Their goal is for us to live in fear.
You people are shining examples of their victory.

Yawn. I've read this in the New York Times already, thanks.
NB: the US is NOT a signatory of the entire Geneva Convention, most specifically Protocols I & II.

FYI - It's not that I disagree with any of it... so long as there is no longer any useful information to be gained from those (illegal combatants) being held.

Thanks! Would you do yourself a favor and look up the word "pedant"?

At least I can spell "pedant"...

To Markreich, Enodscopia and Daemonocracy
What you seem to be unable to understand is that the United States is a nation bound by laws.
Under the law you are guaranteed a trial if you are accused of criminal behavior.
If the alleged terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay are considered criminals they are entitled to a trial.
If they are considered prisoners of war then they are covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Bush claims that the terrorists hate our freedom but Bush, by flaunting the Constitution and Bill of Rights, has done more harm to our freedom and way of life than any terrorist could ever do.

Just how are we any better than them if we allow torture?
Can't you people understand that by living in fear and violating the very principles this country was founded upon that we have in fact let the terrorists win?
Their goal is for us to live in fear.
You people are shining examples of their victory.
Very well stated. I commend you on an excellent post!! :)

Yes, I am considered a prime threat to America(if it was communist). Ohh my family has only been settled in this town since around 1840 in Virginia much long than that. Had countless members of the family serve in the Armed forces since the civil war starting with my Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfather a colonel in the confederacy.

Me being a white, conservative, a very patriotic person, and active in the community. If it came to a point where I was arrested to keep America safe, America would either be communist or a dicatatorship that saw my patriotism as a threat.

ah so its all about whose ox is getting gored huh?

long as it aint us rich white folks... screw em.

lovely attitude

If people are still surprised when they hear about this sort of thing, then they're pretty stupid.

ah so its all about whose ox is getting gored huh?

long as it aint us rich white folks... screw em.

lovely attitude

No, I would think its more about who is causing the problems. I don't know of many "rich white folks" fighting against us in foreign lands.

I was responding to your statement as it deserved.

I take exception to that, CH! Make no mistake, I have no hatred at all of the Iraqis, nor of Arabs in general -- just of Jihadists.
Why should you take exception? You just admitted that you do in fact have some form of hatred. Do you have blanket hatred for detainees at Gitmo, even though some of them may be totally innocent? What about the Iraqi "patriot"/"insurgent" who was captured on the battlefield that your country created when the US wrongfully invaded Iraq? Should he be made to suffer even more through torture and the removal of his basic human rights?

You invoke the memories of 9/11, which BTW, Iraq had no involvement, yet your country is in Iraq dropping bombs on innocent people. Your 9/11 is a couple of towers, a part of the Pentagon and a few airplanes. His 9/11 is the whole of Iraq. His world is now bombs and bullets, death and destruction. Perhaps your country has killed his wife or parents or children? Do you think about that when you say you don't care? As long as you are okay, you don't care.

BTW, I thought we were talking about Gitmo? Oh, that's right. One can't debate one without the other, eh? No matter what is being done, just bring out Iraq as a posterboy. Just like a die-hard GOP'er brings out 9/11. It's two sides of the same coin.
Your indifference is startling. See above.

Remember that some of these detainees, most who have not been charged with any crime, are from Iraq.

It's not a matter of healing, CH. It's a matter of winning. If the West blinks, we WILL see a more dangerous world. I for one would prefer that the entire planet doesn't have to live every day like Israel, thank you very much.
If it is truly a "matter of winning", then why do you continue to support a losing cause?

Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/)

NEW YORK - As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.

Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year.
And your attitude?:

I just don't care if we inflict it upon others to keep ourselves safe.

Maybe my POV is not to your liking. Maybe its not comprehensible to you. But there it is. And I'd really appreciate you stop assuming I'm some blood-thirsty intolerant bastard.
I see tons of intolerance in your posts. Perhaps you just don't see it or want to see it? Are there any innocent detainees at Gitmo? You don't seem to care, and you don't care if their basic human rights are infringed upon and you don't care if they are tortured as along as your President makes you feel that you are somehow safer.

I love human rights, the Constution, and the Bill of Rights.
I just believe one must be human to have them. These terrorists... these jihadists are no better than vermin.
It is nice to trot out all the nice words to make you feel good about yourself, but doesn't it bother you that these people have been held for years, have not been charged with any crime, and are being tortured? Oh, thats right, you have already stated that "you don't care".

Perhaps you cannot see how much harm is being done to your country by the misguided policies of the current administration?

I will agree with you on one thing, though: the war was not conducted nearly as well as it should have been.
I suppose that is the only thing that we can agree upon?

No, I would think its more about who is causing the problems. I don't know of many "rich white folks" fighting against us in foreign lands.

I was responding to your statement as it deserved.

the original post was to remind you that winds shift and you could someday be percieved as a threat.

now as far as my second statement, your rattling off your pedigree like you were a show dog.... well i responded to your statement as it deserved

They're like cockroaches: for every Jihadist you see, there are dozens you haven't. That's why urban warfare is so damned hard.

First it was '100 terrorists', then it was 'more than 100 terrorists' and then when it was pointed out that it was 4 (max) out of 100, all we get back is, 'they're cockroaches'.


And that, dear people of NS, is the closest you'll ever get to seeing Markreich apologising for making shit up.


Why do we even bother arguing points with him? He's obviously completely incapable of rational logical thought.

Some belong to the Taliban, some to Al-Qaeda, some to both. The point here is that they are two of a kind: religious extermists that want to destroy everything that isn't theirs. :(
Where does the Iraqi insurgent fit into this equation? Especially the ones that may have had everything destroyed that was theirs?

I need the verdict in a sanctioned court of law. We can discuss what treatment terrorists deserve or don't deserve. Believe me, I can shrug off a lot of evil done to evil men. I know people say, "we should be better then them", but we're human beings.

"What we are is semi-civilized beasts with baseball caps and automatic weapons." -George Carlin.

I can tolerate knowing that terrorists were being thrown into holes to rot or being pressed for information with techniques that stretch the definition of psychological torture. But I need to know they're guilty. I need the due process. Without it, this isn't the country I love anymore. How could any real patriot settle for less than that?

I need the verdict in a sanctioned court of law. We can discuss what treatment terrorists deserve or don't deserve. Believe me, I can shrug off a lot of evil done to evil men. I know people say, "we should be better then them", but we're human beings.

"What we are is semi-civilized beasts with baseball caps and automatic weapons." -George Carlin.

I can tolerate knowing that terrorists were being thrown into holes to rot or being pressed for information with techniques that stretch the definition of psychological torture. But I need to know they're guilty. I need the due process. Without it, this isn't the country I love anymore. How could any real patriot settle for less than that?

Why do you hate freedom so much? :(

(BTW: I don't believe that anything that doesn't leave a permanent physical scar is torture.)

Arms and legs can be broken without leaving physical scars. Your skull can be cracked without breaking skin if done properly. Your ribs can be fractured, sending bone shards into your lungs without leaving external injuries.

Extremely high cycle vibrations sent to the skull will leave no external damage, but will render onto your brain the equivalent of being crushed with a sledgehammer.

None of that can be considered torture eh?

Ah, the mercenary aspect: Yes, it's HORRIBLE that the local authorities did their jobs. :rolleyes:
I assume you work without getting paid?

How about this? The local police force in your city/town/whatever are paid based on how many criminals they apprehend. There are no checks or balances to determine the authenticity of the criminal beyond the word of the police. If they apprehend you, and call you a criminal, they get paid.

Would you trust a system like that to stay honest?

Arms and legs can be broken without leaving physical scars. Your skull can be cracked without breaking skin if done properly. Your ribs can be fractured, sending bone shards into your lungs without leaving external injuries.

Extremely high cycle vibrations sent to the skull will leave no external damage, but will render onto your brain the equivalent of being crushed with a sledgehammer.

None of that can be considered torture eh?

You are, of course, referring to the Spice Girls CD. It's torture, all right. :p

the original post was to remind you that winds shift and you could someday be percieved as a threat.

now as far as my second statement, your rattling off your pedigree like you were a show dog.... well i responded to your statement as it deserved

My post was to show that if I was percieved as a threat many others would be as well.

They're prisoners from a war zone

A lot of them are prisoners from thousands of miles away from warzones. Who have never been charged or had evidence presented against them.

A lot of them are prisoners from thousands of miles away from warzones. Who have never been charged or had evidence presented against them.
This is something that hasn't sunk into the brains of some of the posters here.

Some other things that the "I don't care" crowd seem to want to ignore:

US paid Pakistan terrorist bounty: Musharraf (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-paid-pakistan-terrorist-bounty-musharraf/2006/09/25/1159036472297.html)

THE President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, has embarrassed Washington for a second time in a week, with the allegation the CIA paid Pakistan millions of dollars for hundreds of al-Qaeda prisoners.

General Musharraf's memoir, In the Line of Fire, was launched yesterday in New York. According to The Times of London, which is serialising the book, the CIA paid an unspecified amount for 369 al-Qaeda suspects from a fund that was earmarked for individuals - not foreign governments - who helped capture terrorists.

US fuels Pakistan bounty market (http://www.financialexpress-bd.com/index3.asp?cnd=10/2/2006&section_id=1&newsid=39500&spcl=no)

LONDON: Bounties offered by the US for suspected terrorists have created a black market in abductions in Pakistan, according to a report published late last week.

People have been seized by Pakistani police, border guards and bounty hunters eager to claim rewards offered for suspected terrorists, evidence compiled by human rights organisation Amnesty International shows.
Many were handed to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, which in turn passed at least 369 detainees to American operatives, writes Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, in his book In the Line of Fire, also published this last.

Amnesty's report says people abducted in Pakistan account for about two-thirds of the 759 past or present inmates at Camp X-Ray, the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The report - "Pakistan: human rights ignored in the 'war on terror'" - found "hundreds of people have been arbitrarily detained".

Pakistan: Enforced disappearances in the 'war on terror' (http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGASA330382006)

In cooperating in the US-led 'war on terror', the Pakistani government has systematically committed human rights abuses against hundreds of Pakistanis and foreign nationals. As the practice of enforced disappearance has spread, people have been arrested and held incommunicado in secret locations with their detention officially denied. They are at risk of torture and unlawful transfer to third countries.

"The road to Guantánamo very literally starts in Pakistan," said Claudio Cordone, Senior Director of Research at Amnesty International.

"Hundreds of people have been picked up in mass arrests, many have been sold to the USA as 'terrorists' simply on the word of their captor, and hundreds have been transferred to Guantánamo Bay, Bagram Airbase or secret detention centres run by the USA."

The routine practice of offering rewards running to thousands of dollars for unidentified terror suspects facilitated illegal detention and enforced disappearance. Bounty hunters -- including police officers and local people -- have captured individuals of different nationalities, often apparently at random, and sold them into US custody.
This is justice?

All we get from the "I don't care" crowd is that it is okay to torture these people, and that it is okay to violate these peoples human rights. Sad, very sad!!

No, you also get "they're not people". :rolleyes:

No, you also get "they're not people". :rolleyes:
True. We also get that they are savages, animals, or as one poster stated in this thread, "vermin". Yet, most of these detainees haven't been charged with any crime, some have been abducted, and some have been tortured. All of this without "due process". This is truth and justice American style?

This is something that hasn't sunk into the brains of some of the posters here.
I know I know. But mentioning it often *might* hammer it in in the end.

This, I realise, is the same level of unwarrented optimism that would lead to panning for gold in your own urine... but I still hold out hope.

summary - pakistan paid millions for 'finding' terrorists - summary
I think you'll be hard pushed to find many people who would not decide to round up random people and turn them over for terrorism if you were offering a few million bucks.

The real shame lies with the people paying for it - they should know they would get innocent people rounded up.

Well, all I can suggest to you is that you learn a little more about your Constitution. Through the US Constitution, your government signed many treaties of international design. Those treaties are the law of your land. That means that when the US signed the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they were bound by the Constitution to uphold those treaties. It would appear that your country is failing to do so.

If you really think that "might makes right", then I truly feel sorry for you. No man is an island.


The Geneva Convention applies to those who specifically follow the "rules" of war, such as wearing an identifiable uniform which the Terrorists do not. It can rightfully be argued that they are not in fact protected under the Geneva convention.

The Geneva Convention applies to those who specifically follow the "rules" of war, such as wearing an identifiable uniform which the Terrorists do not. It can rightfully be argued that they are not in fact protected under the Geneva convention.

wtf does that have to do with anything? they're human beings, if they're being accused of a crime, they deserve to have a trial before being locked up and deserve to be treated like human beings - which, whatever their views, they ARE. And bear in mind they aint been proved guilty.

The Geneva Convention applies to those who specifically follow the "rules" of war, such as wearing an identifiable uniform which the Terrorists do not. It can rightfully be argued that they are not in fact protected under the Geneva convention.
Because they aren't wearing a uniform, they aren't human beings? Have you read any of the other information on this thread, as to how some of these people ended up in Gitmo? What is the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent?

Besides, I do believe that SCOTUS threw that lamebrain excuse for incarceration out the window.

Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/)

Drop the soundbytes and get with the program.

BTW, speaking of "rules of war", what law gave the US the right to invade Iraq?

I know it's outdated, but I'm glad to see that this poll shows that the Yanks aint all complete idiots who don't even know the difference between England and the UK http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13621081/?displaymode=1006

Because they aren't wearing a uniform, they aren't human beings? Have you read any of the other information on this thread, as to how some of these people ended up in Gitmo? What is the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent?

Besides, I do believe that SCOTUS threw that lamebrain excuse for incarceration out the window.

Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/)

Drop the soundbytes and get with the program.

BTW, speaking of "rules of war", what law gave the US the right to invade Iraq?

It is NOT A SOUNDBYTE and it is the damn truth. They don't wear uniforms, they are not your traditional army, they use civilians as human shields, they do not take prisoners of their own, unless they wish to behead them on camera, and something like 9 out of 10 of the detainees at Guantanamo have stated that if released they would REJOIN THE JIHAD against America.

Now instead of trying to trivialize my opinion and act is if i am just spouting off "soundbytes" maybe you should use a little more objectivity. Sure, moaning about the treatment of these "humans" in Gitmo may make you feel like a better person but I prefer to be a realist. got it?

I do NOT support physical torture of the detainees. I do want humane treatment because that is what America stands for. However this is an enemy like no other and they must be treated as such. For this reason, I support coerced interrogation such as waterboarding and by no means should they be treated as civilian detainees. And as I said before, their conditions are better than the Federal and State prisons we have for our own citizen criminals!

And what exactly did the Supreme Court say in their ruling? Basically that Bush needs to seek congressional approval when ordering trials for the detainees. He can not go at it alone and has to include congress. The odd effect of the courts decision however is that the detainees can be held indefinitely as long as there is no trial!

So the resulting effect will be that the prisoners can be labeled enemy combatants and have no trial or they will more than likely be sent back to their country of origin for trial instead of a US court. I am sure Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would love to get their hands on these guys.

... I do NOT support physical torture of the detainees. I do want humane treatment because that is what America stands for. However this is an enemy like no other and they must be treated as such. I do support coerced interrogation such as waterboarding and by no means should they be treated as civilian detainees. And as I said before, their conditions are better than the Federal and State prisons we have for our own citizen criminals! ...

So because the enemy is a barbarian we must become barbarians, too? If we treat prisoners the same way the enemy does, we become the thing we say we're fighting.

So because the enemy is a barbarian we must become barbarians, too? If we treat prisoners the same way the enemy does, we become the thing we say we're fighting.

I do not want systematic torture of the detainees. I do not want them to be beaten or harmed for any sadistic or vindictive reasons.

It is NOT A SOUNDBYTE and it is the damn truth. They don't wear uniforms, they are not your traditional army, they use civilians as human shields, they do not take prisoners of their own, unless they wish to behead them on camera, and something like 9 out of 10 of the detainees at Guantanamo have stated that if released they would REJOIN THE JIHAD against America.
You are regurgitating all the "soundbytes" of the US administration. You onbviously did not read how some of these detainees ended up in Gitmo?

You obnviously think that it is ok to invade a country (Iraq) under false pretenses, and abduct people, and throw them in Gitmo. Why? Because they are not wearing a "uniform". Because they are not wearing a "uniform", they have no human rights and can be tortured at will?

Now instead of trying to trivialize my opinion and act is if i am just spouting off "soundbytes" maybe you should use a little more objectivity. Sure, moaning about the treatment of these "humans" in Gitmo may make you feel like a better person but I prefer to be a realist. got it?
You want to be considered a "realist"? How does a "realist" fight a war on terror? Does a "realist" believe that it is okay to invade a sovereign country and try to somehow whip a little "democracy" on the people? Does a "realist" believe that it is okay to violate basic human rights of individuals, even though your Constitution were founded on those same basic human rights? If anything, the invasion of Iraq has been "surreal", and totally devoid of reality.

I do NOT support physical torture of the detainees. I do want humane treatment because that is what America stands for. However this is an enemy like no other and they must be treated as such. For this reason, I support coerced interrogation such as waterboarding and by no means should they be treated as civilian detainees. And as I said before, their conditions are better than the Federal and State prisons we have for our own citizen criminals!
More soundbytes. How can these people have it better than US prisoners? They have been abducted, and tortured, yet most of them have not been charged with any crime. You want to be a "realist", then look at what is really happening.

And what exactly did the Supreme Court say in their ruling? Basically that Bush needs to seek congressional approval when ordering trials for the detainees. He can not go at it alone and has to include congress. The odd effect of the courts decision however is that the detainees can be held indefinitely as long as there is no trial!
Made so, but at least the prisoners will have some status and some rights. Right now they have nothing.

So the resulting effect will be that the prisoners can be labeled enemy combatants and have no trial or they will more than likely be sent back to their country of origin for trial instead of a US court. I am sure Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would love to get their hands on these guys.
Without "due process" for these people, the Constitution that your country was founded on isn't worth the powder to blow it to hell. My objectivity is based on facts, whereas your "realistic", really is more about denial.

You are regurgitating all the "soundbytes" of the US administration. You onbviously did not read how some of these detainees ended up in Gitmo?

You obnviously think that it is ok to invade a country (Iraq) under false pretenses, and abduct people, and throw them in Gitmo. Why? Because they are not wearing a "uniform". Because they are not wearing a "uniform", they have no human rights and can be tortured at will?


You want to be considered a "realist"? How does a "realist" fight a war on terror? Does a "realist" believe that it is okay to invade a sovereign country and try to somehow whip a little "democracy" on the people? Does a "realist" believe that it is okay to violate basic human rights of individuals, even though your Constitution were founded on those same basic human rights? If anything, the invasion of Iraq has been "surreal", and totally devoid of reality.


More soundbytes. How can these people have it better than US prisoners? They have been abducted, and tortured, yet most of them have not been charged with any crime. You want to be a "realist", then look at what is really happening.


Made so, but at least the prisoners will have some status and some rights. Right now they have nothing.


Without "due process" for these people, the Constitution that your country was founded on isn't worth the powder to blow it to hell. My objectivity is based on facts, whereas your "realistic", really is more about denial.

Why are you bringing up the reasons and issues of legality for going to war in Iraq? I thought this thread was about Gitmo, NOT yet another Iraq thread? Do you feel the need to derail this thread and "regurgitate" empty and unfounded accusations of Bush "soundbytes" simply because you lack the ability to have a logical discussion?

A REALIST first recognizes that there is a war on terror. A Realist understands that there are serious threats out there. A realist does not treat terrorist attacks as a law and order issue but as an act of war. A realist understands that unlike with a crime scene, the evidence for holding a plainly clothed jihadist is not as strong, but he must he held anyway. A realist does not blame the entire facility of Gitmo for, as you stated, SOME abductions or kidnappings. A realist recognizes that every single human rights organization from Amnesty International to the American Red Cross has and always will receive access to Guantanamo Bay. A realist has his brain based in reality and understands that Bin Laden is more dangerous than Bush and Islamo Fascism is Evil and not America. And most importantly, a realist thinks for himself! you accuse me of following Bush talking points, screw that, I accuse you of knee jerk anti-americanism! Is that fair? That is the game you are playing.

I do not condone kidnappings or abductions or beatings but the majority of the people in Guantanamo are thugs and enemy combatants, terrorists and Taliban loyalists.

You want to talk about Iraq? Then go talk about it in the billion other threads on the issue. You are going completely off topic here. Or is your main concern to make America look bad? And preach to me about MY Constitution for MY country. I know damn well what it says and I have stated what I do and do not support in this thread.

What country are you from anyway? I guarantee you whatever country it is has a checkered past and would not respond in kind to terrorism either. Hell, just look at how the Dutch have changed!

They *are* getting their day in court. SCOTUS recently voted saying that the military tribunerals would be illegal. IMO, after 5 years, there is probably little information we can gain from them at this point that is valuable. But for the first year or three? Oh yeah.
WHEN are they getting their day in court? I don't see it happening.

That if the enemy isn't giving us quarter, we should not give him any, either.
As it is, Gitmo inmates have been treated MANY times better than ours have been. For example, there have been remarkably few beheadings in Gitmo, nor a single forced conversion to capitalism or conspicuous consumption.
You're changing the subject or building a straw man. Why would you only accept that torture that leaves marks should be classified as torture? Why do you ignore the acts designed to cause pain and suffering, and mental anguish, without leaving marks?

Some belong to the Taliban, some to Al-Qaeda, some to both. The point here is that they are two of a kind: religious extermists that want to destroy everything that isn't theirs. :(
Not accurate enough. The differences between them are notable, and the Taliban at least is not a purely destructive force. Not that I like them, mind you...

We can't always like the local authorities. But they are whom they are.
Ah, but you see, they weren't even the authorities. They were mercenaries looking for profit, many of them.

You're right -- I don't care if someone else kills themselves in prison.
Same way as I do care if a child dies of a gunshot wound, or someone's house burns down.
Suicide is a personal choice, whom am I (or you for that matter) to question what a person wants to do?
When the conditions under which the person is held drives him or her to suicide, you should not only care about it but you should take action.


Chuckle. Fair enough, but not nearly as good as "I've never been mugged again since I started carrying this Smith & Wesson".
Ah, the stories I could tell... :)

How? What on Earth can be reasonably done? The US & Allies aren't going around with orders to shoot anti-occupation or radical Imams. We have Iraqis storm Mosques and only do support for those ops. We don't attack in highly populated areas during common gathering times, and have passed on many valuable targets because of that.
Yet in other cases it's been a sloppy job, bombing funeral prosessions and wrong buildings.

Reasonably, I'd demand better intelligence on the ground.

Nevermind that we're putting BILLION of dollars into rebuilding a country that was in poor shape when we invaded. But then, other than the cost that rarely makes the news.
So? It's not done out of kindness, but it's a self-serving act whether it's for propaganda, strategic or economic reasons.

I need the verdict in a sanctioned court of law. We can discuss what treatment terrorists deserve or don't deserve. Believe me, I can shrug off a lot of evil done to evil men. I know people say, "we should be better then them", but we're human beings.

"What we are is semi-civilized beasts with baseball caps and automatic weapons." -George Carlin.

I can tolerate knowing that terrorists were being thrown into holes to rot or being pressed for information with techniques that stretch the definition of psychological torture. But I need to know they're guilty. I need the due process. Without it, this isn't the country I love anymore. How could any real patriot settle for less than that?

:fluffle:

It is NOT A SOUNDBYTE and it is the damn truth. They don't wear uniforms, they are not your traditional army, they use civilians as human shields, they do not take prisoners of their own, unless they wish to behead them on camera, and something like 9 out of 10 of the detainees at Guantanamo have stated that if released they would REJOIN THE JIHAD against America.
C'mon boy-o, LINK ME! :)

A REALIST first recognizes that there is a war on terror. A Realist understands that there are serious threats out there. A realist does not treat terrorist attacks as a law and order issue but as an act of war.
Yet that's worked in the past. The british did it. The spanish have done it. The italians and the germans have done it. I don't think a realist necessarily have to treat this as a war - that's just a policy decision.

A realist understands that unlike with a crime scene, the evidence for holding a plainly clothed jihadist is not as strong, but he must he held anyway.
And a realist would demand transparancy and accountability from their government, and demand that they proove that the person they're holding is in fact a dangerous person.

A realist does not blame the entire facility of Gitmo for, as you stated, SOME abductions or kidnappings. A realist recognizes that every single human rights organization from Amnesty International to the American Red Cross has and always will receive access to Guantanamo Bay.
Sooo... When was Amnesty allowed access to Guantanamo?


A realist has his brain based in reality and understands that Bin Laden is more dangerous than Bush and Islamo Fascism is Evil and not America.
Hmm... Now you claim that all realists would make the same value judgements. I don't think so. Even the "Islamo Fascism" is not objectively evil - nothing is.

I do not condone kidnappings or abductions or beatings but the majority of the people in Guantanamo are thugs and enemy combatants, terrorists and Taliban loyalists.
Yet only 10 are charged... That's still the problem.

And there is little reason to be holding Taliban loyalists (or mere "thugs") at Guantanamo after 5 years.

and something like 9 out of 10 of the detainees at Guantanamo have stated that if released they would REJOIN THE JIHAD against America.



there is absolutly no way you could possibly know that.

sad when people scramble to lies like thisto defend the indefensible

Why are you bringing up the reasons and issues of legality for going to war in Iraq? I thought this thread was about Gitmo, NOT yet another Iraq thread? Do you feel the need to derail this thread and "regurgitate" empty and unfounded accusations of Bush "soundbytes" simply because you lack the ability to have a logical discussion?
There is a correleation between the invasion of Iraq and some of the prisoners at Gitmo. I am not derailing the thread. You want to claim that you are being realistic, yet it is you that is ignoring the facts, and the evidence that has been brought forward.

A REALIST first recognizes that there is a war on terror.
How do you have a war on terror? Where is the battlefield? And since you want to declare that this is a "war", and your President states that the terrorists are committing "war crimes", then why are the prisoners that are being detained not referred to as POWs?

A Realist understands that there are serious threats out there.
Yup, probably since the being of the human experience on this planet.

A realist does not treat terrorist attacks as a law and order issue but as an act of war.
Yet the prisoners are not treated in the respect of "prisoners of war". They are somehow classified as others and denied basic human rights, even though they may not have even committed a crime. That is the travesty that this thread talks about.

A realist understands that unlike with a crime scene, the evidence for holding a plainly clothed jihadist is not as strong, but he must he held anyway.
Not as strong, as in perhaps non-existent? What does the wearing of clothes have to do with the commission of a crime?

A realist does not blame the entire facility of Gitmo for, as you stated, SOME abductions or kidnappings.
Okay, then I will blame half of Gitmo for the detention of certain detainees. :rolleyes:

A realist recognizes that every single human rights organization from Amnesty International to the American Red Cross has and always will receive access to Guantanamo Bay.
Amnesty International? Better look that one up? As far as Red Cross is concerned, they did report poor conditions at one point in time. also, Red Cross has not had free access to the prisoners until this week past:

U.S. allows Red Cross access to Gitmo (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/13/content_5199796.htm)

BEIJING, Oct. 13 (Xinhuanet) -- The International Committee of the Red Cross was finally granted access this week to inmates at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

I guess after 5 years, it is about time? It is what has happened in those 5 years that is of concern?

A realist has his brain based in reality and understands that Bin Laden is more dangerous than Bush and Islamo Fascism is Evil and not America.
I guess realism can also be very subjective? Reality tells us that the war on terror is an utter failure. More Americans have died in Iraq than died on 9/11. Toss in 20,000 US wounded. Toss in hundreds of thousands of Iraqis either killed or wounded. Factor in that Iraq is basically in a civil war, and that Afghanistan is heating up again. On top of all that, the fact that the world is less safe today then it was when the war on terror began. Now that is reality. I await your soundbytes.

And most importantly, a realist thinks for himself! you accuse me of following Bush talking points,
If you are indeed "thinking for yourself", then surely you must think exactly like Bush, because you are mimicing all his soundbytes?

I accuse you of knee jerk anti-americanism! Is that fair? That is the game you are playing.
I assure you that I am not playing a game. I am quite serious, and if anyone is being knee-jerk, that is you by suggesting that I am somehow "anti-American". I don't hate your country, I don't hate Americans and I don't even hate your President, but I sure do dislike his policies. Bush is harming your country and you cannot even see that.

I do not condone kidnappings or abductions or beatings but the majority of the people in Guantanamo are thugs and enemy combatants, terrorists and Taliban loyalists.
How would you know? Only 10 have been charged. By echoing Bush's soundbytes you are in fact condoning what is happening at Gitmo.

Or is your main concern to make America look bad?
Why would I want America to look bad?

And preach to me about MY Constitution for MY country.
I am certainly no expert on your Constitution but I am kinda appalled by certain so called loyalists who don't seem to have any problem pissing all over their own Constitution.

I know damn well what it says and I have stated what I do and do not support in this thread.
It would appear that you are unaware of certain provisions in your Constitution in respect to treaties. Remember that it was you that talked about the "rules of war"?

What country are you from anyway?
Canada.

I guarantee you whatever country it is has a checkered past and would not respond in kind to terrorism either.
Of course my country has a past that isn't perfect, but we do okay. I am so glad our country refused to go to Iraq.


Hell, just look at how the Dutch have changed!
Don't you mean the Danes?

I do not want systematic torture of the detainees. I do not want them to be beaten or harmed for any sadistic or vindictive reasons.
You only want the detainees to be tortured for reasons you like? So, in other words, you do want the detainees to be tortured, but you want to make sure the torturers give you an excuse that will allow you to tell yourself you are not an evil bastard for approving it.

And you don't want it to be "systematic." So, what then? You want it done "off the record"? That way, it's easier to deny it's happening at all, speaking as a realist, you know.

Nice, D.

You only want the detainees to be tortured for reasons you like? So, in other words, you do want the detainees to be tortured, but you want to make sure the torturers give you an excuse that will allow you to tell yourself you are not an evil bastard for approving it.

And you don't want it to be "systematic." So, what then? You want it done "off the record"? That way, it's easier to deny it's happening at all, speaking as a realist, you know.

Nice, D.
I must have fallen asleep at the wheel. Good catch!! :D

I must have fallen asleep at the wheel. Good catch!! :D
Any time. You guys had everything else covered so well, I was glad to catch an opening for myself. :)

You only want the detainees to be tortured for reasons you like? So, in other words, you do want the detainees to be tortured, but you want to make sure the torturers give you an excuse that will allow you to tell yourself you are not an evil bastard for approving it.

And you don't want it to be "systematic." So, what then? You want it done "off the record"? That way, it's easier to deny it's happening at all, speaking as a realist, you know.

Nice, D.

Again, step off your high horse and get your head out of the clouds.

I support coercive interrogation, such as waterboarding, when vital information may be at hand. Much information has come from this, such as sleeper cells in America being given up, enemy locations in Afghanistan revealed and future terror attack plans specified. This is necessary and it is effective.

Now you can sit back, there is no need to pull all those words out of your ass to try and put in my mouth. What I said was rather simple and straightforward.

I don't want it to be systematic as in, I do NOT want planned out beatings and torture for vindictive purposes. As I Said.

You are, of course, referring to the Spice Girls CD. It's torture, all right. :p

Well, I would theorize you were subjected to such treatment at a young age, resulting in who you are now, except you're a bit too old to have been affected like that. Although who's to say it doesn't work on older people as well? :p

Again, step off your high horse and get your head out of the clouds.

I support coercive interrogation, such as waterboarding, when vital information may be at hand. Much information has come from this, such as sleeper cells in America being given up, enemy locations in Afghanistan revealed and future terror attack plans specified. This is necessary and it is effective.

Now you can sit back, there is no need to pull all those words out of your ass to try and put in my mouth. What I said was rather simple and straightforward.

I don't want it to be systematic as in, I do want planned out beatings and torture for vindictive purposes. As I Said.
As you said, indeed. There's truth in them thar Freudian slips.

Basically, what you've done in this post -- BEFORE THE FREUDIAN SLIP, which I bolded -- is not only confirm that you do want to see detainees tortured, but also mention the kind of torture you would like to subject them to. EDIT: Just because you don't call them tortures, doesn't mean that's not what they are. Thank you for confirming my original observation.

As for my high horse, my horse isn't high, dear. You are low.

Well, I would theorize you were subjected to such treatment at a young age, resulting in who you are now, except you're a bit too old to have been affected like that. Although who's to say it doesn't work on older people as well? :p
I'd think it would be even more damaging to some old, doddering, enfeebled geezer, wouldn't it? ;)

I'd think it would be even more damaging to some old, doddering, enfeebled geezer, wouldn't it? ;)

Well, I'm pretty sure LG isn't THAT old. I mean, he did father a kid recently. Unless his iron balls are not only durable, but have a long shelf life.

Well, I'm pretty sure LG isn't THAT old. I mean, he did father a kid recently. Unless his iron balls are not only durable, but have a long shelf life.
Spice Girls accelerate the aging process and melt iron, so if he's still shooting live rounds, then he probably didn't suffer enouh exposure.

A lot of them are prisoners from thousands of miles away from warzones. Who have never been charged or had evidence presented against them.

Thousands of miles? :rolleyes:

Thousands of miles? :rolleyes:
Jose Padilla is from the US -- thousands of miles away from Afghanistan or Iraq. And that Canadian guy who got renditioned to Syria even though the Canadians asked the US to send him to Canada -- he lived in Canada, thousands of miles from a warzone, and I believe was originally from Egypt, also thousands of miles from a warzone. Both men were arrested in the US, thousands of miles from a warzone and imprisoned (and the Canadian was tortured) thousands of miles from any warzone. So don't act like it never happens.

As for the prisoners at Gitmo, who knows where they are from, since we aren't even allowed to know who they are or how or why they were captured, let alone where.

First it was '100 terrorists', then it was 'more than 100 terrorists' and then when it was pointed out that it was 4 (max) out of 100, all we get back is, 'they're cockroaches'.


And that, dear people of NS, is the closest you'll ever get to seeing Markreich apologising for making shit up.


Why do we even bother arguing points with him? He's obviously completely incapable of rational logical thought.

Now there's a great example of the pot calling the kettle African-Canadian.

How about this? The local police force in your city/town/whatever are paid based on how many criminals they apprehend. There are no checks or balances to determine the authenticity of the criminal beyond the word of the police. If they apprehend you, and call you a criminal, they get paid.

Would you trust a system like that to stay honest?

You do realize that each person was questioned to determine if they *were* affiliated with terrorism, right? This is what Camp X-ray (et al) were for!
They weren't just accepting any sheep farmer. Else Gitmo would have had tens of thousands instead of a few hundred. :rolleyes:

Does it really matter if one trusts the system or not? This is Afghanistan, not Maryland or somewhere that you can expect a well-ingrained legal system and police system. One must work with what one has at hand.

You do realize that each person was questioned to determine if they *were* affiliated with terrorism, right? This is what Camp X-ray (et al) were for!
They weren't just accepting any sheep farmer. Else Gitmo would have had tens of thousands instead of a few hundred. :rolleyes:

Does it really matter if one trusts the system or not? This is Afghanistan, not Maryland or somewhere that you can expect a well-ingrained legal system and police system. One must work with what one has at hand.

I would love to know how you know any of this, except of course, that you don't know it. And neither do the people who captured and "questioned" them, seeing as how few of them have ever been charged with anything at all, let alone tried and convicted.

I also like how you trust that the detainees will be treated according to our legal system after the US government has specifically exempted them from coverage under that system. With a set up like that, you'll understand if some of us decline to be reassured.

You do realize that each person was questioned to determine if they *were* affiliated with terrorism, right? This is what Camp X-ray (et al) were for!
They weren't just accepting any sheep farmer. Else Gitmo would have had tens of thousands instead of a few hundred. :rolleyes:

Uh huh. And you have proof of this actual questioning? By all reports, anyone the bounty hunters could pass off as a "terrorist" was accepted. That would include anyone who didn't have enough pull or power to keep from being nabbed without raising a fuss.


Does it really matter if one trusts the system or not? This is Afghanistan, not Maryland or somewhere that you can expect a well-ingrained legal system and police system. One must work with what one has at hand.

Then obviously you cannot say that the system provides you with adequate or even acceptable results. If one tries to hammer a nail with your palm, expect to get hurt a fair bit.

Jose Padilla is from the US -- thousands of miles away from Afghanistan or Iraq. And that Canadian guy who got renditioned to Syria even though the Canadians asked the US to send him to Canada -- he lived in Canada, thousands of miles from a warzone, and I believe was originally from Egypt, also thousands of miles from a warzone. Both men were arrested in the US, thousands of miles from a warzone and imprisoned (and the Canadian was tortured) thousands of miles from any warzone. So don't act like it never happens.

As for the prisoners at Gitmo, who knows where they are from, since we aren't even allowed to know who they are or how or why they were captured, let alone where.

Ah. Now 2 guys is "a lot". What's next, 2+2 =5 for exceptionally large values of 2?

Actually, we saw most of them get off the planes from Afghanistan.

Jose Padilla is from the US -- thousands of miles away from Afghanistan or Iraq. And that Canadian guy who got renditioned to Syria even though the Canadians asked the US to send him to Canada -- he lived in Canada, thousands of miles from a warzone, and I believe was originally from Egypt, also thousands of miles from a warzone. Both men were arrested in the US, thousands of miles from a warzone and imprisoned (and the Canadian was tortured) thousands of miles from any warzone. So don't act like it never happens.

As for the prisoners at Gitmo, who knows where they are from, since we aren't even allowed to know who they are or how or why they were captured, let alone where.

Here's three men (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160689838114&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467) just like Maher Arar of Ottawa - which goes to prove that if one person can be dealt an injustice at the hands of a witch-hunt, it stands to reason that others can suffer similarly.

Edit for Markreich: that makes it 2+2=4 people being horribly wronged. Why do you persist?

Uh huh. And you have proof of this actual questioning? By all reports, anyone the bounty hunters could pass off as a "terrorist" was accepted. That would include anyone who didn't have enough pull or power to keep from being nabbed without raising a fuss.

I really don't need it, now do I? The fact that there are so few people AT Gitmo proves that it wasn't just some "round 'em up, $5000 slavery" BS as some here are purporting.

Now, as I keep saying: I'm sure that there are SOME people in Gitmo that don't belong there. But the wide majority? Please.

Then obviously you cannot say that the system provides you with adequate or even acceptable results. If one tries to hammer a nail with your palm, expect to get hurt a fair bit.

Wow. In your world nothing ever is done until you've built up all possible infrastructure and everyone has been trained for 8 months? :rolleyes:

It is most emphatically not our country. We invaded and deposed an Afghani government which can best be said to be oppressive. We had to work with whomever we could to conduct the search. What the heck do you expect? :confused:

Ah. Now 2 guys is "a lot". What's next, 2+2 =5 for exceptionally large values of 2?
"It takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black." -- Mark Twain.

Actually, we saw most of them get off the planes from Afghanistan.
A) When did we see that? Please, let's stick with facts, not fantasies.

B) And what? Every single human being in the entire nation of Afghanistan is so obviously involved with terrorism that just being from Afghanistan is enough of a crime? No need for stupid charges or evidence or trials. Just getting off a plane from Afghanistan is enough. So convincing, in fact, you don't even need to actually see them get off such a plane to be sure they did so.

C) And of course, it is physically impossible for a person to get off a plane from Afghanistan but not be from Afghanistan. Yeah, right. They call it "renditioning" these days; it involves shuttling prisoners around from country to country.

Please, you're embarrassing everyone now, not just yourself.

I would love to know how you know any of this, except of course, that you don't know it. And neither do the people who captured and "questioned" them, seeing as how few of them have ever been charged with anything at all, let alone tried and convicted.

I also like how you trust that the detainees will be treated according to our legal system after the US government has specifically exempted them from coverage under that system. With a set up like that, you'll understand if some of us decline to be reassured.

Why do you assume that just because they haven't had a day in court that somehow equates that they MUST have been innocent? :headbang:

I've never said they were treated according to the US legal system. Nor is that really my concearn: no one has flown airliners into buildings a few blocks from me in 5 years, and I'm really, really happy about that. Selfish? Perhaps. Do I wish that 9/11, the Wars in the Middle East and everything else never happened? Absolutely.

I really don't need it, now do I? The fact that there are so few people AT Gitmo proves that it wasn't just some "round 'em up, $5000 slavery" BS as some here are purporting.

Now, as I keep saying: I'm sure that there are SOME people in Gitmo that don't belong there. But the wide majority? Please.



Wow. In your world nothing ever is done until you've built up all possible infrastructure and everyone has been trained for 8 months? :rolleyes:

It is most emphatically not our country. We invaded and deposed an Afghani government which can best be said to be oppressive. We had to work with whomever we could to conduct the search. What the heck do you expect? :confused:
Are you saying that the Taliban were in charge of Gitmo? You are confused, aren't you? The discussion is about Gitmo and US treatment of its prisoners.

Yeah. That some people love our enemies so much.

This isn't the Hanoi Hilton, nor is it the Newport Beach Hilton. They're prisoners from a war zone, what do you expect, that they're being served tea & crumpets and being asked to please tell us everything they know?


They may not have been enemies at one point, but I bet they are now.

What the heck do you expect?

Better than that, that's for damn sure.

Now, as I keep saying: I'm sure that there are SOME people in Gitmo that don't belong there. But the wide majority? Please.


If there's one Arar, there's at least another three just like him. For every one apparent exception, there are who knows how many other exceptions. How can you be surprised that people want Gitmo shut down, if even you are willing to admit that innocent people are being held there against their wishes, with no legal recourse, and use of torture approved to extract information they couldn't possibly have? How can you not be disgusted by the mere thought of your own government trafficking in human flesh - with the proceeds going to lawless brigands and worse? How is it that we're even discussing this kind of knuckle-walking dreck in the 21st frickin' century?

That's right - the 21st century. Not the 11th.

"It takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black." -- Mark Twain.

"Putting feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken" -- Tyler Durden

A) When did we see that? Please, let's stick with facts, not fantasies.

Hysterical! I quite CLEARLY remember seeing that on MSNBC, CNN, and hearing about the flights on NPR.

B) And what? Every single human being in the entire nation of Afghanistan is so obviously involved with terrorism that just being from Afghanistan is enough of a crime? No need for stupid charges or evidence or trials. Just getting off a plane from Afghanistan is enough. So convincing, in fact, you don't even need to actually see them get off such a plane to be sure they did so.

Of course not. But by the same token, you can't say the entire country is 100% innocent, either. You really don't think that the people screening folks in Afghanistan were clueless idiots?

C) And of course, it is physically impossible for a person to get off a plane from Afghanistan but not be from Afghanistan. Yeah, right. They call it "renditioning" these days; it involves shuttling prisoners around from country to country.

Please, you're embarrassing everyone now, not just yourself.

And you're quite clearly one dimensional. Heaven forbid someone not agree
with you. :rolleyes:

Please, you're embarrassing everyone now, not just yourself.

Are you saying that the Taliban were in charge of Gitmo? You are confused, aren't you? The discussion is about Gitmo and US treatment of its prisoners.

As you're replying to a message that wasn't even to you, I assume you must be confused. Non Aligned States & I were clearly discussing how the inmates GOT to Gitmo. :rolleyes:

They may not have been enemies at one point, but I bet they are now.

Yeah. I'm sure the 30 years of terrorist attacks against the West before the US went to war in the Middle East were friendly. [/sarcasm]

Of course not. But by the same token, you can't say the entire country is 100% innocent, either. You really don't think that the people screening folks in Afghanistan were clueless idiots?


Oh, and who said anything about idiocy? Profit is a great incentive. So is profiling on any basis - religious, linguistic, ethnic - and monetary. Don't you suppose minor officials are accorded some slice of pie for their complicity in peddling flesh to the Great Satan? Or would you prefer to turn yet another blind eye to the bleedin' obvious tonight?

Why do you assume that just because they haven't had a day in court that somehow equates that they MUST have been innocent? :headbang:
Uh, it's called INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, a fundamental legal concept, not just in the US. You have to PROVE that the guy you arrested is the guy who did the crime, or else you have to let him go. It's basic. It's been the standard procedure for centuries. Hell, even the Romans tried it.

I've never said they were treated according to the US legal system.
Sigh. Yes, you did. Go back and read it; it's just one page ago. You answered a complaint about the US government being untrustworthy by saying that we could rely on the US following its own legal system. Well, if now you are saying that the US is not going to treat its prisoners according to its own laws (as indeed it is not), then why the hell did you bring it up in the first place?

Nor is that really my concearn:
No, it is quite clear that you have no concern for the law whatsoever.

no one has flown airliners into buildings a few blocks from me in 5 years, and I'm really, really happy about that. Selfish? Perhaps. Do I wish that 9/11, the Wars in the Middle East and everything else never happened? Absolutely.
Well, then why do you promote policies that keep them going and validate every bad thing people like bin Laden have ever said about us?

Again, step off your high horse and get your head out of the clouds.

I support coercive interrogation, such as waterboarding, when vital information may be at hand. Much information has come from this, such as sleeper cells in America being given up, enemy locations in Afghanistan revealed and future terror attack plans specified. This is necessary and it is effective.

Now you can sit back, there is no need to pull all those words out of your ass to try and put in my mouth. What I said was rather simple and straightforward.

I don't want it to be systematic as in, I do want planned out beatings and torture for vindictive purposes. As I Said.

Which sleeper cells were these exactly?
The one in Florida that had no money, no weapons and only swore their loyalty to Al Queda when talked into it by the FBI?
Or the one that wanted to "blow up some building in California" that the pResident alluded to in his hard hitting interview with Katie Couric?

Catapulting that propaganda is a hard job!
Of course the hardest part is connecting the war in Iraq to the war on terror!

There is a correleation between the invasion of Iraq and some of the prisoners at Gitmo. I am not derailing the thread. You want to claim that you are being realistic, yet it is you that is ignoring the facts, and the evidence that has been brought forward.

The Iraq war and the reasons for going to that (or as you ranted, false pretenses) are another topic. Why the Bush Administration went to war in Iraq and what is going on at Guantanamo can not be had in the same conversation. The only way that you could possibly link the two is by saying that some of the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq have been shipped to Guantanamo. But then we are back discussing the conditions of Guantanamo, and off of Iraq again.

I am not ignoring any facts. What facts? That article was very vague about some guards bragging about how they beat inmates. We know no facts and an investigation is under way. But you're all ready to scream that the sky is falling or, God forbid, that Guantanamo be shut down. There are no facts to ignore. If the investigation concludes that these idiots are abusing inmates, then they should be punished but the whole facility of gitmo should remain.

How do you have a war on terror? Where is the battlefield? And since you want to declare that this is a "war", and your President states that the terrorists are committing "war crimes", then why are the prisoners that are being detained not referred to as POWs?

Like i said, this is a different type of enemy, not your conventional soldier and not your conventional battleground. These particular enemy combatants, due to their actions, are not seen as falling under the Geneva Code and are not official POWs. They are still enemy combatants, are still a danger to America and the executive branch has the right to hold an enemy combatant until the conflict or individual threat has ended. In the mean time, they enjoy their 6 meals a day, 90 mins of exercise a day in fancy gym, time out in the sunlight and their own personal copy of the Koran.


Yup, probably since the being of the human experience on this planet.

Something tells me you have difficulty recognizing real threats. You seem more obsessed with Bush than the Taliban or Al-Zawahiri.

Yet the prisoners are not treated in the respect of "prisoners of war". They are somehow classified as others and denied basic human rights, even though they may not have even committed a crime. That is the travesty that this thread talks about.

They are treated pretty well, the Red Cross is satisfied with their treatment. This boy was satisfied with the treatment. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3488175.stm) He was one of the innocent ones you speak of taken to Gitmo. The others are just too dangerous to let loose. From the many articles and reports I have read the majority of detainees continue to praise allah and death to america for all to hear, they don't even pretend to be innocent or moderate!

And when released, they go back and fight!]They have to be removed from contention while hostilities persist. (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002420.php)

The Jihad will go on though. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/01/wafgh01.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/01/ixnewstop.html)


Not as strong, as in perhaps non-existent? What does the wearing of clothes have to do with the commission of a crime?

huh? are you really that dim? Plain clothes, meaning, he is not in a Uniform which is a requirement specifically stated in the Geneva convention! You can not pretend to be a civilian, hide amongst them, then shoot off RPGs when the Americans aren't looking. You sacrifice your Geneva convention rights.


Okay, then I will blame half of Gitmo for the detention of certain detainees. :rolleyes:

You attack an essential facility used by the military to hold enemy combatants. If there are problems, they must be dealt with, but Gitmo must stand, it is too important.


Amnesty International? Better look that one up? As far as Red Cross is concerned, they did report poor conditions at one point in time. also, Red Cross has not had free access to the prisoners until this week past:

U.S. allows Red Cross access to Gitmo (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/13/content_5199796.htm)

oh excuse me, mostly the Red Cross. Amnesty International has been rather hostile to the USA. probably the only reason you like them?? They also do not like Bush...he is a, shhh, conservative. (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050602-120456-1031r.htm)

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20713&only


BEIJING, Oct. 13 (Xinhuanet) -- The International Committee of the Red Cross was finally granted access this week to inmates at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

I guess after 5 years, it is about time? It is what has happened in those 5 years that is of concern?

What are you suggesting? That Americans are the thugs? that they actually sit around and torture detainees all day? Is that what you think?


I guess realism can also be very subjective? Reality tells us that the war on terror is an utter failure. More Americans have died in Iraq than died on 9/11. Toss in 20,000 US wounded. Toss in hundreds of thousands of Iraqis either killed or wounded. Factor in that Iraq is basically in a civil war, and that Afghanistan is heating up again. On top of all that, the fact that the world is less safe today then it was when the war on terror began. Now that is reality. I await your soundbytes.

Wow, check out those soundbytes. exactly what I hear from any war critic, usually an anti-Bush/America critic. You really stuck to the script on that one.

Your comment about Afghanistan is an absolute lie. The Taliban tried to run an offensive in the southern regions and made some ground but then U.S. forces met them head on and decimated their forces. Afghanistan is doing very well for a country which had literally no infrastructure under the Taliban and is a bright spot in the war on Terror. Iraq is where there are problems (here you go again, trying to divert the topic to Iraq.)

Most of Iraq is Stable, especially Kurdistan which is flourishing. The main problems are in the Sunni Triangle. This is where your civil strife is and this is where those death squads hit their targets, sometimes travelling farther south to bomb shia targets. This also happens to be where the foreign terrorists are located. And the world is not less safe today than it was before 9-11! There has not been an attack on us soil since 9-11, the war is here in Iraq instead and though it is a struggle, the terrorists are losing. Even Bob Woodward states that we are winning the war. The terrorist organiations are splintered and scattered and their banking assets are frozen or closely monitored. Just a couple weeks ago Al-Zawahiri put out a calling for more jihadists blaming the Americans for killing most of their soldiers and they needed more! The threats you see now are not new threats just the same crap thats always been there that we refused to pay attention to. Now that we are coming after them they are more in the open and coming out of the woodwork.

to even suggest that the war is being lost and that we are less safe now than before is completely idiotic. but i guess those are your "soundbytes", huh?


If you are indeed "thinking for yourself", then surely you must think exactly like Bush, because you are mimicing all his soundbytes?

You parrot all the anti-bush rhetoric and "soundbytes" out there. (was that your word of the day or something?)

I happen to agree with alot of Bush's vision. I beleive a strong American military presence is needed in the Middle East at this time. I believe an independent, Democratic, self sustaining and self defending Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror and igniting democratic change in the rest of the middle east. Libya has already given up their WMDs after the invasion of Iraq and even Lebanon was bold enough to stand up to Syria and demand their autonomy. I do not want to see the Islamo-Fascists of Iran, Syria or Al-Qaeda control the oil supply of the region and I truly feel that reform is needed in that region. There is too much radicalism emerging from there and it has been this way since long before Bush was ever President.

I disagree with his current policy in Iraq and believe that Rumsfeld needs to either be replaced or take some new ideas into account such as those Senators McCain and Warner have suggested. I do not think the Patriotic Act or the prisons such as Guantanamo should be permanent and I disagree with Bush on a whole slew of domestic issues.


I assure you that I am not playing a game. I am quite serious, and if anyone is being knee-jerk, that is you by suggesting that I am somehow "anti-American". I don't hate your country, I don't hate Americans and I don't even hate your President, but I sure do dislike his policies. Bush is harming your country and you cannot even see that.

I use terms like knee jerk and anti-American because you insult my integrity by accusing me of just repreating Bush "soundbytes". I do not feel Bush is harming the country economically and like i said before I do have a similar vision as him as far as the middle east goes. I do think America will eventually need to become less interventionist in its foreign policy but right now that is an impossibility.


How would you know? Only 10 have been charged. By echoing Bush's soundbytes you are in fact condoning what is happening at Gitmo.

there you go again, like a skipping CD...soundbyte...soundbyte...soundbyte...

honestly, forget you.


I am certainly no expert on your Constitution but I am kinda appalled by certain so called loyalists who don't seem to have any problem pissing all over their own Constitution.

The president has the right to take and hold enemy combatants while in a time of war. it has always been that way from Lincoln to Wilson to Roosevelt to Johnson, Nixon and now Bush.


It would appear that you are unaware of certain provisions in your Constitution in respect to treaties. Remember that it was you that talked about the "rules of war"?

Rules of war. Wear a freaking uniform. Do not use civilians as human shields. If you do this, you are not complying with the Geneva convention and therefore are not protected by it.


Canada.

figures. You just had two left wing nut jobs leading your country, one who personally attacked Bush. That Quebecois guy, Chretian I believe. Hopefully your newly elected Prime Minister will be much more mature.


Of course my country has a past that isn't perfect, but we do okay. I am so glad our country refused to go to Iraq.

yeah you supported the Confederacy over the Union in the Civil War. And if North America were ever attacked, your country would come crying to the USA first for help, just as it was with the Cold War. If more so called "civilized" nations banded together to fight tyranny around the world, it would send a big message and we would have alot less Al-Qaedas, North Koreas and Irans to deal with.

its a shame you, your country and those who think like you talk so much about human rights but the silencing was deafening when it came to the oppressed people of Iraq or when it comes to helping with the trial of Saddam or helping the now free Iraqis to rebuild their infrastructure. Could use some more help with Iran as well and ease up on the constant criticism of Israel, the only democracy in the middle east and surrounded by hostiles.
Don't you mean the Danes?

No, I mean the Dutch. (http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_335.html)

It seems at least some have enjoyed Gitmo... again, the Red Cross inspects the place regularly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/08/wguan08.xml

...most have put on weight:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_he_me/guantanamo_fat_detainees

Look, it's a PRISON. It's not supposed to be a nice place to be. But they're fed, clothed, sheltered, allowed to pray, etc. They are there for a reason: because they're assumed dangerous.

How many (fake!) Koran flushing stories do we have to listen to?



Ah. So we need to do something about that? Look, no system is perfect, but at least SOME of these are the same people that decapitate westerners and blow us up. They were all captured in a war zone.

(BTW: I don't believe that anything that doesn't leave a permanent physical scar is torture.)

In fact, at least 100 were caught in terrorist activities after being released from Gitmo!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825317/
But the court arguments may have obscured a potentially bigger embarrassment for the Pentagon: some of the more than 100 Gitmo prisoners who have been released have since turned up back in Afghanistan—fighting with Taliban forces against the U.S. military.

I didn't think it was possible, but you just got even stupider! I'm having a hard time typing while your ignoprant bigotted quote is on the screen because my eye is twitching too much. But I'll start from the top on this one.

Yes, maybe four said they had a fine time at Gitmo, but how does this affect anything. There are a number of variables in there. The foremost being what did these individuals stand to gain by reporting this? But maybe I'm just being overly suspicious. Maybe they really were treated well. But then I have to ask, what does Bush and GITMO stand to gain from that?

Yeah, they're gaining weight. But you ignored the second point in that openeing line. "In their cell nearly around the clock". And boy I bet we feel proud. Scientists come on the news every day preaching about obesity 'epidemics' and the health problems of obesity. And now you're yankee-doodle proud about them becoming obese. I just don't understand that double standard there.

And now onto the stupider parts of the quote. About the Korans, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this didn't happen. It's how our justice system works. So here's my reasons that it is very possible it did happen. I'll even do it with only two questions.

Is the Koran in question without a doubt able to be brought forth and seen? No

Is the toilet in question able to be brought forth and seen? Yes

By no means does that prove anything except that it's not positively fake.

And what do you mean by so what, they were caught in a war zone. If suddenly your neighbors decide to start killing eachother and fighting with the people across the road, you're in a war zone. And I bet you'd be pretty pissed if cops came and arrested you with absolutely no probable cause and putting you in jail with no trial for 5 years.

And then there's is the stupidest thing I have ever heard or read in my entire life. I mean this goes beyond a President Bush speech. Torture leaves scars. WTF. You're telling me, that having wet cattle prods being used on your testicles isn't torture, now that's stupid. You're telling me that be hanging someone upside down and puoring water on his face until he actually does start to drown isn't torture! You're telling me that by stripping you naked and chaining you to a wall for three weeks, you're not being tortured. That by being tied down while being forced to take it from behind by a dog, no one's being tortured. You'd probably think that being placed in a 5' x 5' x 5' concreted room with no bedding, lights, padding, food, or spare clothes for days isn't torture also. And by no means am I saying that anyone has actually been forced upon anyone in GITMO. But just by you thinking that none of these things are torture, you have proven yourself to the most uninformed, inhuman, sadomasichistic, pricks ever to placed on earth. And one day I actually do wish that you will be forced through these things. Becuase by not acknowledging these things that no human should ever be put through, you have proven yourself something else, and it really wouldn't matter if you were forced to do any of this.

And then the last issue of the ex-detainees being captured again with Taliban forces. All I have to say is why wouldn't they? If you were ever captured by the enemy of your government who you have never had any problem with before and you were kept for five years with no trial, being tortured, deprived of your family and anything you love, while people are saying you're being treated like a citizen, while they say that the things you endure aren't torture, and while they say you're a common criminal and you deserve it all. If and when you were released, would you be fine with seeing them free and happy? Or would take up arms against them after being shown the side of life you didn't think existed or could exist because of the bare brutality of it all. While I don't condone any act of violence by anyone, they wouldn't be unjust with what they do.

That's all I have to say. And I haven't read the whole thread or know if I even plan to, but after seeing this comment, I thought I had to stop and say something. I don't know if anyone else has said anything about this post, but I hope they have. I just thought I needed to get my point across. Whether it has or not already.

"Putting feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken" -- Tyler Durden
No, but it does make you a feathered ass.

Hysterical! I quite CLEARLY remember seeing that on MSNBC, CNN, and hearing about the flights on NPR.
Link, please. You make an assertion of fact that is challenged, you need to back it up.

Of course not. But by the same token, you can't say the entire country is 100% innocent, either.
That sounds like the kind of thing people say when they are trying to justify wars of aggression, genocide, internment camps, and punitive post-war treaties. Oh, yes, and imprisoning and maltreating people without every bringing charges against them, just because they might come from a particular country. In other words, trying to justify a bad act by implying guilt against the victim of your bad act -- guilt you can't possibly prove, of course.

You really don't think that the people screening folks in Afghanistan were clueless idiots?
Actually, judging by the number of convictions their screening has produced, I do suspect they might be total morons.

And you're quite clearly one dimensional. Heaven forbid someone not agree with you. :rolleyes:
This is not a response to my point, so I will take it you have no response and are conceding the point. Thank you.

As you said, indeed. There's truth in them thar Freudian slips.

Basically, what you've done in this post -- BEFORE THE FREUDIAN SLIP, which I bolded -- is not only confirm that you do want to see detainees tortured, but also mention the kind of torture you would like to subject them to. EDIT: Just because you don't call them tortures, doesn't mean that's not what they are. Thank you for confirming my original observation.

As for my high horse, my horse isn't high, dear. You are low.

You're a complete whack job.

that was a typo, not a freudian slip. a freudian slip is spoken, i tend to think typer than i fast which usually results in me missing a word or two many times. i usually catch them quickly after posting...but i was occupied with writing another reply.

shows how little you have when you focus so heavily on what is so obviously a TYPO.

if i'm low, at least the air down here is thick enough to breath. a freaking typo...LOL...your whole post dedicated to a typo.

OH and I had previously stated that line without a typo in another post!

WHEN are they getting their day in court? I don't see it happening.

If I knew that, you think I would merely be working on a trading floor in Manhattan? ;)

You're changing the subject or building a straw man. Why would you only accept that torture that leaves marks should be classified as torture? Why do you ignore the acts designed to cause pain and suffering, and mental anguish, without leaving marks?

Look at it this way: if you're going to get information out of someone, how can you do it? Torture or mental fatigue. That's about it. I think that electro-shock is a BIG step away from wiping some menstal blood on someone and refusing him water to wash. Or that caning is NOT nearly the same as sleep deprivation.

Not accurate enough. The differences between them are notable, and the Taliban at least is not a purely destructive force. Not that I like them, mind you...

WHAT? The Taliban is not a destructive force? They blew up Buddahs, enforces an abhorant, twisted version of Islam which included forced beards, no music, the Burkha, and death to all non-Arabs!

The Taleban & Al-Qaeda are brother ideologies.

Ah, but you see, they weren't even the authorities. They were mercenaries looking for profit, many of them.

So are every bounty hunter and private investigator in the US.

When the conditions under which the person is held drives him or her to suicide, you should not only care about it but you should take action.

I disagree. When I was at the University of Connecticut, one guy committed suicide by taking off his jacket and lying in the snow one night (it was early December) in the graveyard behind the churches. Something about failing out. Am I to take, therefore, that college drives people to suicide and must be stopped?

(This is NOT a frivolous example. This DID happen.)


Yet in other cases it's been a sloppy job, bombing funeral prosessions and wrong buildings.

Reasonably, I'd demand better intelligence on the ground.

You can demand all you want, but you have to act on what you have. Every play poker? You nearly never win by only playing "sure" hands. No, that's not a great example, but it's the best on I can think of.

So? It's not done out of kindness, but it's a self-serving act whether it's for propaganda, strategic or economic reasons.


Sure. But it's also being done because we see people suffering. We do that, too.

Oh, and who said anything about idiocy? Profit is a great incentive. So is profiling on any basis - religious, linguistic, ethnic - and monetary. Don't you suppose minor officials are accorded some slice of pie for their complicity in peddling flesh to the Great Satan? Or would you prefer to turn yet another blind eye to the bleedin' obvious tonight?

Are you insinuating that the warlords/bounty hunters/local constabulary/etc put these folks on a plane without them being screened by the US military's Intel people?

As you're replying to a message that wasn't even to you, I assume you must be confused. Non Aligned States & I were clearly discussing how the inmates GOT to Gitmo. :rolleyes:
Right, and you said, in your post, first that the US has a perfectly good legal system, and then said that we had to work with what we had.

So are you now saying that, despite having a system of our own, we still had to use the Afghan system, which was, of course, no system at all? And what about all those geniuses who are "screening" people coming out of Afghanistan? One would think, regardless of what system originally detained the detainees, once they went through US "screening," they'd be in OUR system, which you assured us is so good. Oh, but wait, you've already admitted that we're not applying that system to the detainees. Oh, well.

So what system are they under? They were captured under an Afghan system, but screened under a US system which was then no longer applied to them, and now they're in Cuba. Are they still under the Afghan system, or what?

Your argument makes about as much sense as the policies you are defending.

Hmm... Now you claim that all realists would make the same value judgements. I don't think so. Even the "Islamo Fascism" is not objectively evil - nothing is.

Yet only 10 are charged... That's still the problem.

And there is little reason to be holding Taliban loyalists (or mere "thugs") at Guantanamo after 5 years.


A realist is not afraid to see the world in black and white and not in ambiguous shades of gray. The Islamo Fascists, the ones who execute women in soccer stadiums for wanting to go to school and behead innocent civilians in front of a camera and want to dominate the world under their rule of law while killing all the "infidels" in the process - are evil. it is not terribly difficult to understand.

good reason to hold Taliban loyalists after 5 years...keep them out of the fight while the fight still goes on. keep them from meddling in the affairs of the now free Afghans. keep those monsters locked away so the young Afghanistan can get on its feet and take its first few steps.

Hopefully your newly elected Prime Minister will be much more mature.

Our newly elected Prime Minister will be handed his pink slip before spring. He's giving himself ample rope with which to hang himself, and his grasping band of Republican-wannabes.

You just had two left wing nut jobs leading your country, one who personally attacked Bush. That Quebecois guy, Chretian I believe.

God, you're ill-informed, aren't you. Neither personally attacked Bush. Oh well, at least you got the number of vowels and consonants correct in his name. See? There's always a silver lining, no matter how dull the clouds might be.

Are you insinuating that the warlords/bounty hunters/local constabulary/etc put these folks on a plane without them being screened by the US military's Intel people?

I'm saying US intel either simply doesn't give a shit if they deliver the motherfrickin' Michelin Man, or are too scared from the top-down to question motherfrickin' stupid dumbass orders coming from Lord High King Poopyhead the Younger himself.

You're a complete whack job.

that was a typo, not a freudian slip. a freudian slip is spoken, i tend to think typer than i fast which usually results in me missing a word or two many times. i usually catch them quickly after posting...but i was occupied with writing another reply.

shows how little you have when you focus so heavily on what is so obviously a TYPO.

if i'm low, at least the air down here is thick enough to breath. a freaking typo...LOL...your whole post dedicated to a typo.

OH and I had previously stated that line without a typo in another post!
Yeah, and it was just as bogus then, too, as I pointed out at the time.

You can resort to personal insults all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you are speaking in support of torture. You say that you don't want torture done for reasons you don't approve of. This automatically implies that there are reason for torture you DO approve of. Ergo, you approve of torture, so long as it is packaged in a way you like.

A person who does not approve of torture says so. No torture. Ever. Period. None of this waffling prevarication about "reasons" for it.

A realist is not afraid to see the world in black and white and not in ambiguous shades of gray.
On the contrary. A realist knows there is no such thing as total black or total white.

The Islamo Fascists, the ones who execute women in soccer stadiums for wanting to go to school and behead innocent civilians in front of a camera and want to dominate the world under their rule of law while killing all the "infidels" in the process - are evil. it is not terribly difficult to understand.
It's also not terribly difficult to understand that you condone torture if it's done for what you consider to be the right reasons. By an amazing coincidence, so does the Taliban.

good reason to hold Taliban loyalists after 5 years...keep them out of the fight while the fight still goes on. keep them from meddling in the affairs of the now free Afghans. keep those monsters locked away so the young Afghanistan can get on its feet and take its first few steps.
There is no good reason to hold any prisoner outside of the control of any legal system whatsoever. Either they are soldier prisoners of war, in which case the Geneva Conventions apply, or they are civilian prisoners taken in a war zone, in which case other parts of the Geneva Conventions apply, or they are criminal suspects, in which case criminal law applies. In all those systems, the detainees have legal rights to humane treatment that respects their dignity, as well as rights to legal counsel, rights to hear evidence against them, and rights to challenge their detention.

Our newly elected Prime Minister will be handed his pink slip before spring. He's giving himself ample rope with which to hang himself, and his grasping band of Republican-wannabes.



God, you're ill-informed, aren't you. Neither personally attacked Bush. Oh well, at least you got the number of vowels and consonants correct in his name. See? There's always a silver lining, no matter how dull the clouds might be.



http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/Bush-Is-A-Moron22nov02.htm

apparently it was his Communications Director who spoke the words, though he was always seen as a jerk here in America. He also refused to accept her resignation offer after she directly insulted another leader.

and you sound like a typical canadian leftist from your first statement. left on center, on this board? no way.

apparently it was his Communications Director who spoke the words, though he was always seen as a jerk here in America.

Pffft. He barely had a presence in America.

On the contrary. A realist knows there is no such thing as total black or total white.

Thats a relativist, or a theorist or hell a sophist. Not a realist.


It's also not terribly difficult to understand that you condone torture if it's done for what you consider to be the right reasons. By an amazing coincidence, so does the Taliban.

yes, your comminity college psychological study of typos as freudian slips has lead you to this preposterous conclusion. either that, or the simple fact that you lack the ability to debate rationaly and now must try and demonize those who disagree with you.

every single issue I have seen you post on has you taking a left wing view of things. you are so predictable in what you will say it is like clockwork.

You apparently condone torture because you show no joy knowing that the Taliban and Saddam have been removed from power.


There is no good reason to hold any prisoner outside of the control of any legal system whatsoever. Either they are soldier prisoners of war, in which case the Geneva Conventions apply, or they are civilian prisoners taken in a war zone, in which case other parts of the Geneva Conventions apply, or they are criminal suspects, in which case criminal law applies. In all those systems, the detainees have legal rights to humane treatment that respects their dignity, as well as rights to legal counsel, rights to hear evidence against them, and rights to challenge their detention.

Get this through your head, they do not meet the requirements for a Geneva convention soldier. ANY enemy combatant is under the presidents authority to be held in captivity until the conflict has been resolved. That is how it has been historically and how it is today. No way in hell do I or most sane people want these guys to exploit the American Civilian Legal system as Moussaui did, but I do believe they should be offered counsel.

and they should certainly be interrogated upon arrival. That is a no brainer.

Pffft. He barely had a presence in America.


pffft, perceptions form based on his mannerisms, attitudes and general nature. we have this thing called mass media...check it out sometime.

I realize you Canadians aren't the brightest stars in the sky, but surely you have mass media.

oh one more thing, even if i completely butchered his name, it would not have mattered because nobody would know what or where Canada is if it was not for the US. ;)

Yeah, and it was just as bogus then, too, as I pointed out at the time.

You can resort to personal insults all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you are speaking in support of torture. You say that you don't want torture done for reasons you don't approve of. This automatically implies that there are reason for torture you DO approve of. Ergo, you approve of torture, so long as it is packaged in a way you like.

A person who does not approve of torture says so. No torture. Ever. Period. None of this waffling prevarication about "reasons" for it.

ok, nice and clear, read it nice and slow...

I am for Coerced Interrogations

I am for Incarceration

I am not in favor of the clubbings the guards in the article were talking about and they should be punished.

simple.

I'm saying US intel either simply doesn't give a shit if they deliver the motherfrickin' Michelin Man, or are too scared from the top-down to question motherfrickin' stupid dumbass orders coming from Lord High King Poopyhead the Younger himself.

So let me get this straight, then: my POV gets blasted by you as guesswork, but yours is the gospel truth. :rolleyes: Sorry Dobbsy, but it doesn't work that way.

Now, either *please* accept my notion (as has been posted several times now) that while Gitmo is an unfortunate necessity (which needs resolution) it was a rational outgrowth of the war being fought. That it was a small price to pay for nothing going boom in the US for 5 years, and that it is no Hanoi Hilton.I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm asking for you to accept that such a position is logical and is my right to hold. If you can't even do that, then there is no point to talking anymore, now is there?

You see, no matter how wrong I know you are about any given issue, I still respect your right to be so. ;)

Right, and you said, in your post, first that the US has a perfectly good legal system, and then said that we had to work with what we had.

The US legal system is pretty much powerless in the hills of Afghanistan. It's not like we have police and courts with jurisdiction over there. How would one capture people there which are hiding? Oh yeah, let's ask the locals for help!

So are you now saying that, despite having a system of our own, we still had to use the Afghan system, which was, of course, no system at all?

In order to capture the guys? Yeah! Or do you really want a repeat of the Pancho Villa expedition, where we stumbled around Mexico for months and never caught him. Note that even *with* the help of locals that we've still not got Osama.

And what about all those geniuses who are "screening" people coming out of Afghanistan? One would think, regardless of what system originally detained the detainees, once they went through US "screening," they'd be in OUR system, which you assured us is so good. Oh, but wait, you've already admitted that we're not applying that system to the detainees. Oh, well.

You're still confusing CAPTURE with DUE PROCESS.

So what system are they under? They were captured under an Afghan system, but screened under a US system which was then no longer applied to them, and now they're in Cuba. Are they still under the Afghan system, or what?

Your argument makes about as much sense as the policies you are defending.

Again, for clarity: we had to use the locals to gather up the terrorists in some cases (though places like Tora Bora and the capture of John Walker Lindh is an OBVIOUS exception!). The inmates are now incarcerated by the US military in Cuba. It's recently been ruled that they get court trials instead of military tribunerals. What's so hard to follow?

Please make your tone less beligerant. It's not my fault if you're slow.
(There now. See what I mean? being beligerant just annoys people.)

Well, I would theorize you were subjected to such treatment at a young age, resulting in who you are now, except you're a bit too old to have been affected like that. Although who's to say it doesn't work on older people as well? :p

Nobody is too old to wince at their 'music' :p

If I knew that, you think I would merely be working on a trading floor in Manhattan? ;) ;)

Well I'm not holding my breath in anticipation, and I will voice my complaints until that day arrives.


Look at it this way: if you're going to get information out of someone, how can you do it? Torture or mental fatigue. That's about it. I think that electro-shock is a BIG step away from wiping some menstal blood on someone and refusing him water to wash. Or that caning is NOT nearly the same as sleep deprivation.
First of all, there are several interrogation-techniques that work and does not border on torture, nor cross the line.

Secondly, and the thing I've been asking, why will you accept electroshocks as a method of interrogation, simply because it won't leave physical scars?


WHAT? The Taliban is not a destructive force? They blew up Buddahs, enforces an abhorant, twisted version of Islam which included forced beards, no music, the Burkha, and death to all non-Arabs!

The Taleban & Al-Qaeda are brother ideologies.

I said: "and the Taliban at least is not a purely destructive force."
I acknowledge that they are extreme, and I don't like them. But there are still notable differences between the AQ and the Taliban movement, and that includes ideological differences. It is important to differenciate between the two groups.


So are every bounty hunter and private investigator in the US.
Ah yes, but they are looking for specific people, not anonymous member of a group. If the bounty hunters in the US could pick up and claim bounties for "members of the mafia" without having to prove that they were mafiosos, and without the persons being named as wanted, I suspect a lot of innocent persons would be sold to the FBI.

And bounty hunters and private investigators are NOT considered as "the authorities" in the US either.


I disagree. When I was at the University of Connecticut, one guy committed suicide by taking off his jacket and lying in the snow one night (it was early December) in the graveyard behind the churches. Something about failing out. Am I to take, therefore, that college drives people to suicide and must be stopped?

(This is NOT a frivolous example. This DID happen.)
The problem is that your example is not comparable to the matter at hand. The person in prison is under a regime of security which controls and monitors his movements 24 hours of the day. They have no personal freedom, and have to adhere to every command given to them or be punished further.

Suicide in general might be a personal choice, but when living under such conditions drives a person to suicide, one should question the system that holds them captive and take preventive measures. The government is directly responsible for the inmates well-being: The university is NOT directly responsible for the student.

Sure. But it's also being done because we see people suffering. We do that, too.
:D Yeah, sure... You're funny! :D

Seriously though, I believe you - but that factor is so slim that it's nearly irrelevant. I have yet to see a policy based on selflessness.

A realist is not afraid to see the world in black and white and not in ambiguous shades of gray.On the contrary. A realist knows there is no such thing as total black or total white.
I agree with Muravyets.

There is no good reason to hold any prisoner outside of the control of any legal system whatsoever. Either they are soldier prisoners of war, in which case the Geneva Conventions apply, or they are civilian prisoners taken in a war zone, in which case other parts of the Geneva Conventions apply, or they are criminal suspects, in which case criminal law applies. In all those systems, the detainees have legal rights to humane treatment that respects their dignity, as well as rights to legal counsel, rights to hear evidence against them, and rights to challenge their detention.

And whether or not the Geneva conventions apply; You cannot torture without breaking both domestic US laws and other international law, both custumary law and other conventions which the US has accepted and ratified.

Yeah. I'm sure the 30 years of terrorist attacks against the West before the US went to war in the Middle East were friendly. [/sarcasm]

Yes and I'm sure the 2000 years of killings, bombings, invasions, executions, genocides, poverty, crusades, famine, prejiduce, biological warfare, and hate pushed on the Middle East preceding those thirty were just as friendly :rolleyes:

Yes and I'm sure the 2000 years of killings, bombings, invasions, executions, genocides, poverty, crusades, famine, prejiduce, biological warfare, and hate pushed on the Middle East preceding those thirty were just as friendly :rolleyes:

exactly what are you trying to say here?

exactly what are you trying to say here?

That the region is more sinned against than etc, that it has been on the shitty end of the stick, fucked over, and slapped around the kip.

Again, step off your high horse and get your head out of the clouds.

I support torture, such as waterboarding, when vital information may be at hand.


Fixed your little spelling error . . .

Why do you assume that just because they haven't had a day in court that somehow equates that they MUST have been innocent? :headbang:

Because they have not yet been proven guilty. Untill they are proven to be guilty they are inocent.

A realist is not afraid to see the world in black and white and not in ambiguous shades of gray.

No, that would be a delusional moron.

ok, nice and clear, read it nice and slow...

I am for torture

I am for Incarceration

I am not in favor of the clubbings the guards in the article were talking about and they should be punished.

simple.

You keep misspelling that . . .

Random beatings from the guards is really very progressive of the US. Take a look at the prison system in any islamic nation, and you'll find systemic corruption and wholesale abuse of the inmates. By torturing and beating the gitmo inmates, we are really just accomodating them culturally. We should be applauded for our multiculturalism, it's similar to allowing muslim women to wear that headscarf thingy.

They don't need judical review of their cases either; for similar reasons.

Actually, we should behead a few of them and post it on the internet for even greater verisimilitude.

Random beatings from the guards is really very progressive of the US. Take a look at the prison system in any islamic nation, and you'll find systemic corruption and wholesale abuse of the inmates. By torturing and beating the gitmo inmates, we are really just accomodating them culturally. We should be applauded for our multiculturalism, it's similar to allowing muslim women to wear that headscarf thingy.

They don't need judical review of their cases either; for similar reasons.

Actually, we should behead a few of them and post it on the internet for even greater verisimilitude.
You aren't serious now are you?

You aren't serious now are you?

That would be telling.

;)
Well I'm not holding my breath in anticipation, and I will voice my complaints until that day arrives.

Fair enough.

First of all, there are several interrogation-techniques that work and does not border on torture, nor cross the line.
Who's definition of torture? Also, how do you know they weren't used? Surely you're not saying that we just brought them to Gitmo, beat the crap out of them, and after awhile started asking questions, right?

Secondly, and the thing I've been asking, why will you accept electroshocks as a method of interrogation, simply because it won't leave physical scars?

Can you show me that the US used electoshock? I google'd a bit, and can't find any stories from a legit news (non-blog) source.

That being said: Electroconvulsive therapy is not particularly harmful, and has been willingly been undergone by Kitty Dukakis, Lou Reed, Yves Saint Laurent and many other people. It leaves no physical trauma -- no one is leaving behind a finger or (in the case of OUR prisoners in the Middle East) a head.

I said: "and the Taliban at least is not a purely destructive force."
I acknowledge that they are extreme, and I don't like them. But there are still notable differences between the AQ and the Taliban movement, and that includes ideological differences. It is important to differenciate between the two groups.

Agreed, I just feel that it is so obvious that they are allied and similar that its kind of like comparing a Frenchman to a Belgian.

Ah yes, but they are looking for specific people, not anonymous member of a group. If the bounty hunters in the US could pick up and claim bounties for "members of the mafia" without having to prove that they were mafiosos, and without the persons being named as wanted, I suspect a lot of innocent persons would be sold to the FBI.

So what to do when you don't necessarily know what a person looks like, who they are (no ID papers in Afghanistan for 20 odd years!)?
We know that they were screened, and that few were actually taken to Gitmo. What kind of proof? Even if it was at all possible to hold a trial for EVERY person captured in that fashion (most of which did NOT go to Gitmo!), how long would it take? Do you think you would get any useful intelligence out of it?


And bounty hunters and private investigators are NOT considered as "the authorities" in the US either.

Ah, but they are. Bounty hunters are legal entitites, as are PIs once they are commissioned.
Bounty Hunters: The Supreme Court ruled in Taylor v. Taintor 83 U.S. 366 (1872) :
"When bail is given, the principal is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties. Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the rearrest by the sheriff of an escaping prisoner."
"The bail have their principal on a string, and may pull the string whenever they please, and render him in their discharge."
"The rights of the bail in civil and criminal cases are the same. They may doubtless permit him to go beyond the limits of the State within which he is to answer."

Private Investigators: It is true that PIs don't enjoy the privledges bounty hunters do. However, the majority of states require private detectives and investigators to be licensed. Seven states—- Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Dakota—- have no statewide licensing requirements. PIs usually are in an investigative role and not a confrontational one.
However, PIs (especially ones in well established agencies and depending on the state) are given more latitude than regular citizens and have an easier time getting gun permits (especially in California and New York City for example) including concealed (where illegal), can legally carry tear gas, act as a bodyguard if for a person on a case (a whole OTHER set of rules), and usually enjoy the lawyer-client confidentiality privledge.

The problem is that your example is not comparable to the matter at hand. The person in prison is under a regime of security which controls and monitors his movements 24 hours of the day. They have no personal freedom, and have to adhere to every command given to them or be punished further.

They decided to kill themselves after a few years in captivity, and I'm sure they expected the 72 virgins. I don't see a difference, really. It's still a personal choice.

Suicide in general might be a personal choice, but when living under such conditions drives a person to suicide, one should question the system that holds them captive and take preventive measures. The government is directly responsible for the inmates well-being: The university is NOT directly responsible for the student.

Three guys a few years in? I call that personal choice and a statistical outlyer. Most have gained weight and they have basic human rights. Given the number of suicides in jails worldwide (US, Germany, wherever) on any single day, I am unmoved.

The University *is* directly responsible. That's why when there was a menengitis outbreak, it set up the ROTC hanger with medics and paid for everyone to get immunizations. Or why you can't take 9 classes, no matter what. Or why the University has its own mental health clinic. Etc.
In fact, did you here that "chase games" are now banned in a school near Boston because they fear litigation?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15316912/

:D Yeah, sure... You're funny! :D

Seriously though, I believe you - but that factor is so slim that it's nearly irrelevant. I have yet to see a policy based on selflessness.

No country acts totally selflessly -- that's just human nature. But there many examples where countries have given aid for very little including the 2004 Tsunami or the earthquake that hit (no joke) Bam, Iran. You can consider it mainly for some benefit or mainly for selfless reasons, that's a personal call.

Yes and I'm sure the 2000 years of killings, bombings, invasions, executions, genocides, poverty, crusades, famine, prejiduce, biological warfare, and hate pushed on the Middle East preceding those thirty were just as friendly :rolleyes:

Wow, thanks for clearing that up! Because thousands of years of human history in the Middle East has been tough, they get a pass to commit terrorist crimes against a country that wasn't even around for less than 300 of it.

That's really wonderful logic. While I'm at it, I want all of your possessions because my people were serfs for a thousand years. No, no matter that you're not related to those that oppressed my ancestors. After all, there is no connection between the crusades and 30 years of terrorism against the US, either.

Because they have not yet been proven guilty. Untill they are proven to be guilty they are inocent.

So you're for letting everyone arrested for any crime to be let to go home before their court date? I'm happy I don't live in your country!

I wasn't going to reply to this post because of your obvious attempts at flaming regarding Canada, and your personal attacks (in red), in this post and others, but decided to call you on your obvious lack of "facts" (in blue).

The Iraq war and the reasons for going to that (or as you ranted, false pretenses) are another topic. Why the Bush Administration went to war in Iraq and what is going on at Guantanamo can not be had in the same conversation. The only way that you could possibly link the two is by saying that some of the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq have been shipped to Guantanamo. But then we are back discussing the conditions of Guantanamo, and off of Iraq again.
Obviously there is a link between the Iraq war and prisoners at Guantanamo. The most obvious would be that had the US not invaded Iraq, then the US wouldn't have any Iraqi insurgents at Guantanamo. I suppose that you don't think that Iraqis have a right to defend their country?

I am not ignoring any facts. What facts? That article was very vague about some guards bragging about how they beat inmates. We know no facts and an investigation is under way. But you're all ready to scream that the sky is falling or, God forbid, that Guantanamo be shut down. There are no facts to ignore. If the investigation concludes that these idiots are abusing inmates, then they should be punished but the whole facility of gitmo should remain.
You are avoiding the fact that of 450+ detainees at Guantanamo, only 10 have been charged with a crime. NONE of them have been given "due process", yet you believe that it is okay to torture them.

Like i said, this is a different type of enemy, not your conventional soldier and not your conventional battleground. These particular enemy combatants, due to their actions, are not seen as falling under the Geneva Code and are not official POWs. They are still enemy combatants, are still a danger to America and the executive branch has the right to hold an enemy combatant until the conflict or individual threat has ended. In the mean time, they enjoy their 6 meals a day, 90 mins of exercise a day in fancy gym, time out in the sunlight and their own personal copy of the Koran.
SCOTUS disagrees with your assessment?
You say that they are a "danger to America", yet they have not been charged with any crime against America, or any crime at all.

Something tells me you have difficulty recognizing real threats. You seem more obsessed with Bush than the Taliban or Al-Zawahiri.
A real threat is Al-Queda? Bush was more obsessed with Iraq than Al-Queda. It would appear that Bush has far more difficulty "recognizing real threats" than I do. And since you support Bush on this, then you also have a real difficulty "recognizing real threats"? And you say that you are a "realist"?

They are treated pretty well, the Red Cross is satisfied with their treatment. This boy was satisfied with the treatment. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3488175.stm) He was one of the innocent ones you speak of taken to Gitmo.
He was 13 when captured and was isolated with a couple of others. The others were treated differently according to the story.

The others are just too dangerous to let loose. From the many articles and reports I have read the majority of detainees continue to praise allah and death to america for all to hear, they don't even pretend to be innocent or moderate!
Your proof of these statements.

And when released, they go back and fight!]They have to be removed from contention while hostilities persist. (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002420.php)
Sorry, but I don't give much creedence of articles from the David Horowitz clan.

[The Jihad will go on though. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/01/wafgh01.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/01/ixnewstop.html)
This is about a different facility in Afghanistan, and not about Guantanamo.

These prisoners are being released by the President of Afghanistan. Go figure!!

Many of the 400 mostly Afghan prisoners to be released from Sheberghan jail, near Afghanistan's Uzbek border, under an amnesty offered by the country's president, Hamid Karzai, say that they intend to return to the fray against the West, according to prison officials and the word of the detainees.

huh? are you really that dim? Plain clothes, meaning, he is not in a Uniform which is a requirement specifically stated in the Geneva convention! You can not pretend to be a civilian, hide amongst them, then shoot off RPGs when the Americans aren't looking. You sacrifice your Geneva convention rights.
Not entirely true. Read the Geneva Conventions. Besides, it appears that SCOTUS disagrees with you as stated above.

Picture if you will, an Iraqi, whose country has been illegally invaded and his countrys' army has been defeated. He has no airplanes, no helicopter gunships, no 2,000 pound daisy cutter bombs, no cruise missles, no tanks, no artillery, and no uniform. He is severely outnumbered and he has perhaps an AK 47, perhaps some RPGs, and maybe some IEDs. Your forces may have already killed his wife, or children, or parents, or perhaps he has lost his home and/or his livelihood. He hides wherever he can hide, so that he can fight another day.

Perhaps you need to do a little research about "resistance movements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II)"?

You attack an essential facility used by the military to hold enemy combatants. If there are problems, they must be dealt with, but Gitmo must stand, it is too important.
Gitmo is a disgrace to the US and should be closed.

U.S. allows Red Cross access to Gitmo (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/13/content_5199796.htm)

oh excuse me, mostly the Red Cross.
I posted that link. Try reading it?

Amnesty International has been rather hostile to the USA. probably the only reason you like them?? They also do not like Bush...he is a, shhh, conservative. (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050602-120456-1031r.htm)
Yet they speak the truth?


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20713&only
Don't put too much credibility with "little green footballs". :p

What are you suggesting? That Americans are the thugs? that they actually sit around and torture detainees all day? Is that what you think?
Obviously some of them do. Even your own people are complaining. Too bad you are not listening?

Wow, check out those soundbytes. exactly what I hear from any war critic, usually an anti-Bush/America critic. You really stuck to the script on that one.
Quit suggesting that I am anti-American because I don't support Bush.

Your comment about Afghanistan is an absolute lie. The Taliban tried to run an offensive in the southern regions and made some ground but then U.S. forces met them head on and decimated their forces. Afghanistan is doing very well for a country which had literally no infrastructure under the Taliban and is a bright spot in the war on Terror. Iraq is where there are problems (here you go again, trying to divert the topic to Iraq.)
A liar?

Taliban Resurgence Restricting Women’s Freedoms In Afghanistan (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/09/logan-afghanistan/)

AFGHANISTAN: US policies fuel Taliban resurgence (http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/686/686p17b.htm)

Resurgent Taliban's Strength Runs Deep (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6208209)

I think you choose to wallow in ignorance because the truth does not fit within the Bush playbook.

Most of Iraq is Stable, especially Kurdistan which is flourishing. The main problems are in the Sunni Triangle. This is where your civil strife is and this is where those death squads hit their targets, sometimes travelling farther south to bomb shia targets. This also happens to be where the foreign terrorists are located. And the world is not less safe today than it was before 9-11! There has not been an attack on us soil since 9-11, the war is here in Iraq instead and though it is a struggle, the terrorists are losing. Even Bob Woodward states that we are winning the war. The terrorist organiations are splintered and scattered and their banking assets are frozen or closely monitored. Just a couple weeks ago Al-Zawahiri put out a calling for more jihadists blaming the Americans for killing most of their soldiers and they needed more! The threats you see now are not new threats just the same crap thats always been there that we refused to pay attention to. Now that we are coming after them they are more in the open and coming out of the woodwork.
Tons of Bush soundbytes does not equate to what is really happening.

to even suggest that the war is being lost and that we are less safe now than before is completely idiotic. but i guess those are your "soundbytes", huh?
The war is being lost, the world is less safe, and Iraq is nowhere near stable. You keep the Bush soundbytes coming though. And I thought you said you were a "realist"?

The Daily Show: Bush's 'Desperate Soundbites' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hstBefXjrs0&mode=related&search=)

Watch the whole thing. Watch him answer a question about 9/11 and Iraq. That is about 3:03 into the video.

You parrot all the anti-bush rhetoric and "soundbytes" out there. (was that your word of the day or something?)
It may be anti-Bush, but it is not rhetoric. Bush Soundbytes is the word that applies to your non facts.

I have to end here....I hope to pick up the rest later.

Sonny is dead and Cher is retired so who is singing it ?

I wasn't going to reply to this post because of your obvious attempts at flaming regarding Canada, and your personal attacks (in red), in this post and others, but decided to call you on your obvious lack of "facts" (in blue).


Obviously there is a link between the Iraq war and prisoners at Guantanamo. The most obvious would be that had the US not invaded Iraq, then the US wouldn't have any Iraqi insurgents at Guantanamo. I suppose that you don't think that Iraqis have a right to defend their country?


You are avoiding the fact that of 450+ detainees at Guantanamo, only 10 have been charged with a crime. NONE of them have been given "due process", yet you believe that it is okay to torture them.


SCOTUS disagrees with your assessment?
You say that they are a "danger to America", yet they have not been charged with any crime against America, or any crime at all.


A real threat is Al-Queda? Bush was more obsessed with Iraq than Al-Queda. It would appear that Bush has far more difficulty "recognizing real threats" than I do. And since you support Bush on this, then you also have a real difficulty "recognizing real threats"? And you say that you are a "realist"?


He was 13 when captured and was isolated with a couple of others. The others were treated differently according to the story.


Your proof of these statements.


Sorry, but I don't give much creedence of articles from the David Horowitz clan.


This is about a different facility in Afghanistan, and not about Guantanamo.

These prisoners are being released by the President of Afghanistan. Go figure!!




Not entirely true. Read the Geneva Conventions. Besides, it appears that SCOTUS disagrees with you as stated above.

Picture if you will, an Iraqi, whose country has been illegally invaded and his countrys' army has been defeated. He has no airplanes, no helicopter gunships, no 2,000 pound daisy cutter bombs, no cruise missles, no tanks, no artillery, and no uniform. He is severely outnumbered and he has perhaps an AK 47, perhaps some RPGs, and maybe some IEDs. Your forces may have already killed his wife, or children, or parents, or perhaps he has lost his home and/or his livelihood. He hides wherever he can hide, so that he can fight another day.

Perhaps you need to do a little research about "resistance movements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II)"?


Gitmo is a disgrace to the US and should be closed.


I posted that link. Try reading it?


Yet they speak the truth?


Don't put too much credibility with "little green footballs". :p


Obviously some of them do. Even your own people are complaining. Too bad you are not listening?


Quit suggesting that I am anti-American because I don't support Bush.


A liar?

Taliban Resurgence Restricting Women’s Freedoms In Afghanistan (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/09/logan-afghanistan/)

AFGHANISTAN: US policies fuel Taliban resurgence (http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/686/686p17b.htm)

Resurgent Taliban's Strength Runs Deep (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6208209)

I think you choose to wallow in ignorance because the truth does not fit within the Bush playbook.


Tons of Bush soundbytes does not equate to what is really happening.


The war is being lost, the world is less safe, and Iraq is nowhere near stable. You keep the Bush soundbytes coming though. And I thought you said you were a "realist"?

The Daily Show: Bush's 'Desperate Soundbites' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hstBefXjrs0&mode=related&search=)

Watch the whole thing. Watch him answer a question about 9/11 and Iraq. That is about 3:03 into the video.


It may be anti-Bush, but it is not rhetoric. Bush Soundbytes is the word that applies to your non facts.

I have to end here....I hope to pick up the rest later.


Canuks praying for his very own Taliban of Canada :D

You cant expect him to EVER see the glass as half full...with him its always the sky is falling and we are all doomed ..:D Dude the first positive post I see from you will be ...well the first ! :D :D

Get used to it .

Just remember in between what Canuks posting and the Bush sides posting ...somewhere in the middle is the actual truth and reality.
Its niether as good as the one side says it is nor anywhere as bad as the other side claims .

But its enertaining to watch them go at it.:D



flaming regarding Canada

Flaming Canada should be punished by public flogging...they not only make Moosehead but are one of the most positive and hardworking PEACEFULL countries in the world....the Yang to all the bad ass yings .

Canada deserve a yearly Nobel prize for all the good it QUIETLY does around the world.

So if you flame canada you get a Buttmuch stamp on your forehead its a guy law ...look it up .

And no more Moosehead EVER . Dude thats the Canadian death penalty .


To my friends in the north ..thanks for the cheap drugs keeping some of our poor people who cant afford US drugs alive and THANKS for quitely working to get the adminisration to change to let it happen..I salute you.

You aren't serious now are you?

As serious as an angry imam denouncing the pope.

Who's definition of torture?
The UN (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm), which also corresponds to the ECHR and customary international law.


Also, how do you know they weren't used? Surely you're not saying that we just brought them to Gitmo, beat the crap out of them, and after awhile started asking questions, right?
No, I don't know that they weren't used - I just claim that those techniques would be adequate, and that torture really doesn't work as an intelligence gathering tool - especially in a long-term perspective.


Can you show me that the US used electoshock? I google'd a bit, and can't find any stories from a legit news (non-blog) source.
I don't know that they did use it - I've actually never heard it claimed that they did. All I'm asking is why you would accept that electroshock could be used just because it doesn't leave a physical scar, even if the pain might be extreme?


That being said: Electroconvulsive therapy is not particularly harmful, and has been willingly been undergone by Kitty Dukakis, Lou Reed, Yves Saint Laurent and many other people. It leaves no physical trauma -- no one is leaving behind a finger or (in the case of OUR prisoners in the Middle East) a head.
Therapy is quite different from interregation / torture.

And here's the problem with your definition of torture again: The damage to the person tortured would mostly be psychological, not physical.


Agreed, I just feel that it is so obvious that they are allied and similar that its kind of like comparing a Frenchman to a Belgian.

Not quite sure what you mean, but I'll leave it at that. Oh, and it's worth mentioning that Hercule Poirot is Belgian, not French, like all the brits seem to think :p


So what to do when you don't necessarily know what a person looks like, who they are (no ID papers in Afghanistan for 20 odd years!)?
We know that they were screened, and that few were actually taken to Gitmo. What kind of proof? Even if it was at all possible to hold a trial for EVERY person captured in that fashion (most of which did NOT go to Gitmo!), how long would it take? Do you think you would get any useful intelligence out of it?
They could perhaps not have offered the reward? They should have known that doing it like they did would cause innocent people to be sold - easy money for some afghans.

But doing it the way they did, they should at least take all precautions concerning the people whom they payed bounties for. From what I've seen, little to no proof was required, the word of the bounty collector has been enough, or that the captured person had a gun in his possession.

I was all for the idea of transporting the people to Guantanamo in the beginning. It seemed like a nice way to take them out of play while determining their status. The problem is that they've been held for more then five years. By now they should have been tried or been released - if the proof couldn't be gathered, they should have been released.

And yes, useful information could have been gotten after just a short time - what kind of useful information can they give today?

Ah, but they are. Bounty hunters are legal entitites, as are PIs once they are commissioned.
Bounty Hunters: The Supreme Court ruled in Taylor v. Taintor 83 U.S. 366 (1872) :
"When bail is given, the principal is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties. Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the rearrest by the sheriff of an escaping prisoner."
"The bail have their principal on a string, and may pull the string whenever they please, and render him in their discharge."
"The rights of the bail in civil and criminal cases are the same. They may doubtless permit him to go beyond the limits of the State within which he is to answer."

Private Investigators: It is true that PIs don't enjoy the privledges bounty hunters do. However, the majority of states require private detectives and investigators to be licensed. Seven states—- Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Dakota—- have no statewide licensing requirements. PIs usually are in an investigative role and not a confrontational one.
However, PIs (especially ones in well established agencies and depending on the state) are given more latitude than regular citizens and have an easier time getting gun permits (especially in California and New York City for example) including concealed (where illegal), can legally carry tear gas, act as a bodyguard if for a person on a case (a whole OTHER set of rules), and usually enjoy the lawyer-client confidentiality privledge.
Well what do you know - you learn something new every day. Freaky :)

Ah well... So the bounty hunters in Afghanistan would not be like the bounty hunters in the US, since the bounty hunters in afghanistan would still not be counted as "authorities".


They decided to kill themselves after a few years in captivity, and I'm sure they expected the 72 virgins. I don't see a difference, really. It's still a personal choice.
Then we view this very differently. I still feel that the situation of a person in captivity is vastly different from a person not in captivity.


Three guys a few years in? I call that personal choice and a statistical outlyer. Most have gained weight and they have basic human rights. Given the number of suicides in jails worldwide (US, Germany, wherever) on any single day, I am unmoved.
Well, the weight gaining is not all good news. It could be seen as just lack of exercise, so I wouldn't tout it as a sign that all is well at Guantanamo.

Now, the suicide rate in US jails are actually pretty low. I can see if I can find the statistics again, I remember posting them in a thread that was around when the suicides occured. So when 3 of about 500 kill themselves, the rate at Guantanamo is pretty high.

And I equally question the US prison system, and any prison system in which a high rate of inmates kill themselves.


The University *is* directly responsible. That's why when there was a menengitis outbreak, it set up the ROTC hanger with medics and paid for everyone to get immunizations. Or why you can't take 9 classes, no matter what. Or why the University has its own mental health clinic. Etc.
In fact, did you here that "chase games" are now banned in a school near Boston because they fear litigation?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15316912/
Um, no, it's different. They aren't directly responsible, but they might be liable economically if they don't take steps to hinder hazards to the students health and well-being - just like any other business.

Again, the prison has total control of the inmate. The university does not have such a control over the student. As such, the prison has a responsibility to make sure that the conditions aren't so bad that the prisoner might be driven to suicide.

And at Guantanamo, where there is no indication for the prisoners that they will ever be released, not to mention even be tried, the situation is by default very stressful and mentally deteriorating.


No country acts totally selflessly -- that's just human nature. But there many examples where countries have given aid for very little including the 2004 Tsunami or the earthquake that hit (no joke) Bam, Iran. You can consider it mainly for some benefit or mainly for selfless reasons, that's a personal call.

Indeed.

As serious as an angry imam denouncing the pope.

"Their culture"? Like the canadians kept at Guantanamo, and the british kept there earlier?

"Their culture"? Like the canadians kept at Guantanamo, and the british kept there earlier?

Well if there was some non muslims detained there, obviously we should apologize to them. But really, we should try and be sensitive to the cultural requirements of the muslim detainees and model GITMO more after a Saudi Arabian or Taliban style prison.

Well if there was some non muslims detained there, obviously we should apologize to them. But really, we should try and be sensitive to the cultural requirements of the muslim detainees and model GITMO more after a Saudi Arabian or Taliban style prison.

You do realise that there are significant cultural differences within Islam, right?

But I find it a bit eerie that you seem to want to become what you fight, though, given the risk that there are innocent people at Guantanamo, people who might not want or nor appreciate what you call "their culture".

Random beatings from the guards is really very progressive of the US. Take a look at the prison system in any islamic nation, and you'll find systemic corruption and wholesale abuse of the inmates. By torturing and beating the gitmo inmates, we are really just accomodating them culturally. We should be applauded for our multiculturalism, it's similar to allowing muslim women to wear that headscarf thingy.

They don't need judical review of their cases either; for similar reasons.

Actually, we should behead a few of them and post it on the internet for even greater verisimilitude.

You aren't serious now are you?

As serious as an angry imam denouncing the pope.
*Bolding mine

Well, if you are truly serious then what you are saying in essence is that you are no better than your terrorist opponents. Kinda hard to gain that moral high ground that way.

The UN (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm), which also corresponds to the ECHR and customary international law.

Mmm. The UN. The same guys that refused to call Darfur genocide? That have Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Tunisia, and China to the Human Rights Council? I take any definition of theirs with a 10lb bag of salt.

No, I don't know that they weren't used - I just claim that those techniques would be adequate, and that torture really doesn't work as an intelligence gathering tool - especially in a long-term perspective.

If they were effective, then things like waterboarding wouldn't have been used. And if they actually talked, they were given additional privledges and not gotten rough with at all.

I don't know that they did use it - I've actually never heard it claimed that they did. All I'm asking is why you would accept that electroshock could be used just because it doesn't leave a physical scar, even if the pain might be extreme?

Therapy is quite different from interregation / torture.

And here's the problem with your definition of torture again: The damage to the person tortured would mostly be psychological, not physical.

Thanks. Because it is a LOT more humane than decapitation, forced conversion to Christianisty or Judism (or what ever religion), etc. I simply do not consider it to be unacceptable, given the gross lack of respect the Jihadists have against the rules of war/basic human decency.

Not quite sure what you mean, but I'll leave it at that. Oh, and it's worth mentioning that Hercule Poirot is Belgian, not French, like all the brits seem to think :p

"I'm not a Frenchie, I'm a Belgie!!" -- Murder by Death (1976)


They could perhaps not have offered the reward? They should have known that doing it like they did would cause innocent people to be sold - easy money for some afghans.

Do you work for free? I don't.


But doing it the way they did, they should at least take all precautions concerning the people whom they payed bounties for. From what I've seen, little to no proof was required, the word of the bounty collector has been enough, or that the captured person had a gun in his possession.

Had a gun in his posession at a firefight. Such as at Mazari Sharif.


I was all for the idea of transporting the people to Guantanamo in the beginning. It seemed like a nice way to take them out of play while determining their status. The problem is that they've been held for more then five years. By now they should have been tried or been released - if the proof couldn't be gathered, they should have been released.

And yes, useful information could have been gotten after just a short time - what kind of useful information can they give today?

Depends on how dangerous they are and what they know/knew. Afghanistan is still fairly unstable -- releasing the wrong guy who goes home and becomes a Pancho Villa figure (or whatnot) could be disasterous.

That I agree with: they do need to wind down Gitmo.


Well what do you know - you learn something new every day. Freaky :)

Ah well... So the bounty hunters in Afghanistan would not be like the bounty hunters in the US, since the bounty hunters in afghanistan would still not be counted as "authorities".

And on NS to boot!! ;)

They'd be similar, but not quite authorities, true. After all, there was no actual gov't in Afghanistan at the time.


Well, the weight gaining is not all good news. It could be seen as just lack of exercise, so I wouldn't tout it as a sign that all is well at Guantanamo.

It could be. But it certainly shows the place is no Aushwitz.


Now, the suicide rate in US jails are actually pretty low. I can see if I can find the statistics again, I remember posting them in a thread that was around when the suicides occured. So when 3 of about 500 kill themselves, the rate at Guantanamo is pretty high.


Compared to...?


And I equally question the US prison system, and any prison system in which a high rate of inmates kill themselves.


Then you question all of them barring perhaps Norway, which is less a prison than a place to crash.


Um, no, it's different. They aren't directly responsible, but they might be liable economically if they don't take steps to hinder hazards to the students health and well-being - just like any other business.

Its certainly similar.


Again, the prison has total control of the inmate. The university does not have such a control over the student. As such, the prison has a responsibility to make sure that the conditions aren't so bad that the prisoner might be driven to suicide.

If they really had contol, they'd be alive.


And at Guantanamo, where there is no indication for the prisoners that they will ever be released, not to mention even be tried, the situation is by default very stressful and mentally deteriorating.

So one would assume that they'd have told the interrogators everything by now. If so, then it is time to wrap this up. If not, then obviously they are enjoying the free food and warm climate far more than they mind the occasional flogging. :D

Mmm. The UN. The same guys that refused to call Darfur genocide? That have Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Tunisia, and China to the Human Rights Council? I take any definition of theirs with a 10lb bag of salt.
I thought you might say something to that effect, that's why I mentioned customary international law as well - just to show that it's a kinda universally accepted definition.


If they were effective, then things like waterboarding wouldn't have been used. And if they actually talked, they were given additional privledges and not gotten rough with at all.
Depends on a lot of things. You see, they might work well but waterboarding (and torture) might work faster. Perhaps.

And what if they didn't have anything to talk about? I'm nervous they have the wrong guys (like they've acknowledged about some of the people they've released) and that they've been subjected to torture without the possibility to prove their innocence while being kept at Guantanamo, and that these guys see no way out except giving a false confession / false information or suicide.


Thanks. Because it is a LOT more humane than decapitation, forced conversion to Christianisty or Judism (or what ever religion), etc. I simply do not consider it to be unacceptable, given the gross lack of respect the Jihadists have against the rules of war/basic human decency.
Hmm... While I might agree that it's more humane then decapitation, I think torture is less humane than forced conversion.

I still don't get why you won't accept the infliction of serious pain without physical scarring as a form of torture, though. But I don't need to ask the same question over and over, so we can just leave it at this.

And I also worry, as mentioned above, that these methods are used against suspected Jihadist, not only confirmed ones. If the US tortured people who turned out to be innocent... *shiver*


"I'm not a Frenchie, I'm a Belgie!!" -- Murder by Death (1976)
:D


Do you work for free? I don't.
Sometimes it feels like I do ;)

But by not giving out rewards, the ones that would set out to capture Taliban / AQ would be the local authorities, soldiers and enemies of the groups. You might get some people that told on the wrong people, but to a much smaller degree.


Had a gun in his posession at a firefight. Such as at Mazari Sharif.
Yes - and also like one guy (don't remember names) who had a gun in his house when northern alliance soldiers captured him. I have the link somewhere else, I can see if I can dig it up if you want.


Depends on how dangerous they are and what they know/knew. Afghanistan is still fairly unstable -- releasing the wrong guy who goes home and becomes a Pancho Villa figure (or whatnot) could be disasterous.
There is some truth in this.

That I agree with: they do need to wind down Gitmo.
Yup :)


And on NS to boot!! ;)
Who would have thunk it? :p


They'd be similar, but not quite authorities, true. After all, there was no actual gov't in Afghanistan at the time.


It could be. But it certainly shows the place is no Aushwitz.
I agree, and I have never claimed it to be. I still think it's a stain on the reputation of the US however :)


Compared to...?
US prisons


Then you question all of them barring perhaps Norway, which is less a prison than a place to crash.
I have no statistics to back me up on a global scale here, but I don't think there is a high rate of suicides in every country - especially western countries.


Its certainly similar.
I guess we just don't see eye to eye on this either :cool:


If they really had contol, they'd be alive.
It's not strange that they managed to kill themselves after several failed attempts.


So one would assume that they'd have told the interrogators everything by now. If so, then it is time to wrap this up. If not, then obviously they are enjoying the free food and warm climate far more than they mind the occasional flogging. :D
:p

Well, depends if they are able to tell the interrogators what they want to hear, eh? Or if they've already given false confession or information to get away from the clutches of the interrogators... We don't know.

Well, if you are truly serious then what you are saying in essence is that you are no better than your terrorist opponents. Kinda hard to gain that moral high ground that way.

So by implication, you believe the west is superior to islamic societies.

My goodness....

CanuckHeaven

Obviously things can get very heated when two people feel passionately about something. The anonymity of the internet can only intensify those passions.

What it basically breaks down to, in the general sense, is that I just don't trust the people deemed as enemy combatants in Guantanamo. In my reading ofthe Constitution I see a right for the President in a war time setting to identify the enemy combatant and hold him as a detainee. I do not support torture and beatings. I do support interrogations such as "waterboarding" and sleep deprivation if it is believed they may have information such as Khalid Shaik Muhammad.

Now your main concern is Human rights and you certainly take a noble position. I do respect that even if I do not sound like it. But I am truly worried about my own safety and believe the war on terror is a real war and am willing to put some faith in the President and the administration to do the right thing when it is needed. I do not give the President a blank check of support though just because I happen to share alot of his vision.

There is just so much rhetoric going around, I feel it is hard to keep focused on who the real enemies are. Right now Washington is full of a bunch of hacks both Republican and Democrat playing blame games and alot of this bickering has spilled over into the media and then into the general public.

Thats a relativist, or a theorist or hell a sophist. Not a realist.
No, it is a realist. The realist looks at things realistically, and not through the subjective prism their own preferences, which is what you are doing by quibbling over the circumstances under which you think it's okay or not okay to torture people.

yes, your comminity college psychological study of typos as freudian slips has lead you to this preposterous conclusion. either that, or the simple fact that you lack the ability to debate rationaly and now must try and demonize those who disagree with you.
More personal insults instead of actual responses to the observation that your views are similar to your enemy's. I guess there is nothing that you could say that would make it seem otherwise, so I take it you are ungracefully conceding this point.

every single issue I have seen you post on has you taking a left wing view of things. you are so predictable in what you will say it is like clockwork.
And now you try to dismiss the arguments of your opponents by slapping a political label on them. Sorry, D, but "leftist" is not the withering and demoralizing put-down you seem to think it is, and it is not going to make me stop pointing out the hypocrisies, inconsistencies, and lack of realism in your statements.

As for predictability, I am as predictable as you are. As long as you keep posting the same bullshit, I'm going to keep calling you on the same bullshit.

You apparently condone torture because you show no joy knowing that the Taliban and Saddam have been removed from power.
That is another bullshit statement. You really have nothing of substance left to say, do you?

Get this through your head, they do not meet the requirements for a Geneva convention soldier. ANY enemy combatant is under the presidents authority to be held in captivity until the conflict has been resolved. That is how it has been historically and how it is today. No way in hell do I or most sane people want these guys to exploit the American Civilian Legal system as Moussaui did, but I do believe they should be offered counsel.
No, you are wrong. The Geneva Conventions do cover them. So does US law. So do all the other international laws that the US has ratified and signed on to over the years. No matter how you slice it, the way the US is handling these prisoners is illegal. Learn to deal with it.

As for what you want or don't want, the law does not care. The law makes the rules, not you, and not Bush.

and they should certainly be interrogated upon arrival. That is a no brainer.
You're right, it is a no brainer. Rather like the rest of your argument.

Wow, thanks for clearing that up! Because thousands of years of human history in the Middle East has been tough, they get a pass to commit terrorist crimes against a country that wasn't even around for less than 300 of it.

That's really wonderful logic. While I'm at it, I want all of your possessions because my people were serfs for a thousand years. No, no matter that you're not related to those that oppressed my ancestors. After all, there is no connection between the crusades and 30 years of terrorism against the US, either.

As I recall, your quote was not 30 years of terrorism against the US. It was 30 years of terrorism against the West. And generally speaking the west has screwed them over far longer, just as I said before.

My ancestors were most likely serfs too, so screw you on that regard. And yes, I am a resident of the US. I just see the fact that after 2000 years of oppression, wouldn't you be getting pretty pissed off too? I mean we've suffered 30 years of 'terrorism' as you said and you're already huffy.

So by implication, you believe the west is superior to islamic societies.

My goodness....
Ummm, you missed the key words?

"that you are no better than your terrorist opponents"

Don't be throwing out the red herrings. :p

ok, nice and clear, read it nice and slow...

I am for Coerced Interrogations

I am for Incarceration

I am not in favor of the clubbings the guards in the article were talking about and they should be punished.

simple.
You specifically said you were in favor of waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture. Thus, you are in favor of torture.

I am not interested in the rest of your squirmings around the issue.

The US legal system is pretty much powerless in the hills of Afghanistan. It's not like we have police and courts with jurisdiction over there. How would one capture people there which are hiding? Oh yeah, let's ask the locals for help!



In order to capture the guys? Yeah! Or do you really want a repeat of the Pancho Villa expedition, where we stumbled around Mexico for months and never caught him. Note that even *with* the help of locals that we've still not got Osama.



You're still confusing CAPTURE with DUE PROCESS.



Again, for clarity: we had to use the locals to gather up the terrorists in some cases (though places like Tora Bora and the capture of John Walker Lindh is an OBVIOUS exception!). The inmates are now incarcerated by the US military in Cuba. It's recently been ruled that they get court trials instead of military tribunerals. What's so hard to follow?

Please make your tone less beligerant. It's not my fault if you're slow.
(There now. See what I mean? being beligerant just annoys people.)
There is no clarity in your argument at all. It does not matter what system was used or not used to capture the prisoners, they are under US control and on US controlled territory NOW. There is no longer any excuse for not treating them according to US law, and any question of what happened in Afghanistan is irrelevant to what is happening in Gitmo, which I remind you is the topic of the thread.

Also, you've got a lot of damned gall to complain about my tone while you toss around personal insults. Fuck your dislike of my tone. Apologize to me and everyone else you have called stupid, if you want people to be sweet to you.

As I recall, your quote was not 30 years of terrorism against the US. It was 30 years of terrorism against the West. And generally speaking the west has screwed them over far longer, just as I said before.

My ancestors were most likely serfs too, so screw you on that regard. And yes, I am a resident of the US. I just see the fact that after 2000 years of oppression, wouldn't you be getting pretty pissed off too? I mean we've suffered 30 years of 'terrorism' as you said and you're already huffy.

Right, I mixed the two, but both are valid.

Yes, they have screwed them. And the Arabs were screwing over the Europeans, too. Or did the conquests of the Balkans and Spain and Siege of Vienna slip your mind?

Sure. But I don't go around slaying Hungarians.
I'm huffy because I may get blown up for something I've had *nothing* to do with, and go to work in a likely terrorist target.

Right, I mixed the two, but both are valid.

Yes, they have screwed them. And the Arabs were screwing over the Europeans, too. Or did the conquests of the Balkans and Spain and Siege of Vienna slip your mind?

Sure. But I don't go around slaying Hungarians.
I'm huffy because I may get blown up for something I've had *nothing* to do with, and go to work in a likely terrorist target.

Exactly my point. That's why they're getting huffy. They're afraid they will die for something they had nothing to do with. When we bombed Iraq and every other middle-eastern country we've had a problem with, we killed thousands of civilians. Right now the death toll of Iraqi's is huge. It is more than 911 tenfold. I'm not surprised of the recent surge in 'terrorist' activities. The more your fellow citizens die, the more you hate AL Queda and the Taliban as you have already proved. Do you think that the same doesn't apply to them. That because we're America our lives are more important. That's utter bullshit.

There is no clarity in your argument at all. It does not matter what system was used or not used to capture the prisoners, they are under US control and on US controlled territory NOW. There is no longer any excuse for not treating them according to US law, and any question of what happened in Afghanistan is irrelevant to what is happening in Gitmo, which I remind you is the topic of the thread.

Also, you've got a lot of damned gall to complain about my tone while you toss around personal insults. Fuck your dislike of my tone. Apologize to me and everyone else you have called stupid, if you want people to be sweet to you.

No clarity? 'Tis clear as the noonday sun! And, if you've read the thread, I'm all for closing Gitmo and processing the inmates once they have no more information.

If you can show me where I've called anyone stupid, I'll gladly apologize. By the way your tone is still very beligerant.

Exactly my point. That's why they're getting huffy. They're afraid they will die for something they had nothing to do with. When we bombed Iraq and every other middle-eastern country we've had a problem with, we killed thousands of civilians. Right now the death toll of Iraqi's is huge. It is more than 911 tenfold. I'm not surprised of the recent surge in 'terrorist' activities. The more your fellow citizens die, the more you hate AL Queda and the Taliban as you have already proved. Do you think that the same doesn't apply to them. That because we're America our lives are more important. That's utter bullshit.

I was with you up to the last two sentances. No, I don't believe that American lives are worth more than others (being a Slovak, I'm particularly sensitive to that!).

No one is happy with a war in their back yard. By the same token, no one was happy with the Taliban or with Hussein in power.

No clarity? 'Tis clear as the noonday sun! And, if you've read the thread, I'm all for closing Gitmo and processing the inmates once they have no more information.

If you can show me where I've called anyone stupid, I'll gladly apologize. By the way your tone is still very beligerant.


You know what is funny? There are British, Saudi, PAkistani, Jordanian and even Canadian inmates in Gitmo, and when the U.S. offered to release them to their home country, their home country refused to take them.

You know what is funny? There are British, Saudi, PAkistani, Jordanian and even Canadian inmates in Gitmo, and when the U.S. offered to release them to their home country, their home country refused to take them.

Proof of claim? Especially the canadian and british ones?

Proof of claim? Especially the canadian and british ones?



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2385964,00.html

They are UK "Residents" not naturalized citizens. though the UK refuses to take them because the US wants them to be under surveillance and the UK feels they are not worth the resources for such surveillance. At the same time though, UK officials say they do not like the conditions at Guantanamo.

well if they don't see these individuals as a serious threat and don't approve of the conditions ar Guantanamo...why don't they just let them back into their country?

*shrugs*

No clarity? 'Tis clear as the noonday sun! And, if you've read the thread, I'm all for closing Gitmo and processing the inmates once they have no more information.

If you can show me where I've called anyone stupid, I'll gladly apologize. By the way your tone is still very beligerant.

Originally posted by Markreich
Please make your tone less beligerant. It's not my fault if you're slow.
My tone will stay belligerent as long as yours stays insulting. You want to argue substance, then do so. You want to cop a bitchy attitude towards others, I can out-bitch you all day long.

I await your apology. Make it a good one.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2385964,00.html

They are UK "Residents" not naturalized citizens. though the UK refuses to take them because the US wants them to be under surveillance and the UK feels they are not worth the resources for such surveillance. At the same time though, UK officials say they do not like the conditions at Guantanamo.

well if they don't see these individuals as a serious threat and don't approve of the conditions ar Guantanamo...why don't they just let them back into their country?

*shrugs*

They're not british - as you know they are "foreign nationals". The US should make the offer to the country they're originally from, not Britain. So this doesn't support your claim. Any other links?

No one is happy with a war in their back yard. By the same token, no one was happy with the Taliban or with Hussein in power.

Okay, go ask Dick Cheney how happy he & his cronies were to have both of the above-listed in power when it was convenient for the Republican Party. Lemme tell ya, they were fuckin' ecstatic.

They're not british - as you know they are "foreign nationals". The US should make the offer to the country they're originally from, not Britain. So this doesn't support your claim. Any other links?

they apparently won't take them either. it is Britain however who questions their treatment...yet they won't take them. Just typical of the double talk when it comes to Guantanamo.

such a horrendous place...but...better there than here.

they apparently won't take them either. it is Britain however who questions their treatment...yet they won't take them. Just typical of the double talk when it comes to Guantanamo.

such a horrendous place...but...better there than here.


Here is a list of those detained from 2002 to 2006: (former and Current)


The List (transylvania music) (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2006/d20060515%20List.pdf)

over a couple hundred have already been released.


Captives told to Claim torture (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050531-121655-7932r.htm)


General Myerson on Conditions of Gitmo:

The main problem I see is that many people actually believe that Americans are torturing these people just for the sake of sadism. No, they have information that must be obtained and has helped our troops on the field repeatedly in learning ofleardership herarchies and how to reverse engineer one of their explosive devices. They are also enemies of America and must be kept out of the conflict in the meantime.

When arriving at Gitmo, all of them claim to be goat herders. Now some may be, and they are questions. But eventually it is found out who is really who. low level operatives are unmasked and soon those low level operatives actually turn out to be high level operatives. As each piece of the puzzle is put together, valuable intelligence for the miliitary is the result.

Many have been released from Gitmo and more will. But there is too much at stake here but to treat them as anything but enemy combatants in a time of war.

Gen. Myers says the detention facility in Guantanamo is a "model facility" in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and that the U.S. spends $2.5 million annually to provide Muslim-approved food and distributed 1,300 Korans in 13 languages.
"But here's the question that needs to be debated by everybody, and that is: How do you handle people who aren't part of a nation-state effort, that are picked up on the battlefield, that if you release them or let them go back to their home countries, they would turn right around and try to slit our throats, our children's throats?" Gen. Myers said.

"We struggle with how to handle them. But we've always handled them humanely and with the dignity that they should be accorded," Gen. Myers said.

I really don't need it, now do I? The fact that there are so few people AT Gitmo proves that it wasn't just some "round 'em up, $5000 slavery" BS as some here are purporting.

The early days of Gitmo had prisoners numbering in the hundreds and close to the thousands did it not?


Wow. In your world nothing ever is done until you've built up all possible infrastructure and everyone has been trained for 8 months? :rolleyes:

And in your world, I assume that to solve the problem of a burning building, you napalm it?


It is most emphatically not our country. We invaded and deposed an Afghani government which can best be said to be oppressive. We had to work with whomever we could to conduct the search. What the heck do you expect? :confused:

How about actually committing troops for once? How about not cutting and running away to fight some unrelated war elsewhere? How about being honest with the committments?

I don't know if the United States is your country, but it sure could do a hell lot better than the current standing with its crop of political elite.

You really don't think that the people screening folks in Afghanistan were clueless idiots?


They're the same people who decided that an 11 year old American born Indian was a terrorist suspect and potential suicide bomber because she was doing a school project on martyrs and deported her to India. You do the math.

Ummm, you missed the key words?

"that you are no better than your terrorist opponents"

Don't be throwing out the red herrings. :p

Heh. I didn't even notice that. You're the one who brought terrorism up, I just mentioned islamic societies, nothing about terrorism. So not only do you think that the west is superior, you obviously think all muslims are terrorists too as you automatically linked the two for no reason.

Heh. I didn't even notice that. You're the one who brought terrorism up, I just mentioned islamic societies, nothing about terrorism. So not only do you think that the west is superior, you obviously think all muslims are terrorists too as you automatically linked the two for no reason.
Nice try, but more red herrings. Let's try this:

Some Muslim terrorists behead their captives.
You suggest beheading some alledged terrorist captives.
Therefore you are no better than your terrorist opponents.

Nice try, but more red herrings. Let's try this:

Some Muslim terrorists behead their captives.
You suggest beheading some alledged terrorist captives.
Therefore you are no better than your terrorist opponents.

I never suggested anything like that. I said we should be more sensitive to their cultural practices. You're the one throwing out the accusations of terrorism and whatnot.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sick010.gif
they apparently won't take them either. it is Britain however who questions their treatment...yet they won't take them. Just typical of the double talk when it comes to Guantanamo.

such a horrendous place...but...better there than here.
So what you're saying is... You can't back up your claim?

And don't try to shift responsibility. It's the responsibility of the US government, if they are to be returned they should return them to their home countries without demanding a costly 24 hours surveillance.

Here is a list of those detained from 2002 to 2006: (former and Current)

The List (transylvania music) (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2006/d20060515%20List.pdf)

over a couple hundred have already been released.


Captives told to Claim torture (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050531-121655-7932r.htm)


General Myerson on Conditions of Gitmo:

The main problem I see is that many people actually believe that Americans are torturing these people just for the sake of sadism. No, they have information that must be obtained and has helped our troops on the field repeatedly in learning ofleardership herarchies and how to reverse engineer one of their explosive devices. They are also enemies of America and must be kept out of the conflict in the meantime.

When arriving at Gitmo, all of them claim to be goat herders. Now some may be, and they are questions. But eventually it is found out who is really who. low level operatives are unmasked and soon those low level operatives actually turn out to be high level operatives. As each piece of the puzzle is put together, valuable intelligence for the miliitary is the result.

Many have been released from Gitmo and more will. But there is too much at stake here but to treat them as anything but enemy combatants in a time of war.
Bull. And another unlinked statement...

I never suggested anything like that. I said we should be more sensitive to their cultural practices. You're the one throwing out the accusations of terrorism and whatnot.
Um, to be fair, you did say...
Actually, we should behead a few of them and post it on the internet for even greater verisimilitude.
As serious as an angry imam denouncing the pope.

I never suggested anything like that. I said we should be more sensitive to their cultural practices. You're the one throwing out the accusations of terrorism and whatnot.
You are just mincing words and trying to wiggle of the hook. You say you are "serious" about beheading Muslims, so I will let your own words stand for what they are.

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826434&postcount=204

IMHO you are no better than your terrorist opponents. I don't see how any further debate on that aspect could possibly change my opinion.

This thread is the most apt at present for this pithy cartoon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_10192006_520.gif

They're the same people who decided that an 11 year old American born Indian was a terrorist suspect and potential suicide bomber because she was doing a school project on martyrs and deported her to India. You do the math.

Source?

Um, to be fair, you did say...

Did I mention terrorism? No I did not. It's everyone else that's equating muslims with terrorists.

You are just mincing words and trying to wiggle of the hook. You say you are "serious" about beheading Muslims, so I will let your own words stand for what they are.


I'm not on any hook. Your just attacking me because I rightly pointed out that you are the one that automatically connected islam and terrorism. Not me.

The early days of Gitmo had prisoners numbering in the hundreds and close to the thousands did it not?

Right. And now there are 435, of which 25% are trying to be patriated back to their own countries. Germany, Turkey, and the UK are refusing all of theirs!

And in your world, I assume that to solve the problem of a burning building, you napalm it?

No, of course not. But by the same token, we generally don't expect to find an internet wireless hotspot in the middle of a cow pasture, either. It's all a matter of logistics. I don't think that sorting the people in Afghanistan could have been done all that much better realisticially.

How about actually committing troops for once? How about not cutting and running away to fight some unrelated war elsewhere? How about being honest with the committments?

I don't know if the United States is your country, but it sure could do a hell lot better than the current standing with its crop of political elite.

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here, since the US has 12,000 soldiers in Afghanistan right now.

True.

My tone will stay belligerent as long as yours stays insulting. You want to argue substance, then do so. You want to cop a bitchy attitude towards others, I can out-bitch you all day long.

I await your apology. Make it a good one.

ROTFLMAO! I insult you (mildly) to show your tone is beligerant and you demand an apology from me FOR that before offering one?

You seem to have a history in the thread of demanding respect and not giving any. :rolleyes:

Did I mention terrorism? No I did not. It's everyone else that's equating muslims with terrorists.

Ah, so you feel that beheading people and putting it on the internet is an islamic society-thing, not a terrorist thing - and that we should behead some members of the islamic society?

:eek:
That's... freaky...

Right. And now there are 435, of which 25% are trying to be patriated back to their own countries. Germany, Turkey, and the UK are refusing all of theirs!

Link please? As far as I can tell, all the british citizens have been returned, there were never any german nationals there, and only one turk is left?
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/guantanamo/#united-kingdom

Ah, so you feel that beheading people and putting it on the internet is an islamic society-thing, not a terrorist thing - and that we should behead some members of the islamic society?

:eek:
That's... freaky...

I'm only going by what they do in saudi arabia, and used to do in afganistan.

No, of course not. But by the same token, we generally don't expect to find an internet wireless hotspot in the middle of a cow pasture, either. It's all a matter of logistics. I don't think that sorting the people in Afghanistan could have been done all that much better realisticially.

All logistics based arguments prove is that the current US administration doesn't give a rats ass over Afghanistan. Troop presence drastically fell to make up for an invasion of another Middle East country that you should know by now.


I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here, since the US has 12,000 soldiers in Afghanistan right now.

Compare that to invasion period troop presence and come back and talk to me.

I'm not on any hook. Your just attacking me because I rightly pointed out that you are the one that automatically connected islam and terrorism. Not me.
You are off your rocker my friend. I in no way equated Islam with terrorism.

You are the one that suggested beheading some Gitmo detainees, who have as you know have been accused of terrorists acts. That is what I was referring to when I suggested that you were no better than your terrorist opponents.

BTW, for your information, France used the guillotine up to 1981, Germany 1949, and of particular interest was this article from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine):

in 1996 Georgia state legislator Doug Teper proposed the guillotine as a replacement for the electric chair as the state's method of execution to enable the convicts to act as organ donors. The proposal was never adopted.
Now get back on your hook where you belong.

I'm only going by what they do in saudi arabia, and used to do in afganistan.

Difference being of course that the authorities in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan didn't behead people before they were found guilty by a court and didn't put the video out on the internet?

...while you're talking about beheading suspects, not convicted people...

ROTFLMAO! I insult you (mildly) to show your tone is beligerant and you demand an apology from me FOR that before offering one?

You seem to have a history in the thread of demanding respect and not giving any. :rolleyes:
Show me where I personally insulted you. Show me where I called Daemonacracy stupid for holding his opinions, even though I attacked his opinions. Do you understand the difference between attacking an argument and attacking a person? Apparently not. Nobody has to apologize for being an aggressive debater, but nobody has an excuse for personally insulting their debate opponents.

The bottom line is that a personal insult is not an argument. If all you can do is call your opponents stupid and demand that they apologize for showing the flaws in your so-called arguments, then you really don't have much to add to this debate. Why don't you take a break and see if there's anyone out there who can come up with an actual argument in support of your position, since you can't?

I'm only going by what they do in saudi arabia, and used to do in afganistan.

No, what you are doing is exactly what Gravlen thought you were doing -- proposing to do the same thing your enemies do, but claiming that this somehow does not make you the same as your enemies.

All logistics based arguments prove is that the current US administration doesn't give a rats ass over Afghanistan. Troop presence drastically fell to make up for an invasion of another Middle East country that you should know by now.

I don't disagree that Afghanistan hasn't gotten as much support as it should have. Far from it. I'm just pointing out that I don't think that the job of sorting out the prisoners with what infrastructure was at hand.

Compare that to invasion period troop presence and come back and talk to me.

AFAIK, the DoD never released exactly how many US troops went into Afghanistan, but I've read estimates at around 18,000.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sick010.gif

So what you're saying is... You can't back up your claim?

And don't try to shift responsibility. It's the responsibility of the US government, if they are to be returned they should return them to their home countries without demanding a costly 24 hours surveillance.

Bull. And another unlinked statement...


Um, to be fair, you did say...


OK, i just noticed this response.

First of all, if a country wants a prisoner to be released and the US feels they are still a threat, than they should provide the damn surveillance needed to make sure they don't start any trouble. OR ELSE THEY STAY IN GITMO. PERIOD. Is it really that hard for you to understand?

and what is with the "Bull" remark? I present you with links and a direct quote from General Myers and you just shrug it off as Bull? You are just as childish and allergic to facts and dissenting opinions as the many other ideologues on this board.

wake up little boy. :rolleyes:

OK, i just noticed this response.
Good for you.


First of all, if a country wants a prisoner to be released and the US feels they are still a threat, than they should provide the damn surveillance needed to make sure they don't start any trouble. OR ELSE THEY STAY IN GITMO. PERIOD. Is it really that hard for you to understand?
Yes - because you're just being silly. It's an American mess, so the US has to clean it up themselves and not try to shift responsibility.

The british complain about the lack of due process and the conditions under which the detainees are held, and they want the prisoners to be released back to their home countries. They are not responsible in any way for the prisoners who are not their nationals - but they are free to point out the serious flaws in the american system of "illegal combatants", and to demand that the US lives up to its international obligations.

Why don't the US authorities send them home instead? Or give them a fair trial? Or, if they deem it adequate, release them on the US mainland and provide 24 hour surveillance themselves?

You make a point, though, however unintentional: How dangerous can they be if the US would agree to release them to the british? Why do they have to be kept at Guantanamo? There doesn't appear to be any reason for it anymore.

and what is with the "Bull" remark? I present you with links and a direct quote from General Myers and you just shrug it off as Bull? You are just as childish and allergic to facts and dissenting opinions as the many other ideologues on this board.

wake up little boy. :rolleyes:
Oh hush child.

I was sick and didn't feel like typing too much.

You claim it to be a quote by "General Myerson on Conditions of Gitmo" [sic], yet you provide no link to his quote.

And the entire "there is too much at stake here but to treat them as anything but enemy combatants in a time of war" is utter bullshit. You can treat them as criminals, or you can treat them as POW. It is doable. And I see no justification for holding innocent "goat herders" for years on end at all.

And your link to the claim that AQ-operatives are trained to lie doesn't prove a damn thing considering that people released has repeated those claims - people not found to be members of AQ.

So take your tantrum elsewhere and bring back provable facts, mmm'Kay? There's a good lad.