Topic awaiting preservation: Guantanamo Bay? (Page 1 of 1)

Exactly how long can this go on?

The latest development appears to be that it appears there are children as young as 13 being held there:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,942310,00.html

[edit: and also:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,941875,00.html ]

[edit2: The Human Rights Watch organisation is followin the issues raised here:
www.hrw.org/campaigns/september11/

including allegations of 'torture lite']

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

And I posted this a while ago in another thread:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html

quote:

---

His [Rumsfeld's] prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention [the Geneva Convention]. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).

They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever". In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as "torture lite": sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery.

The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.

Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights.

---

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Heh. You didn't really expect Mr. Bush and his administration to be nice, now, did you Emps? I mean, they really believe that they are right...and thus, any type of behavior is ok, as long as the end justifies the means...and we all know that Mr. Rumsfeld is a dirty rotten scoundrel...

Who do you hope to persuade with this? I already knew it...and is just one of the many reasons I am against Mr. Bush and his administration...and I don't think you're going to be able to persuade Bugs to abandon his support...though I sincerely hope Bugs does not support this...I can't reconcile how a moral position can be held while allowing this.

Though I am happy that you posted it...most non-bushies already know it...at least, I would hope so...don't know how much information is actually getting out to the Americans, these days...at least here in Germany, we get a lot of this kind of news on TV...I just don't see this persuading any 'Bush-mongers' of changing their minds, or opinions...or of withdrawing their support. As with all tyrants, the evils only come out later...much later...and then everyone screams 'We didn't know! We were lied to!'

How about the plans that were drawn up, to remove the palestinians from their land? That one sure is scary...where are they then supposed to go? It leaves the question wide open, doesn't it? In fact, supporting what Israel is now doing, is just...hard to believe, really. But Mr. Bush aparently doesn't have a problem with it...he sure sleeps well at night...

It all is pretty insane, isn't it? Personally, my heart goes out to those soldiers doing guard duty and interrogation...it must be a horrible experience...

Well, on second thought, I guess it is just more evidence undermining the legitimacy of the Bush Presidency...and the methods he is willing to use (throw out international rules...who needs them? Oh wait! We do...hehe...when Iraq is dragging our soldiers through the streets...wait, that was Somalia...I mean, showing them on TV...whoops! We do that too...heh. Yes, but they are not us...we are right! We are good! Ahh...be quiet! We'll bomb your TV stations...and shoot up your reporters...). I wonder just how much control Mr. Bush has over Mr. Rumsfeld, these days...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-24-2003).]

WS:

quote:

---

Who do you hope to persuade with this?

---

I don't know but the news about the children just really ticked me off - I suppose if enough Americans were digusted about the kind of things that were being carried out in their name then they might do something about it but........

And that last paragraph suggests you either need more coffee or less

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Hehe...yup. Sorry about that...and it irritates the f**k out of me, as well...but I'll be taking my emotions with me to the polls...

For the life of me, I really don't understand how someone can be a supporter of Mr. Bush and his administration...especially with all these things coming out...and with the existing track record...oh well...

And for the record

The Bush administration seems able to get the american public to turn a blind eye to just about anything, simply by using the word "Terrorisim" to elicit an emotional response. Very sad indeed.

I am especially appalled (but not surprised) by the statments about how since Guantanamo is not US soil, and these are not US citizens, they do not have to be treated humanely. How is this different from the way Sadam had facilities set up to get information and cooperation out of people ?

What is next in this "War on Terrorisim"? Will Bush appoint him self our leader for life, in order to 'protect' America?
Will our cities have statues of George W. smiling benevolently down at us, and special camps for those who disagree with his methods?

quote:

---

I suppose if enough Americans were disgusted about the kind of things carried out in our names..etc

---

Emp many of us are disgusted by this issue and so many other issues regarding this administration. I am sickened by what is happening with the children. I do not believe it is right.

In fact I had no love for Bush & Company before they were selected/elected. I had the opportunity to hear John Mccain while in New England..even though we are on opposite sides of the aisle and I didn't agree with everything he saying.. I thought this is a good man. (lately he has become quite the hawk though) I was a recipient of one of the flyers regarding McCain....it said he was not to be trusted because of his former pow status and his "temper". It inferred there was something wrong with him mentally. I also received phone calls re: him which when I * *69 gave me a hello from republican headquarters.This is how the Republican party treats a bona fide war hero?

When I heard the news we were upset about the "parading" of our pow's I thought; hey we did the same it is the usual hypocrisy eh? I have followed what this administration says and their actions. .......I'm totally amazed most of the time that Rumsfeld and Bush get away with what they do.. and I blame the media. Bush comes on t.v. and says things such as this is what the American people want etc..huh?
.I am so tired hearing this.....and people go along with it....without question.
I do not believe the polls either.

I was on a site where they had Bush entwined with the coming of Christ and they were saying God sent him to save us ... They also said upon Bush's arrival in Israel, tht he said he felt his feet were in the homeland.....he is more of a fundamentalist then he lets on..

Are people in America in shock ? Or are we the United States of Amnesia as Gore Vidal says. I think we are. (some of us)

WS - I'm with you I will be at the polls voting for the end of this administration. Then again I don't have alot of faith after the last election.

"whenever I find myself on the side of the majority, I pause and reflect. " Mark Twain

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-25-2003).]

I have no blind eyes. i don't like him and I'm not going to vote for him. I didn't vote for him in the first pace because I saw this coming a long time ago. Not specifically mind you, but the Republican potential for a "Wag the Dog" mentality has been evident since the Reagan administration. I think this war should have happened and I sincerely hope that it is supported by the evidence we find (real or not) for the sake of world politics. I just wish Bush wasn't leading the charge. At this point I begin to wonder if my original position on 'Bush is better than Gore' in this situation holds any water anymore. I honestly thought Bush would handle this better than he has. Maybe I misjudged them both. Maybe this situation would have brought out the President in Gore. Made him a President that had the nuts to tell everyone what needed to be done and in no uncertain terms brought things about to a more definitive end instead of possibly prolonging this in a political campaign across the globe.

Or maybe not...

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

The last time I had my eyes checked, they were fine too. While I am concerned about the camp, I have to bring up that question I always do, which is what is the alternative? I think the children should be moved out to another justice system but I have serious misgivings about doing it for the adult combatants.

The reason I have a problem with letting them go, is because that is precisely what would happen. We would be completely unable to learn anything from them about their ties to international terrorism. If any of you can explain how that would not happen, then I am all ears.

Remember that these prisoners were not captured during our illegal invasion of Iraq but under our highly justified but still illegal attack on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The fighters in that conflict were not fighting for any nationality but for an international terrorist organization. It is a very different type of conflict than what we have all been accustomed to a la nation vs. nation.

Anyway, I'm not comfortable with having them there and I'm not comfortable with letting them go their merry way. So someone please give me a better plan.

Why so much political correctness??? Why does no one have the balls to say how it is?

The president of the United States is an evil ******* and his cabinet a brood of devils. "In God he trusts?" An Anti-Christ if ever there was one. (don't take me literally there) There is nothing else to say about it. All this postulating and prancing with words and intelectualising the historical this and the philosophy of that is all bollocks and chasing after the wind. If all these situations and machinations that that system employs don't rouse your passions and anger then something must be seriously wrong with your conciences and hearts. I find the whole situation extremely disturbing and the lighthearted calmness and detatchment of some people sickening.


...xpi...

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-25-2003).]

ROTFL!!

Thanks for the insult. Just because I'm not a fanatic about not liking Bush doesn't make me a pansey. Nor does not liking Bush make HIM anything more than a stupid asshole. Devil... Anti-Christ... LOL... I'd have to believe in them first... Of course... I'd also have to believe in good and evil, right and wrong, black and white.... but you know... litlle things really.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

LMBO!!!

There are certainly things that do arouse my emotions and anger to a high level. Incarcerating terrorists who wouldn't flinch at cutting the throat of my baby girl let alone me or the rest of my family isn't one of them.

There are a good number of other things that get me upset far more than this and most of them have to do with the oppression of *innocent* human beings. I find those to be far more pressing than whether or not Al Qaeda militants eat Fruit Loops for breakfast or have to live in Cuba for a few years with some of the tamest captors they could ever hope to be held by. I bet you any money that the inmates of the filthy prisons just across the fence in Castro's paradise would choose Guantanamo conditions any day over there miserable conditions.

So read what I say and don't think I just excused the entire operation... I just put it in perspective.

Hmmm...ok, realistic analysis...the coming 'age' of a child is interpreted much differently from society to society...what we say is still a child, in other societies is a Man...or woman. That is something that the 'useless'examining of history and sociology brings us...

Now, the indoctrination of children, into whatever belief system, is for me repugnant. That said, it is hard to tell, with the given evidence, if these children were really involved in the actual fighting, terrorist activities, etc. I suspect that they were. Children are especially vulnerable to brainwashing...we see this everyday in the ghettos of America...as anyone would know, who has lived in some of them. They also make great weapons...if one is willing to use them as such...at ages of 13-16, the fear (or actual realization) of death, is pretty much lacking...and because most militaries are hesitant to kill children on sight...Vietnam taught us much, along these lines...

However, I sincerely doubt that these children really have any information that we need...they wouldn't normally be involved in any 'decision' making...so I would suggest turning them over to a moderate Cleric of Islam, for re-programming. Maybe not the best solution...but perhaps a viable one?

As for the moral question...well, war is hell...literally. And the war on terrorism will be (and is) nasty, indeed...definitely not for the faint at heart...

I really dislike bleeding-heart liberals...'the poor children'...yes, of course...but these 'children' were more than willing, to kill...one cannot just release them, they'll just turn around and bite the hand that freed them. However, I don't think that detaining them for prolonged periods of time, and interrogating them is going to produce anything but more hatred...they need to be seperated from the system that produced, and used them...at this point, I see no system in place to deal with this...and that is worrisome. That is one of the reasons why I condemn Mr. Bush and his administration...they don't seem to be well prepared to wage this war...or any war, for that matter...the planning is shoddy, often made up on the spot, or totally lacking. It seems to be one of 'mislead the public, for as long as possible, until we think up a plan'. There may well be planning, but we don't seem to be very well informed of it, now do we? Thus, it is hard to hold anyone accountable...for we are not aware of what (and who) should be held accountable...

And then the thing gets into the Media...and Mr. Bush is forced to 'back-pedal'...here comes another bamboozle...or a half-baked 'plan' on what to do...in DLs words, I'm totally confused...I have no idea of what Mr. Bush and his administration is really trying to do...sometimes I think they don't either.

I think I'm getting rather tired of living in this world of confusion...thus, next time at the polls, I'll be making my voice heard. Mr. Bush made the worst mistake (to me) by saying, on the record, that he isn't accountable...i.e. he doesn't owe anyone an explanation...well, Mr. Bush, we will see in the next election whether or not that is true...

Certainly, there are things that the public doesn't (and shouldn't) know...but...when it comes to war...I think the public does have a right to know. Maybe I'm just a bit disgruntled, because I used to have have access to this type of information, on a daily basis...and I don't now. Could be. Be that as it may, I find many reasons not to be happy with Mr. Bush and his administration...so, they have got to go.

And yes, I do consider myself somewhat damaged...comes with the territory...

Bugs: But this is precisely what has been worrying a lot of people in the US: detention without trial, incarceration without limits, etc. What if they decided you were a threat? They don't actually require evidence and they don't even have to list who is still detained. I'm sure your family and friends would be up in arms and campaign for your release - but these are poor Afghans miles from home without the support you have.

I was going to drop the 'and then they came for me' bit in again but this might be more appropriate:
www.janrainwater.com/htdocs/Rohde.htm

You said this:

quote:

---

There are certainly things that do arouse my emotions and anger to a high level. Incarcerating terrorists who wouldn't flinch at cutting the throat of my baby girl let alone me or the rest of my family isn't one of them.

There are a good number of other things that get me upset far more than this and most of them have to do with the oppression of *innocent* human beings.

---

but they haven't been charged with any crimes let alone convicted and we have no way of knowning their crimes? I thought it was 'innocent until proven guilty'. Are you just relying on the say so of your government that they are guilty? It would be the first time I'd seen you fold so easily in the face of the State. Are you 100% confident that 100% of the people detained are 'guilty'? With that number of people I'd bet that there are innocent people in there......

You ancestors fought for the freedoms available in the Land of the Free - are we now going to decide who is due these freedoms? Its a dangerous precedent.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

^ yes.

The more important issue, bugs, is a matter of human rights, with some pretty significant possible consequences.

You would keep them there even though they have not been charged with any crime simply for the sake of your comfort?

That notion scares the hell out of me! What's next? How far does this go? Before long, anyone stepping out of line will be jailed and exterminated as we sit oblivious in our houses unaware what's really going on in the rest of the world. or why the rest of the world hates us...beleiving whatever the parlor walls tell us

people hate us?? we're america....i thought EVERYONE loved us?? at least that's what i heard on tv!

bummer

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Just because we haven't titled what they've done doesn't mean they haven't doen anything. Being militant and intending/attempting to injure Coalition soldiers is guilt enough. They aren't prisoners of war because we aren't at 'war'. Hence, the designation of 'detainies'. Is it necessary? I don't know. It's very possible that it is. It's very possible that it isn't. Do you know?

Charge them with crimes? We can't charge them with crimes. They aren't our citizens. All we can do is deal with them on the terms that they chose when they became/were forced to be soldiers of the enemy.

We could do lots of things to 'save face' here. Would it be prudent? Maybe, but probably not in my estimation. There are too many if's, what's, and or's here to make any 'real' judgement.

The duplicity of the Bush administration is astounding. This 'action' should have been done much better and much more cleanly. This is just further example of how things are a biggger problem then they have to be. Was this an actual war (stupid semantics if you ask me) these 'detainies' would be POW's. Very strict rules and precedents on how to treat POW's (not that coalition POW's expect to recieve said treatment). Easy to define and easy to follow. This is nowhere land for everyone as it is now.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

GrythusDraconis: hey I was not insulting you.. I would not do that, I have no reason to, nothing is personal friend...


...xpi...


"nuff said"

quote:

---

Just because we haven't titled what they've done doesn't mean they haven't doen anything. Being militant and intending/attempting to injure Coalition soldiers is guilt enough. They aren't prisoners of war because we aren't at 'war'. Hence, the designation of 'detainies'. Is it necessary? I don't know. It's very possible that it is. It's very possible that it isn't. Do you know?

Charge them with crimes? We can't charge them with crimes. They aren't our citizens. All we can do is deal with them on the terms that they chose when they became/were forced to be soldiers of the enemy.

---

Just be very clear about the fact that precisely the same argumentation could be used to deny any captured US soldier humane treatment according to the conventions. I realize that this may happen anyway, but by this argumentation, it would be totally acceptable, as opposed to being a war crime.
Remember, "war" was never declared on Iraq, much less the countless other places where the US have "intervened" in the las 50 years . And even if it was, you know, they chose the terms, when they joined your armed forces with the intention of harming enemy troops...

GD : Do you actually consider insulting a soldier is guilty enough to be worth years at Guantanamo without any judgement ? If so, I can only say that kind of selfishness makes me want to puke... Being the masters in Iraq does not allow the USA rights they don't have. If this kind of politic was applied, then tomorrow you will have to make prisonners in the whole globe to sent in Guantanamo all the people that once insulted America. And I don't even speak about Mr. Bush... Actually this jail will become a bit small, don't you think ?

Just two quotes : "They aren't prisoners of war because we aren't at 'war'"
"All we can do is deal with them on the terms that they chose when they became/were forced to be soldiers of the enemy."

Forgive me, forgive my poor english level, but aren't you trying to play with the words ? If my understanding of your post is correct, you first said you weren't at war so these prisoners are not war prisoners. Right. In this case, tell me what is the right that allows the USA to send them in jail in the USA ? But then, if you consider the Iraqi soldier as an ennemy, you reconize that was a real war, so the first statement is false...

The judging system in the USA scares me... No Emperor, 'innocent until proven guilty' is an European value. I was ever told that in the USA people have to prove their innocence. Now, I don't know whether if this right or false, please correct me if I am wrong.



_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

Yeah, sure why the hell not...we invade them illegally, we may as well take them prisoner illeglly too, and continue to treat them in an illegal manner.

I mean, just because we're destroying other nations based on them not following the rules...why does that mean *we* have to follow them??

This is an old question of ethic DL-44.

For example, if someone does to you something bad, does that mean you have the right to answer him by the same bad means ?

Yes, you can DL. But this is a ethic question, and I can't choose for you. If you did that, you wouldn't be better than the one that did you a bad thing. Finding the appropriate is a better challenge than a blind retaliate.

Our case is the same : I agree, nothing will force the USA to respect these rules. But as the result don't be surprised if the consideration people have for the USA is diminishing after this. By not respecting certain rules like these countries, the USA can't actually claim they are better.

Edit : improving my weird way of writing.

_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 04-27-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 04-27-2003).]