PDA

View Full Version : How much compensation should the freed Gitmo captives receive?



Sparafucile
12-01-2005, 15:47
Four Brits and One Australian are about to be freed from the Guantanamo Bay "facility".

In the three years of their captivity, they have not been charged with a single offence. Nor does the United States now apparently find any use for them in the collecting of information.

Bear this in mind when you answer: with the exception of the native Russians who are members here, we are, most of us, foreigners living in another country, for reasons of our own. For some of the Guantanamo prisoners, that was the SOLE justification for their arrest and detention.

How much is an adequate sum of compensation for wrongful detention of this kind - considering the circumstances of their detention, which were such that they had to be held offshore on Cuba, as US Law forbids such circumstances?

J.D.
12-01-2005, 17:25
I feel that there are two reasons to 'pay' them. First as compensation and second as a penalty to the captors. Now it is not possible to set the amount high enough to penalize the captors so it should be at least as much as the U.S. is paying "private security" forces to go to Iraq.
But I would rather see the responsible individuals taken before the Hague. Of course I believe that the U.S. should first be given the chance to prosecute the responsible individuals themselves.

Ghost
12-01-2005, 18:08
While I agree that compensation is in order (as well as prosecution for those who incarcerated them - and pardon me if I spelled that wrong), I've heard so much about how nice "prisoners" there were treated. Many of them received education that they never had the opportunity for before, and lived in arrangements FAR better than they had when they were in their home.

It's not like the guy who was released from jail in Florida after a court found him innocent when new DNA evidence was submitted. "Oh, you already served 22 years? Sorry!"

That's total bullshit.

Sadie
12-01-2005, 18:31
.. I've heard so much about how nice "prisoners" there were treated. Many of them received education that they never had the opportunity for before, and lived in arrangements FAR better than they had when they were in their home.

blin, wanna go to Guantanamo toooooooO!! :cry: anybody else? plus the weather is always nice :(

Ghost
12-01-2005, 18:49
Sure, sign me up! I think they have a Club Hedonism on base there.

zcyka
13-01-2005, 05:08
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's called Hedo - IV! ;)

Shaun
13-01-2005, 10:34
Originally posted by Ghost
I've heard so much about how nice "prisoners" there were treated. Many of them received education that they never had the opportunity for before, and lived in arrangements FAR better than they had when they were in their home.



I dont know where you've been reading this? All I have been reading about is people being chained up, beaten, and tortured. of course, most of this comes from uncorroborated accounts from the prisoners, but not all. there has been some really horrific info about the way people have been treated in there, especially given that it really does seem the vast majority of captives in there were just people in the wrong place at the wrong time.


By the way, on a semi-related note, this I found yesterday in a report about one of the trials just starting over the Abu Ghraib abuses:

He compared pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners in a human pyramid to cheerleaders at US sports events, who form pyramids "all over America".

"Is that torture?" he asked, opening Spc Graner's defence on Monday.


Have to say, it sounds like a pretty watertight defence to me...

Ned Kelly
13-01-2005, 10:50
i read that a couple of the russians held and then released said the conditions/treatment were the best they'd had in their lives - well in advance of home! [ducks incoming]

jheisel
13-01-2005, 11:21
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
i read that a couple of the russians held and then released said the conditions/treatment were the best they'd had in their lives - well in advance of home! [ducks incoming]

Hope you're not planning a visa renewal anytime soon!

Ned Kelly
13-01-2005, 11:23
shit, forgot about that!

85StoneWhiteFurball
13-01-2005, 11:32
Now that I finally know who Ned Kelly was :), I think that a visa application under that name would be rejected in any event - deceased Australian hoodlums are not granted visas last time I checked :p.

koba65
13-01-2005, 11:56
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
i read that a couple of the russians held and then released said the conditions/treatment were the best they'd had in their lives - well in advance of home! [ducks incoming]

From the Beeb: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3135447.stm)

"
Russians prefer Guantanamo Bay to a Russian prison
A Russian citizen held at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has said he is afraid to return home because prison conditions there are far worse.
"I don't think there is even a sanatorium in Russia that would compare to this," Ayrat Vakhitov said in a letter to his mother published by Russia's Gazeta newspaper.


"Nobody is being beaten or humiliated," he wrote"

Ned Kelly
13-01-2005, 11:57
what are you gabbling about now?

honestly man, if visas were decided on verbal diarrhoea you'd be a flyblown furball floating stateless on the high sea for eternity!

Ned Kelly
13-01-2005, 11:59
Originally posted by koba65

Russians prefer Guantanamo Bay to a Russian prison
A Russian citizen held at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has said he is afraid to return home because prison conditions there are far worse.
"I don't think there is even a sanatorium in Russia that would compare to this," Ayrat Vakhitov said in a letter to his mother published by Russia's Gazeta newspaper.


"Nobody is being beaten or humiliated," he wrote"

clever aren't you koba? put it all in quotes and blame it on the godb*****d beeb!

koba65
13-01-2005, 12:04
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
clever aren't you koba? put it all in quotes and blame it on the godb*****d beeb!

Damn! I've been rumbled...

85StoneWhiteFurball
13-01-2005, 12:23
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
what are you gabbling about now?

honestly man, if visas were decided on verbal diarrhoea you'd be a flyblown furball floating stateless on the high sea for eternity!

Dumbing it down so that even an Aussie can understand:

I am saying that we can post whatever we want under our aliases and not worry about prosecution (or persecution) because none of us is dumb enough to apply for a visa under our login name. Then again, maybe you are the exception :p!

koba65
13-01-2005, 12:40
Originally posted by 85StoneWhiteFurball
Dumbing it down so that even an Aussie can understand:

I am saying that we can post whatever we want under our aliases and not worry about prosecution (or persecution) because none of us is dumb enough to apply for a visa under our login name. Then again, maybe you are the one exception :p!


True, in principle, unless some big furball was to have his own blog that can be traced to his IP address, that can be traced to his cave (or whatever it is that Polar Bears live in!)...... ;)

Ned Kelly
13-01-2005, 12:45
anyway, back to Sparafucile's original question. my anger is directed more at the australian government for not insisting on the return of a citizen than anything else.. they're horrible toadies.

americans can worry about the damage they've inflicted on their legal system and international reputation themselves.

furball, you're a nong; and you don't need to write one when referring to the exception. you're more goose than polar bear.

85StoneWhiteFurball
13-01-2005, 12:49
My IP address changes daily, and there is little in that blog which constitutes sedition or disrespect, unless poorly run supermarkets and scamming perfumeries are considered cultural icons here (not the case since Soviet times :))

85StoneWhiteFurball
13-01-2005, 12:50
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
nong

May I remind you that this is an English language forum?

Ghost
13-01-2005, 13:04
Originally posted by Shaun
I dont know where you've been reading this? All I have been reading about is people being chained up, beaten, and tortured. of course, most of this comes from uncorroborated accounts from the prisoners, but not all. there has been some really horrific info about the way people have been treated in there, especially given that it really does seem the vast majority of captives in there were just people in the wrong place at the wrong time.


By the way, on a semi-related note, this I found yesterday in a report about one of the trials just starting over the Abu Ghraib abuses:

He compared pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners in a human pyramid to cheerleaders at US sports events, who form pyramids "all over America".

"Is that torture?" he asked, opening Spc Graner's defence on Monday.


Have to say, it sounds like a pretty watertight defence to me...

Abu Ghraib is slightly different. I saw a 60 minutes special (almost positive it was 60 Minutes) where they interviewed two Iraqi prisoners that were released. Both of them said that, of course it was a prison, but they were treated very well, and one of them learned to read while in "prison".

sorry if you dont agree.

Shaun
13-01-2005, 13:28
Stafford Smith has drawn up a 30-page report on the tortures which Begg and Belmar say they have endured, and sent it as an annexe with a letter to the Prime Minister which Downing Street received shortly before Christmas. For the time being - possibly forever - the report cannot be published, because the Americans claim that the torture allegations amount to descriptions of classified interrogation methods.

However, Stafford Smith's letter to Tony Blair - which has been declassified - says that on his visit to the Guantanamo prisoners, he heard 'credible and consistent evidence that both men have been savagely tortured at the hands of the United States' with Begg having suffered not only physical but 'sexual abuse' which has had 'mental health consequences'.

Thousands of documents obtained last month under the US Freedom of Information Act by the American Civil Liberties Union support the claims of torture at Guantanamo, which has apparently continued long after the publication last April of photographs of detainees being abused at the US-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. They include memos and emails to superiors by FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency officers, who say they were appalled by the methods being used by the young military interrogators at Guantanamo.

According to the memos, the abuse was 'systematic', with frequent beatings, chokings, and sleep deprivation for days on end. Religious humiliation was also routine, with one agent reporting a case in which a prisoner was wrapped in an Israeli flag.

'On a couple of occasions I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a foetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water,' an anonymous FBI agent wrote on 2 August. 'Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 to 24 hours or more.'

Reports of identical treatment were first published by The Observer last March, in interviews with three British detainees who had been released - Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed. They were then strenuously denied by the Pentagon. But according to another FBI memo dated 10 May, when an agent asked Guantanamo's former commander, Major General Geoffrey Miller, about techniques the FBI regarded as illegal, he was told that the interrogators 'had their marching orders from the Sec[retary] Def[ense]', Donald Rumsfeld. General Miller told the US Congress under oath that although Rumsfeld had authorised the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners at Guantanamo, this had never happened. According to the memos, this was inaccurate.


In a second letter, to the Foreign Office minister Baroness Symons, Stafford Smith suggests that Britain's complicity in abusive techniques at both Guantanamo and Afghanistan, where Begg and Belmar were held before being taken to Cuba, is wider than previously thought.

Begg and Belmar, he writes, were both questioned by an MI5 officer who gave his name as 'Andrew', while they were being abused by Americans both in Afghanistan and Guantanamo. According to the letter, 'he was the one who told Mr Begg that the more Mr Begg (falsely) said he was guilty of something, the quicker he would get home. Andrew was also the one who said that he would not comply with both of my clients' requests for consular notification, as well as Mr Begg's requests to learn whether his pregnant wife, Sally, and their three children were safe in Pakistan.' Stafford Smith is asking for Andrew's full name and access to him, to assist his client's defence.

Having fled Afghanistan where he had been trying to set up a school before the war against the Taliban began in October 2001, Begg was abducted by American agents from the house the family was renting in Islamabad.

Belmar was captured after attending a religious school for a few weeks before the 11 September terrorist attacks. An FBI source who personally questioned him before he was sent to Guantanamo has told The Observer he recommended his immediate release because he had 'no involvement' with terrorism, but was overruled by MI5.

Stafford Smith says in his letter to Baroness Symons that Begg made a false written confession after being tortured in February 2003, when two agents who had abused him at Bagram - where Begg witnessed the deaths of two prisoners officially classed as homicide - came to Guantanamo. But neither he nor Stafford Smith have been allowed to see this statement, which apparently forms the main grounds for his continued incarceration. Stafford Smith asks the Foreign Office for help in obtaining a copy, and asks: 'What kind of civilised legal system does not allow the suspect to see his own statements? How can the prisoner's statement be said to be classified information when, if it were true, the prisoner would already know it?'

Last night the Foreign Office said 'we are trying to do our utmost' for the four British detainees while 'we take every allegation of torture seriously'. The request for information about the MI5 man would be considered.

koba65
13-01-2005, 14:38
Originally posted by Shaun
Stafford Smith has drawn up a 30-page report on the tortures which Begg and Belmar say they have endured, and sent it as an annexe with a letter to the Prime Minister which Downing Street received shortly before Christmas. For the time being - possibly forever - the report cannot be published, because the Americans claim that the torture allegations amount to descriptions of classified interrogation methods.

However, Stafford Smith's letter to Tony Blair - which has been declassified - says that on his visit to the Guantanamo prisoners, he heard 'credible and consistent evidence that both men have been savagely tortured at the hands of the United States' with Begg having suffered not only physical but 'sexual abuse' which has had 'mental health consequences'.

Thousands of documents obtained last month under the US Freedom of Information Act by the American Civil Liberties Union support the claims of torture at Guantanamo, which has apparently continued long after the publication last April of photographs of detainees being abused at the US-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. They include memos and emails to superiors by FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency officers, who say they were appalled by the methods being used by the young military interrogators at Guantanamo.

According to the memos, the abuse was 'systematic', with frequent beatings, chokings, and sleep deprivation for days on end. Religious humiliation was also routine, with one agent reporting a case in which a prisoner was wrapped in an Israeli flag.

'On a couple of occasions I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a foetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water,' an anonymous FBI agent wrote on 2 August. 'Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 to 24 hours or more.'

Reports of identical treatment were first published by The Observer last March, in interviews with three British detainees who had been released - Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed. They were then strenuously denied by the Pentagon. But according to another FBI memo dated 10 May, when an agent asked Guantanamo's former commander, Major General Geoffrey Miller, about techniques the FBI regarded as illegal, he was told that the interrogators 'had their marching orders from the Sec[retary] Def[ense]', Donald Rumsfeld. General Miller told the US Congress under oath that although Rumsfeld had authorised the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners at Guantanamo, this had never happened. According to the memos, this was inaccurate.


In a second letter, to the Foreign Office minister Baroness Symons, Stafford Smith suggests that Britain's complicity in abusive techniques at both Guantanamo and Afghanistan, where Begg and Belmar were held before being taken to Cuba, is wider than previously thought.

Begg and Belmar, he writes, were both questioned by an MI5 officer who gave his name as 'Andrew', while they were being abused by Americans both in Afghanistan and Guantanamo. According to the letter, 'he was the one who told Mr Begg that the more Mr Begg (falsely) said he was guilty of something, the quicker he would get home. Andrew was also the one who said that he would not comply with both of my clients' requests for consular notification, as well as Mr Begg's requests to learn whether his pregnant wife, Sally, and their three children were safe in Pakistan.' Stafford Smith is asking for Andrew's full name and access to him, to assist his client's defence.

Having fled Afghanistan where he had been trying to set up a school before the war against the Taliban began in October 2001, Begg was abducted by American agents from the house the family was renting in Islamabad.

Belmar was captured after attending a religious school for a few weeks before the 11 September terrorist attacks. An FBI source who personally questioned him before he was sent to Guantanamo has told The Observer he recommended his immediate release because he had 'no involvement' with terrorism, but was overruled by MI5.

Stafford Smith says in his letter to Baroness Symons that Begg made a false written confession after being tortured in February 2003, when two agents who had abused him at Bagram - where Begg witnessed the deaths of two prisoners officially classed as homicide - came to Guantanamo. But neither he nor Stafford Smith have been allowed to see this statement, which apparently forms the main grounds for his continued incarceration. Stafford Smith asks the Foreign Office for help in obtaining a copy, and asks: 'What kind of civilised legal system does not allow the suspect to see his own statements? How can the prisoner's statement be said to be classified information when, if it were true, the prisoner would already know it?'

Last night the Foreign Office said 'we are trying to do our utmost' for the four British detainees while 'we take every allegation of torture seriously'. The request for information about the MI5 man would be considered.

Just keep in mind that former inmates just may have some motive to embellish harsh treatment (escape punishment at home and the desire to receive big $$$ in compensation). Not sure what to think about the whole issue until the truth is really known and not just allegations by former inmates (which seem to contradict what other former inmates have said). It is known that some of these so-called "illegally abducted" prisoners have attacked coalition forces in Afghanistan upon their return. One should also keep in mind that it was quite difficult to reside in the Taliban's Afghanistan unless you were completely on their side. Dissent was quelled and foreigners were closely watched. I don't buy the "I was just visiting Afghanistan as a tourist or something when I was snatched by the evil Americans"...

Shaun
13-01-2005, 15:24
Originally posted by koba65
I don't buy the "I was just visiting Afghanistan as a tourist or something when I was snatched by the evil Americans"...

agreed, but if you read carefully, you will find that at least one of these brits actually fled afghanistan after the taliban came to power and was seized from his house in islamabad.

i have no idea who is guilty of what and what said by whom may be true or false... i was just reacting with surprise at claims that the evidence pointed to guantanamo being some kind of butlins holiday camp...

Sadie
13-01-2005, 15:56
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
i read that a couple of the russians held and then released said the conditions/treatment were the best they'd had in their lives - well in advance of home! [ducks incoming]
Ned, I voobshe suggest they pay for their stay there :p Duraki, blin!
the place could be renamed into Gauntanama Resort or smth

Ned Kelly
13-01-2005, 16:02
better still, eastline could do charter flights out there offering the chance to: "beat the winter blues in an all expenses us government-funded junket to cuba"!

trebor
13-01-2005, 16:57
I'm in Australia right now and John Howard announced this morning "No compensation and no apologise". I Never saw him looking so determimed.
Also the Australian citizen who has been freed will still be under surveillance.
Well he did train In Afghanistan didn't he? So he's not totaly innocent is he?

Ned Kelly
13-01-2005, 17:24
i can think of better things to do in australia on a summer's day than watch john howard mumbling - you'd get more sense out of the swedish chef in the muppets!

koba65
13-01-2005, 21:47
Originally posted by trebor
I'm in Australia right now and John Howard announced this morning "No compensation and no apologise". I Never saw him looking so determimed.
Also the Australian citizen who has been freed will still be under surveillance.
Well he did train In Afghanistan didn't he? So he's not totaly innocent is he?


Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I'd want this guy walking about freely:

"Hicks attended al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan and allegedlu conducted surveillance of the US and British embassies in Kabul.

Prosecutors allege Hicks travelled to Afghanistan in January 2001 to attend a variety of al-Qaida training camps after allegedly joining a paramilitary organisation fighting for Albanian Muslims in Kosovo and an Islamist group in Pakistan.

Prosecutors also allege Hicks met with al-Qaida leaders including Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Ataf, and performed tasks including translating al-Qaida training materials from Arabic to English. "

But, hey, if you want him back and you want to compensate him, how 'bout letting him move in with ya? I'm sure he and his friends throw some great parties.....

Mookla
14-01-2005, 01:41
Lets compare the treatment of these folks to the treatment of western prisoners captured by those with alleged training in Afghanistan ... oh wait we cant ... they were all executed in front of a camera.

I guess thats a much better method no one seems to complain about that.

trebor
14-01-2005, 02:06
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
i can think of better things to do in australia on a summer's day than watch john howard mumbling - you'd get more sense out of the swedish chef in the muppets!

Ned you,ve obviously been hitting the vodka again:D
I said this morning and that meant 6.30am local time before setting off to Bondi:cool:

trebor
14-01-2005, 02:11
Originally posted by koba65
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I'd want this guy walking about freely:

"Hicks attended al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan and allegedlu conducted surveillance of the US and British embassies in Kabul.

Prosecutors allege Hicks travelled to Afghanistan in January 2001 to attend a variety of al-Qaida training camps after allegedly joining a paramilitary organisation fighting for Albanian Muslims in Kosovo and an Islamist group in Pakistan.

Prosecutors also allege Hicks met with al-Qaida leaders including Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Ataf, and performed tasks including translating al-Qaida training materials from Arabic to English. "

But, hey, if you want him back and you want to compensate him, how 'bout letting him move in with ya? I'm sure he and his friends throw some great parties.....

Hey, koba65
don't start mumbling now!
John Howard was awesome yesterday. The journalist hadn't even finished asking him the question and he came straight in.
"NO COMPENSATION NO APOLOGISE"
Refreshing to see a politician giving a straight answer for once.

koba65
14-01-2005, 06:58
Originally posted by trebor
Hey, koba65
don't start mumbling now!
John Howard was awesome yesterday. The journalist hadn't even finished asking him the question and he came straight in.
"NO COMPENSATION NO APOLOGISE"
Refreshing to see a politician giving a straight answer for once.

Mswem? Realmm? Dcokd? Hmmph? Actually, does anyone know if Hicks is the Aussie being released? I just can't see him being freed... I'm sure there are others there more deserving..

Ned Kelly
14-01-2005, 07:05
Originally posted by trebor
Refreshing to see a politician giving a straight answer for once.

the swine couldn't lie straight in bed!

get the to bondi, sinner!

Shaun
14-01-2005, 10:05
Originally posted by Mookla
Lets compare the treatment of these folks to the treatment of western prisoners captured by those with alleged training in Afghanistan ... oh wait we cant ... they were all executed in front of a camera.

I guess thats a much better method no one seems to complain about that.

yes, ive certainly never heard anyone complain about that.

widespread international condemnation, including in all islamic countries? err, hello???

trebor
14-01-2005, 13:44
Originally posted by koba65
Mswem? Realmm? Dcokd? Hmmph? Actually, does anyone know if Hicks is the Aussie being released? I just can't see him being freed... I'm sure there are others there more deserving..

Hicks is still in Quantanamo and has been charged. He's to appear in court in March. The other guy getting released (has a Muslim name i can't remember)should be back in Auzzie in the next week.
He can't be tried in Australia when he returns under their new terrorism laws which came into affect after 9/11 because he was a naughty boy prior to that.

I don't think any of them are deserving.:mad:

Ned Kelly
14-01-2005, 14:09
Originally posted by trebor
I don't think any of them are deserving.:mad:

you sound like an al-qaeda representative.

trebor
15-01-2005, 04:47
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
you sound like an al-qaeda representative.

..............and your sounding more and more like a drunk, burnt out jornalist.

Ned Kelly
15-01-2005, 09:11
perhaps, but what's your excuse for being on a computer writing to tell me about it in the middle of the day when you could be at the beach?

maddog
15-01-2005, 11:12
Under the "Terroist Act" the U.S. gov't can hold anyone at any time for as long as deemed necessary, without charges being filed. Correct??

koba65
15-01-2005, 11:54
Originally posted by maddog
Under the "Terroist Act" the U.S. gov't can hold anyone at any time for as long as deemed necessary, without charges being filed. Correct??

I think accused terrorists can be held (if not US citizens) indefinitely if they are deemed "enemy combatants" - a slippery slope, but once the tribunals start rolling perhaps we'll see what happens. One of the questions that concern quite a few (in the US and abroad) is the notion that if an enemy combatant is acquitted there are some in the Administration that say the laws of war allow them to hold said individuals if it is determined that they pose a threat to national security.

BTW, the "Terrorism Act" (2000) is a UK law..ours is called the "Anti-Terrorism Act"

trebor
15-01-2005, 12:02
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
perhaps, but what's your excuse for being on a computer writing to tell me about it in the middle of the day when you could be at the beach?

You realy are out of it you poor bast**d!
Never during the day. Only mornings and evenings. Sydney and the gold coast are 9 and 10 hours ahead respectivly..........................remember?:rolleyes: :D

J.D.
15-01-2005, 13:18
Originally posted by koba65
I think accused terrorists can be held (if not US citizens) indefinitely if they are deemed "enemy combatants" - a slippery slope, but once the tribunals start rolling perhaps we'll see what happens. One of the questions that concern quite a few (in the US and abroad) is the notion that if an enemy combatant is acquitted there are some in the Administration that say the laws of war allow them to hold said individuals if it is determined that they pose a threat to national security.

BTW, the "Terrorism Act" (2000) is a UK law..ours is called the "Anti-Terrorism Act"

Definitely a slippery slope. And the tribunals already started but were put on hold after a ruling came down from the supreme court. That was over a month ago, I haven't kept up with it. A federal court also threw out a 'security letter' from the FBI saying it had no place in the American system. I haven't heard about an appeal on that one. So maybe, just maybe, the courts will get us off this slippery slope.

Bluebird
16-01-2005, 12:15
Whether, these people, who were rounded up, when the US and co-elition forces went to Afghanistan are/were innocent or guilty of any political/terrorist activities is one thing.

Another thing is...who the hell, in his/her right mind, would've picked Afghanistan as a hiking or holiday destination, when the Taliban were at their height of power there, is completely beyond me.

So, what on earth were they doing there, in the first place...Soaking up the sun?

If, however, these people are completely innocent of any wrongdoing, then they should be awarded some form of compensation; regardless of the fact they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time, anyway.

trebor
16-01-2005, 14:24
Originally posted by Bluebird
Whether, these people, who were rounded up, when the US and co-elition forces went to Afghanistan are/were innocent or guilty of any political/terrorist activities is one thing.

Another thing is...who the hell, in his/her right mind, would've picked Afghanistan as a hiking or holiday destination, when the Taliban were at their height of power there, is completely beyond me.

So, what on earth were they doing there, in the first place...Soaking up the sun?

If, however, these people are completely innocent of any wrongdoing, then they should be awarded some form of compensation; regardless of the fact they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time, anyway.

Absolutely. Some were caught in Afghanistan and some in Pakistan. The gentleman getting released from Guantanamo and being returned to Australia was apprehended in Pakistan. Not lounging around his hotel pool or caught in his hiking boots exploring the Hindu Kush but with other known members of Al Quaida during a raid!
Listing to his lawyer tell it, you'd think he was wrongfully arrested while visiting his ailing granmother.

Ned Kelly
16-01-2005, 16:30
sydney is eight hours ahead. i know, i just rang a mate there to double-check what a nong you are.

even if it was 9 hours ahead you'd still be a nong. posting your tripe at ~4am moscow time would make it 13:00 in sydney.

the thing is, i am so hungover today that for a second i thought you were right and even wrote an apology. then i reread the "you are right trebor" line in my post and realised those four words just don't go together.

so i replaced them with "you are a donkey trebor", not as succinct but more accurate.

Claude Bottom
16-01-2005, 17:59
No trials, no published evidence, nothing, no legal representation- they'll probably get no compensation, as well. The only reason the camp will eventually be cleared is that the US is attempting to disengage from the "War Against Terror" and they're now an inconvenient embarrassment. Can you imagine the Allies releasing the Nuremburg prisoners because they wanted to be *nice* ? Either follow it through or drop it - and they seem to be dropping it, so that doesn't say much for the evidence probably available.

The evidence for the supposed terrorist leanings of these blokes is probably in a file under one of Saddams' chemical warheads. Pardon me for saying "boll8cks", but there y'go.

trebor
17-01-2005, 08:21
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
sydney is eight hours ahead. i know, i just rang a mate there to double-check what a nong you are.

even if it was 9 hours ahead you'd still be a nong. posting your tripe at ~4am moscow time would make it 13:00 in sydney.

the thing is, i am so hungover today that for a second i thought you were right and even wrote an apology. then i reread the "you are right trebor" line in my post and realised those four words just don't go together.

so i replaced them with "you are a donkey trebor", not as succinct but more accurate.

Ned,
your drunk, your drunk you silly auld fool!
how the f**ck can Sydney be 8 hours a head of London when Bangkok is already 7!
Seriously? you called a friend in Aussie to check?
Why not just go online?
Brisbane (where i am now) is 10 and Sydney is 11 (observing daylight saving time)
Drink lots of black coffe........................then post that appology!
:D

Ned Kelly
17-01-2005, 08:48
i just looked out the window and confirmed i'm in moscow (reading too many of your posts could end up forcing me to jump out of it). i'm not sure why i'd be talking about the time difference with london. i haven't been there for 16 years.

trebor
17-01-2005, 14:33
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
.............. i haven't been there for 16 years.

as we speak, Londoners everywhere can be heard chanting together............

THANK F**CK FOR THAT!:D

Ned Kelly
17-01-2005, 15:08
swine! enjoy yourself there.

trebor
18-01-2005, 03:46
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
swine! enjoy yourself there.

Great country with really friendly people (well, now all the d******ds have left of course:D)

Ned Kelly
18-01-2005, 08:37
don't read too much into that, they're calling you the carping english b*****d you are behind your back.

Sparafucile
19-01-2005, 00:59
Having heard Trebor would be in London, I took the precaution of going to a conference in Linz, and have spent the past 5 days in Austria.

Is it safe to come out now? :)

trebor
19-01-2005, 04:11
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
don't read too much into that, they're calling you the carping english b*****d you are behind your back.

:D

trebor
19-01-2005, 04:11
Originally posted by Sparafucile
Having heard Trebor would be in London, I took the precaution of going to a conference in Linz, and have spent the past 5 days in Austria.

Is it safe to come out now? :)

Stay in Austria they deserve you!:D

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 17:35
I have friends that worked in Guantanamo over the last couple of years. The Red Cross visits the facilities. My friends have told me that the place is d*mn near a resort.

Let's remember, these folks were pulled off the battlefield shooting at Allied soldiers. Most of them were fighting illegally as terrorists and not in defense of a state. Therefore, they are not subject to any protections of Geneva.

This does not mean that they should be tortured, but their cohorts are providing much worse fates to their captures.

These incidents such as Abu Ghraib are isolated and are not condoned by the current US administration, nor any other Allied government.

In a nutshell, these folks don't deserve a dime and are lucky the US caught them. With most of their enemies they would be beheaded with a chant of "Allah Akbar".

Halyavshik
26-01-2005, 18:17
Originally posted by jcookeman
I have friends that worked in Guantanamo over the last couple of years. The Red Cross visits the facilities. My friends have told me that the place is d*mn near a resort.

Your friends wouldn't be biased a little, would they ? I mean, working there and all ? Because, as far as your Red Cross claim, here's a report, Goodeman, stating that they found evidence of psychological and physical coercion "tantamount to torture". (NY Times Article on Red Cross Finding of Torture at Guantanamo (http://www.shalomctr.org/index.cfm/action/read/section/torture/article/article722.html) )


Originally posted by jcookeman
Let's remember, these folks were pulled off the battlefield shooting at Allied soldiers. Most of them were fighting illegally as terrorists and not in defense of a state. Therefore, they are not subject to any protections of Geneva.

The US argued that the "detainees" were not subject to Geneva not because these people were or were not defending a "State" but because Al-qaida was not a signatory to Geneval (even if Afghanistan was...). In my opinion, whether or not Al-qaida, Afghanistan, Timbuktoo or wherever was ever or is a signatory is completely irrelevant. The US is a signatory.

Further, the Geneva Convention refers to prisoners of war. Note our use of the word "detainee" for the very--in my opinion flimsy--reason that were we to deem them "prisoners of war" then it's all the more difficult to argue against Geneva. It's a silly argument to contest, given that Bush himself refers to this conflict as a "war on terror".

Cocheese
26-01-2005, 18:19
uhh, Fox News just called: they want their chief news "writer" back.

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 18:25
First off my friends would tell me the truth. They really don't care one way or the other. They are definately better references then someone "finding evidence" of torture. Psychological warfare has always been used and will always be used.

Working in these facilities is extremely dangerous. I suppose we should just give them a back massage and ask them politely to tell us what they know.

I have first hand information on what goes on down there, but you're referring to reports that may actually have reason to be exaggerate, ie. looking for a story.

If all this stuff was going on, on the large scale you seem to believe then where are all the people stepping forward? Sounds like one hell of a giant conspiracy to me.

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 18:29
The NY Times...now there's a great source of unbias news.

Halyavshik
26-01-2005, 18:41
Oh, well, that clears everything up. I can trust your friends. Mental note to self: Next time someone doubts conditions at Gitmo, just tell them Cookeman's friends said it was ok. 'Cause they obviously hold more sway than that scandal-provoking, rumor-mongering, conspiracy-theory of a human rights organization otherwise known as Red Cross.

Cookeman, in response to your intended humorous question on backrubs, the answer is, actually just about yes. By Geneva, which we signed and criticize others for violating (witness our outcry when Iraq displayed US soldiers on TV), prisoners of war (terror or any other kind) need give no information other than name, rank and serial number. Coercion to extract anything else is forbidden and can be persecuted as war crimes. No wonder we're so careful to call them detainees. Rumsfied would be doing to ten to life for the violations of Geneva at Gitmo.

You have first hand knowledge ? Really ? So you've been there yourself ?

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 18:56
in response to your intended humorous question on backrubs, the answer is, actually just about yes

So, I see you would be a good soldier. "Please don't shoot me. Is there any way I can be of assistance to you? "

/enter knife slicing throat

I can see you have a very blurred perception of what is going on.


You have first hand knowledge ? Really ? So you've been there yourself ?

I have much more direct access to information than most reporters. I will not elaborate on that. And I would make a safe bet the only access you have is NY Times and others.



Next time someone doubts conditions at Gitmo, just tell them...

One, my name is not Cookeman, and two we should all be skeptical of governments. On the other hand we must realize that the poeple doing this are human just like we are. That includes the people doing the reporting as well as the people doing the guarding and the interrogating.

You seem to think that the government is one giant machine not subject to internal conflicts. I can guarantee you that if this stuff was going on the scale you seem to believe without much reason, there would be many people stepping forward to "blow the whistle" on this.

There just aren't many if any doing it. So therefore you and I both have very little to claim of all the injustice. You want to believe it, and I look objectively and notice there isn't much coming from the horses mouth.

Halyavshik
26-01-2005, 19:49
Originally posted by jcookeman
So, I see you would be a good soldier. "Please don't shoot me. Is there any way I can be of assistance to you? " /enter knife slicing throat. I can see you have a very blurred perception of what is going on.
Um, I really can't make heads or tails as to how my opinion on what's justified in terms of torture at Gitmo has any relevancy as to my qualities as a soldier. Interesting view into your psyche, but completely irrelevant. Thanks, though.



Originally posted by jcookeman
I have much more direct access to information than most reporters. I will not elaborate on that. And I would make a safe bet the only access you have is NY Times and others..
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "first hand". It means you were there, Cookeman. If one of your trusty friends told you, it's second-hand. And yes, given that I haven't been to Gitmo myself either, my information is the media. Lots of it.


Originally posted by jcookeman
One, my name is not Cookeman
Um, I didn't say it was. It is, however, your login, and the only virtual name I'm privy to. If you'd prefer something else other than Cookeman, than please let me know or change your login.


Originally posted by jcookeman
and two we should all be skeptical of governments.
Believe me, I am.


Originally posted by jcookeman
On the other hand we must realize that the poeple doing this are human just like we are. That includes the people doing the reporting as well as the people doing the guarding and the interrogating.

You seem to think that the government is one giant machine not subject to internal conflicts. I can guarantee you that if this stuff was going on the scale you seem to believe without much reason, there would be many people stepping forward to "blow the whistle" on this.

There just aren't many if any doing it. So therefore you and I both have very little to claim of all the injustice. You want to believe it, and I look objectively and notice there isn't much coming from the horses mouth.
Interesting. I'm not sure, again, how you make deductions about my impression of the government, but you deny that there is abuse at Gitmo on the basis of no one blowing the whistle. I just gave you one (the muck-raking Red Cross). Here's another one. New England Journal of Medicine (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/352/1/3). You want firsthand information of violations ? How 'bout this Washington Post article on interrogation methods we employ ? Yet One More Trivial Biased Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A37943-2002Dec25&notFound=true)

So, Cookeman (or whatever it is you'd prefer to be called), you keep looking at the horse's mouth objectively listening to your unbiased friends.

I'll be over here pondering about why I make a bad soldier and the accomanying knife sounds. Thanks, tough guy.

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 20:10
Since when is making someone stand, kneel, or sleep deprivation considered torture. Torture to me is anything that incites severe pain or suffering.

Your other source claims doctors have failed to report torture. Since there are hundreds of thousands of soldiers, operatives, and other personnel involved with the handling of these people I know there will be a few idiots out there who will do stupid stuff.

However, this does not reflect the true focus of any government or any other body with official sanctions in this action.

The only way to stop this is a full withdrawal and submission, and that is not an option.

So, based off of bad decisions of the few we must sacrifice the mission of the many.

koba65
26-01-2005, 20:33
Originally posted by Halyavshik
By Geneva, which we signed and criticize others for violating (witness our outcry when Iraq displayed US soldiers on TV), prisoners of war (terror or any other kind) need give no information other than name, rank and serial number. Coercion to extract anything else is forbidden and can be persecuted as war crimes. No wonder we're so careful to call them detainees. Rumsfied would be doing to ten to life for the violations of Geneva at Gitmo.

You need to define what a POW is according to Article 4 of the Geneva Conv. Since I regretably do not know Art 4. naizust, I will post it here (with my notes in paras):
"Article 4

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

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (Taliban and Iraqi insurgents do NOT fall into this category)

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

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (Taliban/Iraq Insurgents do not have such a person)

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (nope, not in this case)

(c) That of carrying arms openly; (nope, again)

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (Kidnappings, torture, beheadings, are NOT in accordance with LOAC)

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (Once again doesn't apply to Taliban or Iraqi inusurgents)

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. (Dang, I guess Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Iraqi insurgents forgot to issue those documents)

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. (Does not apply to Al Qaeda, Taliban, and Iraqi Insurgents)

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. (Not Al Qaeda, Taliban OR the Iraqi Insurgents [read carefully])

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

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. (Once again, doesn't apply to Taliban, Al Qaeda, or the Iraqi Insurgents)

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

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

So, you quote the Geneva Convention in your post, but you really don't know what is written there. The bottom line is the USG does NOT have to afford the inhabitants of GitMo or Al Grahib with the rights afforded under the Geneva Conv., however, the USG does allow for the Red Cross and other orgs to have the same access that would be afforded legitimate PWs. Having said that, yes, at Al Grahib, there were abuses, they were disgusting, fell short of torture, but humiliation is also a violation - and the acitivities were in violation of the UCMJ. The abusers have been apprehended, charged, and in some cases convicted. How did these people get caught? They were turned in by other military personnel. End of story. That's why when you read your beloved "Times" or other media sources please try to bear in mind that the number of "by-the-book" rules-following military personnel assigned to such facilities far outweigh the bad ones. Furthermore, those "by-the-book" people are no way in Hell going to risk their rank, their career, and their pension by standing idly by why some other people violate the rules. The military is NOT what it is portrayed as in your avg. Hollywood flick - in short, it's incapable of keeping any "conspiracy" from the public.

And, I think we all realize that anybody being released from Gitmo and potentially facing charges in their home country is going to cry innocence and torture. Plus, they all hope to find a jury somewhere that will side with them against the US and award big $$$$$$$$. There is no such creature as a "accidental tourist" in Eastern Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Claude Bottom
26-01-2005, 21:39
Originally posted by jcookeman
I have friends that worked in Guantanamo over the last couple of years. The Red Cross visits the facilities. My friends have told me that the place is d*mn near a resort.

Let's remember, these folks were pulled off the battlefield shooting at Allied soldiers. Most of them were fighting illegally as terrorists and not in defense of a state. Therefore, they are not subject to any protections of Geneva.

This does not mean that they should be tortured, but their cohorts are providing much worse fates to their captures.

These incidents such as Abu Ghraib are isolated and are not condoned by the current US administration, nor any other Allied government.

In a nutshell, these folks don't deserve a dime and are lucky the US caught them. With most of their enemies they would be beheaded with a chant of "Allah Akbar".


Yeee - haw ! Tar 'n feather the critturs !! Forget due process, human rights, a basic concept of the process of law...... less get some good ol' boys an' get a lynch mob going !

You are an anachronism, mate - and a cartoon one at that.

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 21:44
And you are an elitist. I don't appreciate being talked to this way. But that's ok, because I can deduct from your rediculous assumptions that you have no idea what it takes to defend freedom and democracy.

Claude Bottom
26-01-2005, 21:46
Yes, but I can spell "ridiculous". :D

As for elitism, the US is behaving in an elitist manner, bubba. Immune from international law, due process... are you a National Enquirer reader ? It's a newspaper. That's what the black and white squiggly things are.....

PS Love the hat. Like mine ? :D Didn't know there were any cowboys in Connecticut - what do you ride ? Cats ?

Claude Bottom
26-01-2005, 21:49
" I don't appreciate being talked to this way." You must be almost constantly disappointed, JC.......

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 21:49
Oh, lets point out typos to belittle someone. Yet another showing of your elitism. I could knock you right off that pedestal without even even spilling my beer.

Claude Bottom
26-01-2005, 21:57
Originally posted by jcookeman
Oh, lets point out typos to belittle someone. Yet another showing of your elitism. I could knock you right off that pedestal without even even spilling my beer.


JC, your posts are b*llocks, but you have a great hat. Pity there seems to be very little beneath it. If sleep deprivation isn't torture, then how come most interrogations are committed using it ? If these are all "terrorists" - where's the evidence ? Where are the trials ? Who says so ? And WHY ARE THEY BEING RELEASED eh ??

Come on, cowboy, straight answers this time, eh ? As for the beer spilling - wooooo - terrifying...... zzzz. :D

Not quite caught up with this "logical argument" thing yet, have you ?

koba65
26-01-2005, 22:03
Originally posted by Claude Bottom
Yeee - haw ! Tar 'n feather the critturs !! Forget due process, human rights, a basic concept of the process of law...... less get some good ol' boys an' get a lynch mob going !

You are an anachronism, mate - and a cartoon one at that.

I don't think that's what JC had in mind... However, people in glass houses and stones surely don't mix:

"Suspects falling within the ambit of special anti-terrorism legislation have fewer rights. The safeguards present in the ordinary criminal law are absent, creating a twin-track criminal justice system. The infamous miscarriages of justice which involved Irish suspects and use of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts are a reminder of the dangers this can present.

Current anti terror laws are being used to quell peaceful protest, to detain foreign nationals without trial, and are fostering discrimination against the Muslim community in Britain."

These are for people LIVING in the UK and not swept up along with Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects... And I know for a fact there are some ethnic Irish who can tell you about the abuses they suffered under the Prevention of Terrorism act, some doing very lengthy stints in jail. I guess that was/is a bit of the ol' "right, pip, pip, take them down to the gaol, bugger their rights and all that, dear ol' chap.." ;) :)

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 22:04
Dude, you are so far beneath my boots you keep trying to reach up with your elitist babble. You make no sense because you think sleep deprivation is torture.

I have more brains under my hat than you ever will. I was raised to work hard, have respect for others (something you obviously don't have by jumping down my a** for no reason), and to give everyone a fair shake (again something you have not done).

Unfortunately we can dance all day long because you want to play Mr. Billy Bad-A$$ online.

As far as bullocks, obviously we have two different views. Mine is one who has been in the trenches...yours is one that wouldn't know trouble until it was breathing down your neck. Fortunately for you, you have never had to deal with it - as is obvious from your grandstanding, vitrioul that has no value but to demean others.

Ned Kelly
26-01-2005, 22:06
claudikans, i'd send you straight to Guantanamo as britain's secret weapon: you'd talk those towel heads into such a stupour they'd be begging to spill their guts on osama and the whole schebang! ;)

i can see it: the name's bottom, claude bottom. ]after a day with me you're going to be begging for sleep deprivation...anything but the sound of talk...

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 22:07
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
claudikans, i'd send you straight to Guantanamo as britain's secret weapon: you'd talk those towel heads into such a stupour they'd be begging to spill their guts on osama and the whole schebang! ;)

No, I'm afraid they'de slice his "I'm better than all of you fascists" head off his soldiers without blinking an eye. And they'de go say their prayers to Allah directly.

Claude Bottom
26-01-2005, 22:09
Zzzz, Ned. :D JC, you seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is an elitist. Great definition. Sleep deprivation is torture. As are your posts. You may want to read the thread one of these days to get an actual understanding of it. Which might help.

Ned Kelly
26-01-2005, 22:09
joe, in plain american, you're a ******* jackass!

Claude Bottom
26-01-2005, 22:10
Ned, how come you can sum it up in so few words ? :D

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 22:13
I believe anyone can disagree with me. But you sir not only disagreed with me, you attacked me with urelenting verbal assault because you disagreed with me. It appears that you are the one that cannot stand dissent.

You must be related to Ted Kennedy.

koba65
26-01-2005, 22:27
Originally posted by Claude Bottom
[BSleep deprivation is torture. [/B]

That's debatable. It's surely uncomfortable, but I'd take sleep deprivation over being put in "the ropes" like they did to our guys in Vietnam, or wires on your testicles, solitary confinement in a tin box in 100+ weather, etc. etc. etc.. I guess playing loud music or the "good cop, bad cop" regime is torture also? I had worse treatment in army basic training.

Ya know, we're not conducting a "police action" rounding up criminal suspects - we're trying to rub out a terrorist group and its supporters. A group, mezhdu prochim, that is responsible for THOUSANDS of deaths. I don't know about you, but I'd chose sleep deprivation or a burlap sack on my head over being stuck on an elevator as it filled up with jet fuel and then waiting for the flames to broil me alive. And if interrogation of these people leads to information that prevents it from happening to innocents, I'm all for it. Or, gee, perhaps we just wait until they have a change of heart and decide to give up some info on the next terrorist targets out of the goodness of their hearts....

The terrorist bank on people screaming at the US (and UK, Australia) to pressure them to treat terrorists as criminal suspects and afford them due process, etc. They want you to be successful, it helps their cause. Of course, shoe on the other foot, for example, you in their custody - well, I am sure they'd treat you nicely because you'd be able to tell them, "I was against the US's policy on enemy combatants at GITMO" And, after your relatives collected your headless torso, they'd send them a nice condolence letter...

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 22:27
Koba, I think they missed your post entirely because they were busy gang-f****** me because I must be a two-bit, dumb hick all because I'm wearing a cowboy hat.

I guess because Claude is wearing the Fedora (whatever it is) and puffing on that cigar I can consider him to be the rich, I'm so better than you type.

SpruceGoose
26-01-2005, 22:37
But having just had a read through a lot of seriously weird posts here, and also having had a real good look though todays newspapers from the UK, US and Australia (prostitutes menstruating on prisoners! cutting heads of family photos and placing them on pigs! ) I can seriously say Mr Cookeman - You must be an American of the type who is not interested in generating some sort of end of terrorism but is interested in generating everlasting hatred of Americans. And doing a fair job of it.

You cannot seriously expect people to diregard this (assuming it is true - and its coming from the Guardian, Le Monde, the SMH, the Age, the LA Times and a load of other sources) can you?

Like, is the west better than these people in some sort of moral or intellectual sense? Or simply able to apply more power more brutally than them? And if its the latter then why the hell shouldnt they just learn to be more brutal and get more power (which is presumably what they are angling for).

Your only hope then is that they never learn.

koba65
26-01-2005, 22:49
Originally posted by SpruceGoose
But having just had a read through a lot of seriously weird posts here, and also having had a real good look though todays newspapers from the UK, US and Australia (prostitutes menstruating on prisoners! cutting heads of family photos and placing them on pigs! ) I can seriously say Mr Cookeman - You must be an American of the type who is not interested in generating some sort of end of terrorism but is interested in generating everlasting hatred of Americans. And doing a fair job of it.

You cannot seriously expect people to diregard this (assuming it is true - and its coming from the Guardian, Le Monde, the SMH, the Age, the LA Times and a load of other sources) can you?

Like, is the west better than these people in some sort of moral or intellectual sense? Or simply able to apply more power more brutally than them? And if its the latter then why the hell shouldnt they just learn to be more brutal and get more power (which is presumably what they are angling for).

Your only hope then is that they never learn.

Once again the willingness of people to take at face value the ridiculousness of such accusations is amazing. Reality check: GitMo is at a US Marine Base on Cuba. 1.) Only Marines and support personnel live there - ZERO prostitutes, 2.) If they were to bring in local prostitutes the Cuban government would know about it and I'd wager my life that Fidel and co. would let the world know this, 3.) if it was a prostitute brought into GITMO from outside of Cuba than a.) someone in the aircrew would turn it in, or b.) the prostitute would sell her story to the Enquirer or another rag (pun intended).

Why don't why all just be honest and say, if there is bad publicity about the US we'll quote it as the gospel and disregard any contradictory information, fact, or logic. Incredible.

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 22:50
If you read my other posts I realize that there are some people doing things they shouldn't be. But, that does not mean that the actual mission is wrong. I want an end to terrorism, but these people were blowing up our buildings and running airplanes into them with no justification whatsoever.

Most of American mainstream media is significantly bias toward the opposite end of the current administration. This is even admitted by the journalists themselves. The majority of the US public is much more conservative than these folks. Why do you think Fox News does so well? Because they maintain a more balanced stream of news instead of serving their political interests like NYT, LAT, CNN, CBC, and on and on.

In order to end terrorism the world has to come to an agreement on what is wrong. These regimes that are fostering, funding, and providing havens to terrorists are not acceptable.

If France, Germany, and Russia would agree then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, but they are guilty of self-serving politics just as well.

koba65
26-01-2005, 22:57
Originally posted by jcookeman
In order to end terrorism the world has to come to an agreement on what is wrong. These regimes that are fostering, funding, and providing havens to terrorists are not acceptable.

If France, Germany, and Russia would agree then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, but they are guilty of self-serving politics just as well.

Well, and mollycoddling terrorists, as some here suggest, does not solve the problem either. The US is the world's biggest aid donor to Muslim countries - bar none. Nonetheless, they hate us. Why? Because the islamofacists teach that the West (and other non-believers) are the infidel and should be destroyed. If you have whole generations being indoctrinated with this from an early age no amount of kissing their butts is going to change their minds. Anybody seen the pictures of the Indonesians wearing t-shirts with Bin Ladin's picture as they receive aid from US military personnel?

Claude Bottom
26-01-2005, 23:03
JC, for your info, I was born next to Bernard Mannings' Embassy Club in Harpurhey, the most deprived area in the UK. There was a chip shop there, a knocking shop (cat house) and pubs so rough you could light matches on the barmaids' stubble. If there was a silver spoon in my mouth, the midwife nicked it.

If you believe an icon represents the person you're talking to on the internet, then you're talking - on this site - to Snoopy, James Dean (somewhat dead)- and a talking polar bear. Given the drivel you post here (never seen anyone upset so many others in one day) - I can actually believe that.

There is no percentage in trying to enlighten a ***** so rather than bother replying to your ludicrous arguments, I'm off to worm the dog.

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 23:05
Good for you! I guess your unwarranted sharp, personal attacks account for nothing then.

Claude Bottom
26-01-2005, 23:10
"Unwarranted" ? :D Careful, JC - I might get to like you one of these days :D

jcookeman
26-01-2005, 23:32
I would rather someone like me FYI.

trebor
27-01-2005, 04:18
Originally posted by Claude Bottom
..........(never seen anyone upset so many others in one day).......

You mean i've got competition?:)

Ned Kelly
27-01-2005, 06:05
Originally posted by jcookeman
because I must be a two-bit, dumb hick all because I'm wearing a cowboy hat.

man, i like hicks; it's the pricks that get me down.

the hat is indeed bloody awful.

Ned Kelly
27-01-2005, 06:07
Originally posted by koba65
Why don't why all just be honest and say, if there is bad publicity about the US we'll quote it as the gospel and disregard any contradictory information, fact, or logic.

koba, you any relation to mr putin?

jcookeman
27-01-2005, 06:21
Hey Ned, why don't we grab a beer when I get there. I'll buy you one then pour it on your head and laugh at your dumb a**.

How's that for prick?

Ned Kelly
27-01-2005, 07:15
you made me laugh, you're on.

Halyavshik
27-01-2005, 09:45
Originally posted by koba65
So, you quote the Geneva Convention in your post, but you really don't know what is written there. The bottom line is the USG does NOT have to afford the inhabitants of GitMo or Al Grahib with the rights afforded under the Geneva Conv

Koba,

Actually, I have read parts of it. You obviously skipped a few parts. As I argued to the ever so eloquent Cookeman yesterday, it really doesn't matter what the other party does or is classified as at the end of the day. We are a signatory and as such bound to it regardless of whether our opponents are or not.

"Article 1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. "

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

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are signatories.

But what's really more shocking to me is the willingness to blindly ignore reality in the face of several sources all saying the same thing. Just chalk it up to liberal bias. Your New York Times. "It couldn't possibly happen, because there are too many people present promoting their military careers." Koba, it HAS happened before. It's not outrageous or liberal whining to be exceptionally concerned.

The collective 'you' however cite nothing, really, because there's nothing to cite. Even our own legal presidential documents say we don't have to support the convention although we claim we will regardless. And that's already a lie. We've violated it publicly for the whole world to see. Paraded the detainees around on TV wearing blackhoods and admitted to extracting information. Why even bother have Rumsfield claim we do uphold Geneva ? It's really quite silly.

Last, Koba and Cookeman, you seem to think it's acceptable to ignore claims of abuse just because our enemy is. If we don't hold ourselves to a higher standard, then we're equally repugnant and primitive as the enemy. The failure of the Bush administration to see that is as distasteful as any other aspect of this so-called "war on terror"; that we as the US are willing to sink as low as anyone else, disregard international conventions and unilaterally criticize anyone who dares to say otherwise.

koba65
27-01-2005, 11:32
"Actually, I have read parts of it. You obviously skipped a few parts. As I argued to the ever so eloquent Cookeman yesterday, it really doesn't matter what the other party does or is classified as at the end of the day. We are a signatory and as such bound to it regardless of whether our opponents are or not."

I "skipped" parts of it because you made the statement that the enemy combatants fell under the Geneva Convention. If you consult the Geneva Convention and read case histories, you'll find that the Convention rules apply ONLY to people who fall under the categories laid out in Art. IV, otherwise, there is zero need to have an Art. IV (try reading the historical background of the drafting and negotiating of the Convention of 1948).

Why do you think there were never any war crimes charges levied on countries who executed opposing military members who were captured in civilian clothing conducting spying and subversion activities against a foe? They didn't fall under the Convention rules.


"Article 1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. "

This does NOT mean that the HCPs are required to treat ECs who do not fall under the provisions in Art IV as PWs. This mens that the HCPs must not violate the provisions in the GC when handling individuals who fall under Art. IV.

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

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are signatories. "

Once again, this is only relevant as long as the PWs or ECs fall under Art IV. For example, if an Iraqi Republican Guard member was captured /surrendered, let's say, on March 8, 2002, he would be a legitimate EPW under Art. IV of the GC. If our military then subjected him to torture, or humiliation, etc., they would be in violation of the GC. If, let's say, a member of Zarkawi's group was also captured, not being in uniform, not being a member of a group that falls under Art. IV of the GC, they could hood him, humiliate him, etc., without technically being in violation of the GC as he does not fall under Art. IV of the GC.

"But what's really more shocking to me is the willingness to blindly ignore reality in the face of several sources all saying the same thing. Just chalk it up to liberal bias. Your New YOrk Times. It couldn't possible happen, because there are too many people present promoting their military careers. Koba, it HAS happened before. It's not outrageous or liberal bashing to be exceptionally concerned. "

And it's not outrageous to state that if one media source write a story, the other pick it up and count it as gospel. Just because it's in print from several sources doesn't make it true. You also misunderstood what I wrote about people and their careers. I acknowledged that some wrongdoing occured, but what I pointed out is that wrongdoing surfaced because other military people turned it in - why did they do this? Because they saw a violation, knew it was wrong, and stopped the activities. Otherwise, you and I wouldn't be having this debate (abu Grahib).

And what is shocking is that people ignore the virtual implausability in some of the charges levied (ex: the menustrating prostitute charge). Look, when Jayson Blair worked at the much vaunted "New York Times" he admitted to making up facts in his stories. His stories were printed in various newspapers around the world and accepted as fact. Turns out his stories were all falsifications. Additionally, if you recall, there have been several Pulitizer Prizes revoked after learning the journalists lied or their sources lied. Each of those stories were also in print in various "sources."

"The collective 'you' however cite nothing, really, because there's nothing to cite. Even our own legal documents say we don't have to support the convention although we claim we will, nevertheless, and that's already a lie. We've violated it on TV for the whole world to see. Paraded the detainees around on TV wearing blackhoods and admitted to extracting informationj. Why even bother have Rumsfield claim we do uphold Geneva. It's really quite silly."

There are legal documents to support it: LOAC (Laws on Armed Conflict) and the Geneva Conv. Now, I agree on the hooded detainees, if they were legitimate Iraqi EPWs (they weren't, btw).

"Last, Koba and Cookeman, you seem to think it's acceptable to ignore claims of abuse because our enemy is. "
That's a leap in logic. I haven't said it's acceptable to abuse PWs. I have pointed out that legally the ECs are not EPWs. I also pointed out that those who violated our own standards (abu Grahib) were either prosecuted or being prosecuted. I applaud that action.

"If we don't hold ourselves to a higher standard, then we're equally repugnant and primitive as the enemy. The failure of the Bush administration to see that is as distasteful as any other aspect of this so-called "war on terror; that we as the US are willing to sink as low as anyone else, unilaterally criticizing anyone who dares to say so.""

I don't find putting a hood over a detainee sinking as low as ramming a plane into a civilian office building. I don't find imprisoning suspected terrorists on Gitmo as low as parading Western (and Eastern) civilian hostages on tv and then later videotaping their beheading and distributing that tape to news outlets.

How do you propose conducting this "war on terror"? You don't think it's necessary to hit the terrorists (note: I'm not talking about the Iraq War, but Afghanistan and the current troubles with the terrorists operating in Iraq). What do we do, ignore it, wait for another attack and go after them through the legal system?

koba65
27-01-2005, 11:43
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
koba, you any relation to mr putin?

One and the same..

Pooty Poot
27-01-2005, 11:53
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
koba, you any relation to mr putin?

To me ? Are you kidding ? No. He's the illegitimate demon-seed love child of Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, Bush, and the Devil.

Ned Kelly
27-01-2005, 12:08
Originally posted by Pooty Poot
He's the illegitimate demon-seed love child of Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, Bush, and the Devil.

of course! i forgot you're the mediocre pissant grandson of a chef (ok, he was stalin's and that's kind of cool).

Halyavshik
27-01-2005, 12:34
Originally posted by koba65
[BI "skipped" parts of it because you made the statement that the enemy combatants fell under the Geneva Convention. If you consult the Geneva Convention and read case histories, you'll find that the Convention rules apply ONLY to people who fall under the categories laid out in Art. IV, otherwise, there is zero need to have an Art. IV (try reading the historical background of the drafting and negotiating of the Convention of 1948). [/b]

Kobster, Let's agree to disagree. I'm not alone in my interpretation, and whether or not there's a legal precedent for convicting people who weren't signatories is kinda irrelevant. Most countries, whether they abide by the letter of the convention or not (including the US), use the Geneva as a code of conduct regardless of technicalities. I'm disgusted as an American and as a person that my country would think of legally justifying a reason to go around it.

Your justification for ignoring numerous independent sources (such as the ones I cited like the New England Journal of Medicine, the Times, the ICRC, etc) is based on a journalist who was caught lying ? That's hardly reason to automatically discount something as evidence. Sure, journalists aren't without fault. I never said they weren't, but the evidence you cite is neither partial nor overwhelming anyway you look at it. I'm sure you'd be jumping all over an ICRC report in Guantanamo's favor had one ever been issued.

My opinions on the so-called "war on terror" are really another matter for debate, and not one I care to address right now, but suffice it to say that I *do* believe due-process and fair trial to be essential foundations of just punishment that we're rash to discard. As I said, our ability to remain firm in our ideals is what separates us. Not our ability to reciprocate.

Ned Kelly
27-01-2005, 12:36
hear, hear hal!

koba65
27-01-2005, 14:41
Originally posted by Halyavshik
Your justification for ignoring numerous independent sources (such as the ones I cited like the New England Journal of Medicine, the Times, the ICRC, etc) is based on a journalist who was caught lying ? That's hardly reason to automatically discount something as evidence. Sure, journalists aren't without fault. I never said they weren't, but the evidence you cite is neither partial nor overwhelming anyway you look at it. I'm sure you'd be jumping all over an ICRC report in Guantanamo's favor had one ever been issued.

My opinions on the so-called "war on terror" are really another matter for debate, and not one I care to address right now, but suffice it to say that I *do* believe due-process and fair trial to be essential foundations of just punishment that we're rash to discard. As I said, our ability to remain firm in our ideals is what separates us. Not our ability to reciprocate.

My opinion of journalists is based on my experience in chasing down all of the b.s. claims they make about people and events that end up being false. If you want to know more, I'd be glad to tell you off line. Let's just say I've only met maybe one or two honest journalists who actually give a crap if they print something that is false. The reason I discredit the recent stories about GITMO is because it is absolutely friggn impossible for the prositute story to have occured. It's hard to believe a source if the source makes such obvious false claims and then wants you to take him serious on everything he says.


You do realize that GITMO is a small base surrounded by communist Cuba and that the access to the base is tightly controlled, AND, people who are stationed there can not freely travel outside of it? Explain to me how they would be able to get a menstrating prostitute there. These claims are easy to track down and discredit, but when the DoD does so, naysayers scream "Cover up"!

As far as the ICRC is concerned, I never said they were necessarily wrong, or that they were bad. They're an honest broker and actually serve to allow PW camp commandants to become aware of problems that they might not actually be aware of. And, I'm sure you're also aware that they cannot publically release their findings without the consent of the "owners" of the camps??? I.e., the U.S. agreed to allow the information to be publicized.

I guess you're probably aware of the fact that several former detainees - including some who claimed to be innocent and claimed abuse while on GITMO have since been killed in Afghanistan fighting against coalition forces?

They are (arguably) getting their due process via military tribunals - they can appeal to higher courts, they can also use the US justice system (google it, there have already been rulings on this). So, the situation may not be ideal, but there are checks and balances to ensure innocents don't get screwed. Having said that, it doesn't mean that mistakes weren't made and won't be made again. No system is infallible..

koba65
27-01-2005, 14:51
Originally posted by Halyavshik
Kobster, Let's agree to disagree. I'm not alone in my interpretation, and whether or not there's a legal precedent for convicting people who weren't signatories is kinda irrelevant. Most countries, whether they abide by the letter of the convention or not (including the US), use the Geneva as a code of conduct regardless of technicalities. I'm disgusted as an American and as a person that my country would think of legally justifying a reason to go around it.


They're not trying to "go around it" what they have said is: The "enemy combatant" is not legally afforded the rights pursuant to Art. IV of the Geneva Convention, HOWEVER, the US is providing the EC with the rights under this convention. This has been stated on several ocassions by Bush administration officials and in recent Congressional testimony. I think that is where the confusion is, a lot of people are assuming that the US is not abiding by the GC. It is! Now, that doesn't mean that some people are not violating some of the captives "rights" - however, those people have been charged. Several soldiers have already been convicted. One received 10 years of hard labor. So, since you're concerned as an American, perhaps you should take comfort in the fact that the guilty are indeed punished when they committ a crime. Do a little research and show me any other country out there in analogous situations that has done the same thing (i.e., punish violators). I think the UK is the only one. And don't tell me the UK and the US are the only countries who have had people violating the GC....

Ned Kelly
27-01-2005, 15:08
jeez hal, glad it's you that's got to wade through all that to keep up the argument.

Halyavshik
27-01-2005, 18:37
Originally posted by koba65
I think that is where the confusion is, a lot of people are assuming that the US is not abiding by the GC. It is!

No, Koba, it's not. Do you remember seeing the captives shown walking into Gitmo with black hoods over their faces ? I do. I saw it on CNN. Oops. Violation (which we criticized Iraq for when they showed our female soldier on TV, and we cried bloody murder for Geneva violation)

As I said to Cookeman, it's silly to have Rumsfield saying we're meeting Geneva when we're clearly not. We've also approved and use sleep deprivation, standing for long hours, exposed to bright lies, etc.

We've already discussed in this thread that we ARE trying to extract more information and that some detainees are being held WITHOUT due trial. Geneva not only forbids torture but cruel or unusual punishment. The ICRC says we are violating it.

All of this is in violation of Geneva any way you cut it. Above, you argue that we don't have to abide by it, Now you say we do so anyway. We don't.

Let's call a spade a spade.

Bluebird
27-01-2005, 19:26
Originally posted by Halyavshik
No, Koba, it's not. Do you remember seeing the captives shown walking into Gitmo with black hoods over their faces ? I do. I saw it on CNN. Oops. Violation (which we criticized Iraq for when they showed our female soldier on TV, and we cried bloody murder for Geneva violation)

As I said to Cookeman, it's silly to have Rumsfield saying we're meeting Geneva when we're clearly not. We've also approved and use sleep deprivation, standing for long hours, exposed to bright lies, etc.

We've already discussed in this thread that we ARE trying to extract more information and that some detainees are being held WITHOUT due trial. Geneva not only forbids torture but cruel or unusual punishment. The ICRC says we are violating it.

All of this is in violation of Geneva any way you cut it. Above, you argue that we don't have to abide by it, Now you say we do so anyway. We don't.

Let's call a spade a spade. In a nutshell - that about says it all - seems to sum it up just right, to me (although GW. Bush Jnr & Co) might think differently....:)

jcookeman
27-01-2005, 20:37
We've also approved and use sleep deprivation, standing for long hours, exposed to bright lies, etc.

This is not torture. Not even by Geneva. How does this constitute severe pain and suffering?



All of this is in violation of Geneva any way you cut it. Above, you argue that we don't have to abide by it, Now you say we do so anyway. We don't.

The vast majority of Americans don't agree with this at all.

koba65
27-01-2005, 21:05
Originally posted by Halyavshik
No, Koba, it's not. Do you remember seeing the captives shown walking into Gitmo with black hoods over their faces ? I do. I saw it on CNN. Oops. Violation (which we criticized Iraq for when they showed our female soldier on TV, and we cried bloody murder for Geneva violation)

As I said to Cookeman, it's silly to have Rumsfield saying we're meeting Geneva when we're clearly not. We've also approved and use sleep deprivation, standing for long hours, exposed to bright lies, etc.

We've already discussed in this thread that we ARE trying to extract more information and that some detainees are being held WITHOUT due trial. Geneva not only forbids torture but cruel or unusual punishment. The ICRC says we are violating it.

All of this is in violation of Geneva any way you cut it. Above, you argue that we don't have to abide by it, Now you say we do so anyway. We don't.

Let's call a spade a spade.

Somebody produce me a copy of the Red Cross report! Quickly!! Oh, wait a second, it wasn't released so we're relying on others to interpret what was leaked to them and spin it how they wish. Bright lights, sleep deprivation, standing for long hours, etc., are NOT torture. It's not pleasant, but it's not torture. Anybody who has been through Army/Marine/Navy basic training have been through worse.

Difference between the female soldier and the hooded terrorists. The female soldier fell under Art. IV protections, hooded hudlums did not. And, btw, the pictures that were taken were taken by civilian non-governmental photographers and should not have been distributed.

Having said that, even though exploiting prisoners by forcing them to be filmed or have their picture taken for propaganda purposes is a violation, it has helped us in accounting for POW/MIAs. Hanoi's infamous "Parade" in which American POWs were forced to march through the streets of Hanoi (and were beaten) provided the military with confirmation that some guys they thought previously dead were actually still alive, but I digress..

Here's another viewpoint of GITMO treatment:
"Hasanova said she learned of her son's detention in Guantanamo after receiving a letter from him last November. "He writes that he is treated kindly and with respect, that he has good food, cleanliness, and as he says in his letter, he feels better than if he was at the best Russian sanatoriums," according to Hasanova.

Hasanova said her son also writes that his fellow detainees are friendly toward him, and that they often lend each other copies of the Koran and pray together. Hasanova is aware of the Russian efforts to extradite the detainees for trial at home, and says the thought fills her with dread."

Something tells me that releases who may be facing charges in their homelands are raising allegations of torture, etc., on a wider spread basis than those who return home and are released without any investigation/charge. Now, just why would that be?

And also, they're allowed to read the Koran and pray together - if so, kind of strange that the interrogators would try to break them down by "dissing" their religion when they know the ECs will have access to spiritual counsel afterwards (and on a daily basis).

Sparafucile
27-01-2005, 23:09
As I'm sure you gentlemen will have noticed...

... as of this morning, we have four more potential litigants, freed by the British Police after three years of captivity... during which they were never charged with a crime, nor was any evidence brought.

I would love to know if Koba would be so greatly in favour of imprisonment without charge, if Russia threw him in the slammer "on suspicion", and kept him there for three years?

jcookeman
27-01-2005, 23:55
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1002923.cms

Oh the torture!

Bluebird
28-01-2005, 02:30
Originally posted by koba65
Somebody produce me a copy of the Red Cross report! Quickly!! Oh, wait a second, it wasn't released so we're relying on others to interpret what was leaked to them and spin it how they wish. Bright lights, sleep deprivation, standing for long hours, etc., are NOT torture. It's not pleasant, but it's not torture. Anybody who has been through Army/Marine/Navy basic training have been through worse.

Difference between the female soldier and the hooded terrorists. The female soldier fell under Art. IV protections, hooded hudlums did not. And, btw, the pictures that were taken were taken by civilian non-governmental photographers and should not have been distributed.

Having said that, even though exploiting prisoners by forcing them to be filmed or have their picture taken for propaganda purposes is a violation, it has helped us in accounting for POW/MIAs. Hanoi's infamous "Parade" in which American POWs were forced to march through the streets of Hanoi (and were beaten) provided the military with confirmation that some guys they thought previously dead were actually still alive, but I digress..

Here's another viewpoint of GITMO treatment:
"Hasanova said she learned of her son's detention in Guantanamo after receiving a letter from him last November. "He writes that he is treated kindly and with respect, that he has good food, cleanliness, and as he says in his letter, he feels better than if he was at the best Russian sanatoriums," according to Hasanova.

Hasanova said her son also writes that his fellow detainees are friendly toward him, and that they often lend each other copies of the Koran and pray together. Hasanova is aware of the Russian efforts to extradite the detainees for trial at home, and says the thought fills her with dread."

Something tells me that releases who may be facing charges in their homelands are raising allegations of torture, etc., on a wider spread basis than those who return home and are released without any investigation/charge. Now, just why would that be?

And also, they're allowed to read the Koran and pray together - if so, kind of strange that the interrogators would try to break them down by "dissing" their religion when they know the ECs will have access to spiritual counsel afterwards (and on a daily basis). Koba, it's one thing to go through marine and army training, which no one disagress, is tough. But, to put things into perspective - in the forces, the men and women are free to take advantage of any promotions up for grabs, and carve a niche/career path for themselves. They also receive top class training - from catering to mechanics and IT - qualifications, that will well equip them for good jobs and salaries, when they quit the forces.

I fail to see how you could even begin to compare that, with the likes of being imprisoned, on an island, with the fact that you know that tomorrow (on civvy street) might never come to you ever again. That, in itself is rather scary, and perish the thought, enough to drive one into mental oblivion. That's mental torture, in my book - if you're, indeed, innocent of any crime, whatsoever.

These guys may have been in the worng place, at the wrong time, and raises the question of what were they doing there, in the first place. However, they have no chance to defend themselves, with the advantage of "learned", legal, council's help and representation; which (in a fair world and democracy), is any one persons given right, in the first place.

What happened to the vets in Nam, was and is unforgivable. But, here we have a superpower preaching freedom and liberty, to the world. The reality is, that what's happened, in this present scenario, is that the current adminstration is really treating detainees no better than how things were in Nam all those years ago for those, poor, captured American GI's.

And, because of the unpopularity of the war, in Vietnam, innocent soldiers (just shoved on a transport plane, and shipped to the jungles of Nam), and those lucky enough to make it back home; out of the killing fields, were treated like lepers, by and large - both by the government, and the general public, anyway...

Kangaroo courtroom trials, no access to lawyers, and abuses, of which I'm sure, we could only begin to hazard guesses at. Who the hell knows what goes on in that modern day Alcatraz?

Koba, it's so good there, go book yerself in there for a couple of weeks at the Guantamo Bay Inn...Let us know about the room service, and the nightlife, when you get back....If....???

jcookeman
28-01-2005, 03:38
The reality is, that what's happened, in this present scenario, is that the current adminstration is really treating detainees no better than how things were in Nam all those years ago for those, poor, captured American GI's.


I think you really need to reconsider that comment.

koba65
28-01-2005, 03:56
"Koba, it's one thing to go through marine and army training, which no one disagress, is tough. But, to put things into perspective - in the forces, the men and women are free to take advantage of any promotions up for grabs, and carve a niche/career path for themselves. They also receive top class training - from catering to mechanics and IT - qualifications, that will well equip them for good jobs and salaries, when they quit the forces.

I fail to see how you could even begin to compare that, with the likes of being imprisoned, on an island, with the fact that you know that tomorrow (on civvy street) might never come to you ever again. That, in itself is rather scary, and perish the thought, enough to drive one into mental oblivion. That's mental torture, in my book - if you're, indeed, innocent of any crime, whatsoever. "


You're comparing the detainees at GITMO, 90% of whom are self-described Al Qaeda or Taliban members with members of a professional Armed Forces? Have you forgotten that membership in the Taliban and Al Qaeda is also voluntary and that their members volunteered in order to wage war against civlian populations, forming into bands of thugs that followed no doctrines or practices that would put them in the categories that afforded them the protections of the 3rd Geneva Convention?


"These guys may have been in the worng place, at the wrong time, and raises the question of what were they doing there, in the first place. However, they have no chance to defend themselves, with the advantage of "learned", legal, council's help and representation; which (in a fair world and democracy), is any one persons given right, in the first place."

Official estimates are that less than 10% of the detainees fall into this category. Additionally, US courts have ruled that they are to be provided legal counsel if they request it. Surprisingly few have requested it. Why would that be?

"What happened to the vets in Nam, was and is unforgivable. But, here we have a superpower preaching freedom and liberty, to the world. The reality is, that what's happened, in this present scenario, is that the current adminstration is really treating detainees no better than how things were in Nam all those years ago for those, poor, captured American GI's. "

That's an amazing claim. Do you really think what is going on at GITMO is analagous with what occured in North Vietnam's POW system? You've got to be kidding me. But, since you do here's a taste of just a portion of the torture that American POWs endured:

http://www.aiipowmia.com/testimony/cuban_hrng1.html

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/1998/winter/art9-w98.htm

Now compare what happened there to what is allegedly happening at GITMO. Remember, I'm not saying that some people with access to ECs did not violate standing rules. They did and they are being investigated and punished. Measures have been implemented to prevent repeats of said violations.

It'd be nice to hear/see the same level of criticism leveled at the real torturer that's located on the same island as GITMO.

If you still doubt it, I can arrange for Michael Benge to call you and tell you first hand what he endured. (and, no I'm not joking)
"And, because of the unpopularity of the war, in Vietnam, innocent soldiers (just shoved on a transport plane, and shipped to the jungles of Nam), and those lucky enough to make it back home; out of the killing fields, were treated like lepers, by and large - both by the government, and the general public, anyway..."

I'm well aware of how the soldiers were treated when they returned. Saw it on a daily basis.

"Kangaroo courtroom trials, no access to lawyers, and abuses, of which I'm sure, we could only begin to hazard guesses at. Who the hell knows what goes on in that modern day Alcatraz?"

Access to lawyers, and they have only had hearings thus far - so your description of Kangaroo coutroom trials is a bit premature since no trials have started yet.

"Koba, it's so good there, go book yerself in there for a couple of weeks at the Guantamo Bay Inn...Let us know about the room service, and the nightlife, when you get back....If....???"

BlueBird, if I was to find myself captured when fighting there is no other country that I would rather find myself a PW of. Let's compare the treatment of PWs throughout recent history:

Britain: IRA terrorists, hey, wait a second, you guys didn't treat them as PWs did you????? Were they allowed GC rights? Nope, and guess where the US got the idea for those hoods, googles, and ear muffs??? That's right, from the UK.

Germany: WWII. Concentration camps and PW camps were millions perished. Medical experiments, torture, starvation, etc.

Japan: Bataan death camps, ritual beheadings, torture, medical experiments, etc.

Korea: Executions, brainwashing, torture, solitary confinement, lack of proper accounting, thousands known to have been captured not returned at the end of the war.
Vietnam: Executions, torture, solitary confinement, use of PWs in propaganda. Lack of accounting for PWs not returning after the war.

US: WWII - Germans treated humanly in camps in US. After capitulation hundreds of German PWs try to fight their return to the fatherland.
KW: Treated humanly, provided medical treatment, allowed to practice their religion.
VW: See above (admittedly, the ones we transfered to South Vietnamese custody faired a lot worse).
Gulf War I: PWs treated, released, thousands allowed to immigrate
Gulf War II: Iraqi military imprisoned and quickly released after surrender documents signed. Insurgents, terrrorists, imprisoned.
Afghan: See above.

So, sure Bluebird, I'll check myself in to GITMO, but on one condition: You take custody of the random detainee that I replace and you allow him to have access to your home and your loved ones. Maybe you'll get lucky and it will be one of the poor guys who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or maybe you'll get a real sweetheart...

Sparafucile
28-01-2005, 06:31
>> Official estimates are that less than 10% of the detainees fall into this category. Additionally, US courts have ruled that they are to be provided legal counsel if they request it. Surprisingly few have requested it. Why would that be? <<

What actual right do yanks have to imprison whomever the hell they please without charge, without evidence, and without trial?

All the rest of your self-satisfied blather is just a way of painting your illegal acts in a pretty way - and convinces nobody except yourself.

Since you want to bandy "official estimates", what's the "official estimate" of the number of Guantanamo detainees who have been charged with an offence?

I believe it is ZERO.

Perhaps you can provide us with more information?????

If you believe the rest of the world is with you on this, I have to tell you that you are very seriously self-deluded. Your reputation couldn't be worse if you publicly covered yourself with cow ordure. To have Bush spouting crap about "democracy" in his inaugural speech, whilst the USA is calmly negotiating with Communist China and running the Guantanamo Gulag might fool people in Witless, Omaha - but the rest of the world sits back and laughs.

koba65
28-01-2005, 07:11
"What actual right do yanks have to imprison whomever the hell they please without charge, without evidence, and without trial?

All the rest of your self-satisfied blather is just a way of painting your illegal acts in a pretty way - and convinces nobody except yourself.

Since you want to bandy "official estimates", what's the "official estimate" of the number of Guantanamo detainees who have been charged with an offence?

I believe it is ZERO.

Perhaps you can provide us with more information?????

If you believe the rest of the world is with you on this, I have to tell you that you are very seriously self-deluded. Your reputation couldn't be worse if you publicly covered yourself with cow ordure. To have Bush spouting crap about "democracy" in his inaugural speech, whilst the USA is calmly negotiating with Communist China and running the Guantanamo Gulag might fool people in Witless, Omaha - but the rest of the world sits back and laughs. "

The real root cause of your "beliefs" are displayed in this post (but you're good at jumping on the anti-American bandwagon):

"What right do yanks have..."
"Bush spouting crap about 'democracy'"
"Witles, Omaha" By the way, Einstein, Ohama is a city not a state, so I guess you must have meant "Witless (note the proper spelling), Nebraska...

FYI *(from last July): " All 594 terrorist suspects held at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be notified next week of their right to contest their detention in U.S. federal court and of their option to appear before a military panel to challenge their status as "enemy combatants."

And since the Bush Administration is rightly and firstly concerned with the security and safety of its own citizens it could care less about your "laughter":

"Most of the people held at Guantanamo Bay were picked up on the battlefields in Afghanistan and have been held for questioning aimed mainly at gathering intelligence that could prevent another terrorist attack against the United States"

ZERO have been charged??? Wrong:
"In the dock was a 34-year-old Yemeni, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who was apprehended in Afghanistan nearly three years ago; he and three other detainees who will also have hearings this week, have been CHARGED (my emphasis added) with conspiracy to commit war crimes. "

"Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi, of Sudan, was a paymaster for al Qaeda, and Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul, of Yemen, was a propagandist for bin Laden, the government charged in military indictments unsealed at the Pentagon.

The two men are among more than 600 foreign prisoners held at the U.S. Navy's Guantanamo prison camp in Cuba. Both spent time in terrorist training camps and served as bodyguards for bin Laden, according to military charging documents similar to indictments in the civilian court system." (Once again, they're following the rule of law as they can apply it to this unusual and unprecedented situation).

Right now most of the detainees are just starting the pre-trial hearing to see if charges are warranted. What? You say, that's right, "due process."

There really is no precedent for this sort of situation, so everything is unchartered waters.

BTW, quite ironic that a British citizen is criticizing the US when you should be criticizing your own government (unless you are a hypocrite). Brits have their own prisoner "abuse" scandal (with pictures even more shocking than Abu Grahib):
"Photographs in the Daily Mirror show an Iraqi being battered with rifle butts, threatened with execution, and urinated on by British troops. During his eight-hour ordeal, the suspected thief had his jaw broken and teeth smashed, the Mirror reported."

Then, you have what they call the British Guantanamo in the UK. Here's a taste of that:

"The men have been imprisoned without trial for nearly three years in Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons. They were all arrested soon after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. They were arrested using the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Classified as Category A prisoners they are locked up 20 to 24 hours a day. Six of the men are from Algeria, one from Tunisia and one from Gaza in Palestine."
Perhaps the world "laughs" at you as well?

And, might I suggest that you're the one who is self-deluded if you think that the vast majority of these people are being screwed over. Of course, you could sign on to my offer I suggested to Bluebird - invite one in to your home and allow him access to those that you hold dear. Oh, and not to mention that 57 percent of the respondents of the poll you created believe compensation is not warranted.....

Cocheese
28-01-2005, 08:37
Hasn't this topic already been debated for terabytes on the internet? It is pointless since everyone already has an opinion and no one listens to others. I think either Koba or Cookeman should just admit to ordering the code red on Santiago. I know I'll sleep better when it happens.

SpruceGoose
28-01-2005, 10:06
Translator corroborates Guantanamo sex tactics
January 28, 2005 - 1:29PM

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the US prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.

A draft manuscript obtained by The Associated Press is classified as secret pending a Pentagon review for a planned book that details ways the US military used women as part of tougher physical and psychological interrogation tactics to get terror suspects to talk.

It's the most revealing account so far of interrogations at the secretive detention camp, where officials say they have halted some controversial techniques.

"I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case," the author, former Army Sergeant Erik R Saar, 29, told AP.

Saar didn't provide the manuscript or approach AP, but confirmed the authenticity of nine draft pages AP obtained. He requested his hometown remain private so he wouldn't be harassed. Saar worked as an Arabic translator at the US camp in eastern Cuba from December 2002 to June 2003. At the time, it was under the command of Major General Geoffrey Miller, who had a mandate to get better intelligence from prisoners, including alleged al-Qaeda members caught in Afghanistan.

Saar said he witnessed about 20 interrogations and about three months after his arrival at the remote US base he started noticing "disturbing" practices.

One female civilian contractor used a special outfit that included a miniskirt, thong underwear and a bra during late-night interrogations with prisoners, mostly Muslim men who consider it taboo to have close contact with women who aren't their wives.

Beginning in April 2003, "there hung a short skirt and thong underwear on the hook on the back of the door" of one interrogation team's office, he writes. "Later I learned that this outfit was used for interrogations by one of the female civilian contractors ... on a team which conducted interrogations in the middle of the night on Saudi men who were refusing to talk."

Some Guantanamo prisoners who have been released say they were tormented by "prostitutes".

In another case, Saar describes a female military interrogator questioning an uncooperative 21-year-old Saudi detainee, Hani Hanjour, who allegedly had taken flying lessons in Arizona before the September 11 terror attacks. Suspected September 11 hijacker Hani Hanjour received pilot instruction for three months in 1996 and in December 1997 at a flight school in Scottsdale, Arizona.

"His female interrogator decided that she needed to turn up the heat," Saar writes, saying she repeatedly asked the detainee who had sent him to Arizona, telling him he could 'cooperate' or 'have no hope whatsoever of ever leaving this place or talking to a lawyer'."

The man closed his eyes and began to pray, Saar writes.

The female interrogator wanted to "break him", Saar adds, describing how she removed her uniform top to expose a tight-fitting T-shirt and began taunting the detainee, touching her breasts, rubbing them against the prisoner's back and commenting on his apparent erection.

The detainee looked up and spat in her face, the manuscript recounts.

The interrogator left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist told her to tell the detainee that she was menstruating, touch him, then make sure to turn off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.

Strict interpretation of Islamic law forbids physical contact with women other than a man's wife or family, and with any menstruating women, who are considered unclean.

"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," says the draft, stamped Secret.

The interrogator used ink from a red pen to fool the detainee, Saar writes.

"She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee," he says. "As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred.

"She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward" - so fiercely that he broke loose from one ankle shackle.

"He began to cry like a baby," the draft says, noting the interrogator left saying: "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself."

Sexual tactics used by female interrogators have been criticised by the FBI, which complained in a letter obtained by AP last month that US defence officials hadn't acted on complaints by FBI observers of "highly aggressive" interrogation techniques, including one in which a female interrogator grabbed a detainee's genitals.

About 20 per cent of the guards at Guantanamo are women, said Lieutenant Colonel James Marshall, a spokesman for US Southern Command. He wouldn't say how many of the interrogators were female.

Marshall wouldn't address whether the US military had a specific strategy to use women.

"US forces treat all detainees and conduct all interrogations, wherever they may occur, humanely and consistent with US legal obligations, and in particular with legal obligations prohibiting torture," Marshall said late Wednesday.

At Guantanamo, Saar said, "Interrogators were given a lot of latitude under Miller," the commander who went from the prison in Cuba to overseeing prisons in Iraq, where the Abu Ghraib scandal shocked the world with pictures revealing sexual humiliation of naked prisoners.

Several female troops have been charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Saar said he volunteered to go to Guantanamo because "I really believed in the mission," but then he became disillusioned during his six months at the prison.

After leaving the Army with more than four years service, Saar worked as a contractor briefly for the FBI.

The Department of Defence has censored parts of his draft, mainly blacking out people's names, said Saar, who hired Washington lawyer Mark S Zaid to represent him. Saar needed permission to publish because he signed a disclosure statement before going to Guantanamo.

The book, which Saar titled Inside the Wire, is due out this year with Penguin Press.

Guantanamo has about 545 prisoners from some 40 countries, many held more than three years without charge or access to lawyers and many suspected of links to al-Qaeda or Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime, which harboured the terrorist network.

- AP

Halyavshik
28-01-2005, 10:14
Originally posted by jcookeman
This is not torture. Not even by Geneva. How does this constitute severe pain and suffering?

Cookeman, I think you wear that Stetson to hide the hole through which your brains fell out.

The Geneva Convention (which the US says it abides by) prevents the following:

"a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "

I think that about covers it. Does it not ?


Originally posted by jcookeman
The vast majority of Americans don't agree with this at all.

I'm happy for them ! But, guess what, Cookie, they're wrong. Here's hoping you're not their leader.

Halyavshik
28-01-2005, 10:27
Originally posted by koba65
Difference between the female soldier and the hooded terrorists. The female soldier fell under Art. IV protections, hooded hudlums did not. And, btw, the pictures that were taken were taken by civilian non-governmental photographers and should not have been distributed.

Koba, then don't argue we're abiding by Geneva when we don't have to. We conveniantly say we uphold it (even if we argue we don't have to) but then whenever we DO violate it, say that doesn't count because by Geneva, they're not POW's. Either stick to it or don't. Fact is, we're not. These tactics have been approved and admitted to. Rumsfield complained that he uses a standing desk so he doesn't see why it's unfair punishment, but Geneva forbids the extraction of information, period. So why are we using any methods at all ? Why would this even be a question for Rumsfield if he wasn't violating Geneva ? Get it ?

As for the torture, here's an older article from the Moonie Reppublican funding WP where officials admit that we farm some of our torturing out to countries we KNOW use much worse tactics than ours. (WP Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A37943-2002Dec25&notFound=true)) Oh, we don't do the bad stuff ourselves. We just knowingly ship prisoners to people who do ! For crissakes, we even have a word for it ! Rendering ! Fantastic. Proud to be an American after that article ? I'm not.

The viewpoint from the Russian is nothing more than humorous if you ask me. I imagine he wasn't chock full of information to begin with, and didn't stand a huge risk of contracting antibiotic resistant TB. I can't wait to hear reports from other prisoners, though. I want to save this thread for then, if I'm still alive when they all get out alive to tell their stories.

85StoneWhiteFurball
28-01-2005, 10:28
The Washington Post is neither Republican nor Moonie funded. You are confusing it with the Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com

Sparafucile
28-01-2005, 11:15
>> There really is no precedent for this sort of situation, so everything is unchartered waters. <<

Total crap.

There is established international law.

You and the morons you voted for choose to ignore it - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It means the USA is in flagrant breach of international law.

But carry on trying to pretend you're "heroes". ROFL!!!!!

37 killed yesterday. Still no WMD found. Still no links to terrorism found. Still no links to 9/11 found.

Which makes you a liar.

jcookeman
28-01-2005, 15:49
None of which you posted covers sitting, kneeling, and sleep deprivation.

And no, we're not wrong. God forbid you were in charge. We would all be dead.

Halyavshik
28-01-2005, 15:55
Originally posted by jcookeman
None of which you posted covers sitting, kneeling, and sleep deprivation.

Read point 'c' again, cowboy. If you still don't get it, consult a dictionairy. Or, have someone force you to wear a black hood, or sleep standing up.


Originally posted by jcookeman
And no, we're not wrong. God forbid you were in charge. We would all be dead.

Cookeman, the fact that you link leadership to my opposistion of violated international treaties shows you shouldn't be in charge of a credit card.

jcookeman
28-01-2005, 15:58
Haha, I read point 'c', and it doesn't cover sitting, kneeling, or sleep deprivation.

As far as violated international treaties it was sancioned by UN security council resolution.

And again, if I had to travel to Cuba I'de probably check into Gitmo because the place is comparable to the Hilton.

Shaun
28-01-2005, 16:00
I've read through this thread carefully, made some detailed and balanced considerations of the arguments on both sides, and after much deliberation, arrived at the following conclusion:

cookeman, you're a stupid c**t.

Halyavshik
28-01-2005, 16:02
Originally posted by jcookeman
Haha, I read point 'c', and it doesn't cover sitting, kneeling, or sleep deprivation.

Then you need to take a few more English lessons. Or remove the hat. It's restricting the bloodflow to your head.


Originally posted by jcookeman
As far as violated international treaties it was sancioned by UN security council resolution.

What was ? The UN said it was okay to violate the Geneva convention ? Could you show me that, please ? I find that hard to believe.


Originally posted by jcookeman
And again, if I had to travel to Cuba I'de probably check into Gitmo because the place is comparable to the Hilton.

Enjoy !

jcookeman
28-01-2005, 16:03
Wonderful, I see we 'respect' other peoples point of view here. I also see that we adhear to forum regulations such as no name calling and flaming, but maybe that is exclusive to the moderators boys.

jcookeman
28-01-2005, 16:04
What was ? The UN said it was okay to violate the Geneva convention ? Could you show me that, please ? I find that hard to believe.


Again, we are not violating Geneva.

Halyavshik
28-01-2005, 16:04
Swear words were edited out. All the rest seems pretty accurate to me.

jcookeman
28-01-2005, 16:06
Oh I so can't wait for you pinheads to pony up to my face. This is gonna be a great time.

Halyavshik
28-01-2005, 16:06
Originally posted by jcookeman
Again, we are not violating Geneva.

Yes, Cookeman. We are. Did you see the detainees being marched into Gitmo on TV ? Violation. Extracting information from them ? Oops. Another violation ! You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

jcookeman
28-01-2005, 16:07
Ribbit!

Halyavshik
28-01-2005, 16:09
Originally posted by jcookeman
Ribbit!

That was probably your best and most fitting post yet. An animal sound. Right on your level.

jcookeman
28-01-2005, 16:10
What is that, a fly buzzing around my head! How annoying.

kak
28-01-2005, 16:47
jcookeman is that you on your avatar? if so...can you tell me why do you need such a big hat for such a little brain?

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-library-eng
To all Guantanamo lovers out there:
Get informed before talking!

jcookeman
28-01-2005, 16:49
Oh, once again since we disagree with someone we result to name calling and insults. Way to go Mr. Philosopher.


Yawn.

yankee@moscow
28-01-2005, 22:11
Originally posted by jcookeman
Oh, once again since we disagree with someone we result to name calling and insults. Way to go Mr. Philosopher.


Yawn.

I'm glad someone else notices that too. It's beyond me why we can't have a different opinion than certain people without being insulted. Most of the people on this board don't say things online that they wouldn't say to someone's face. However, there are exceptions. I'd love to lock everyone on this board in a room where they couldn't run or hide and see how they behaved then. Somehow, I think a few people would develop a whole different attitude.

What just floors me is that some of the same people accuse others of being the idiots on the site or stupid or whatever degrading adjective they dig up. It's all right for them to ridicule specific groups based on their "limited" point of view. However, if someone else belittles other groups over fact based occurences void of opinion, they can be painted as satan incarnate for daring to post it. And, God forbid, you should actually have an opposing opinion!!!!!! You might actually have a different point of view that someone from another country couldn't understand unless they've walked in your shoes. It's most certainly a double standard by any measure.

Can't we all just get along?!:confused:

CaveMan
28-01-2005, 22:16
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
Can't we all just get along?!:confused:

MM...that would be too easy.....

Cocheese
28-01-2005, 23:25
Look, if one of you two, Koba or Cookeman, gave the order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, then why would Santiago be in danger? Why was he getting transferred off the base?

koba65
29-01-2005, 02:46
Originally posted by Sparafucile
As I'm sure you gentlemen will have noticed...

... as of this morning, we have four more potential litigants, freed by the British Police after three years of captivity... during which they were never charged with a crime, nor was any evidence brought.

I would love to know if Koba would be so greatly in favour of imprisonment without charge, if Russia threw him in the slammer "on suspicion", and kept him there for three years?

Call up the FSB and tell them to lock me up... Here's the number: 914-22-22

You never replied to the incidents that the UK is dealing with - you know, the locking up of their own people (what gives YOU the right, as you said to me) and the prisoner abuse in their zone of Iraq. Well, are you going to call yourself the same names you called me? Where is your vitriol to your own government and yourself?

koba65
29-01-2005, 02:48
Originally posted by Cocheese
Look, if one of you two, Koba or Cookeman, gave the order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, then why would Santiago be in danger? Why was he getting transferred off the base?


You see Cocheese, I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don't want money, and I don't want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there in that faggoty white uniform and with your Harvard mouth extend me some f*****g courtesy. You gotta ask me nicely.

koba65
29-01-2005, 02:51
Originally posted by kak
jcookeman is that you on your avatar? if so...can you tell me why do you need such a big hat for such a little brain?

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-library-eng
To all Guantanamo lovers out there:
Get informed before talking!

Weren't you on another thread awhile back complaining about name-calling? It cheapens your debate and I'm sure you're intelligent enough to make your point without resorting to personal insults...

koba65
29-01-2005, 02:56
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> There really is no precedent for this sort of situation, so everything is unchartered waters. <<

Total crap.

There is established international law.

You and the morons you voted for choose to ignore it - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It means the USA is in flagrant breach of international law.

But carry on trying to pretend you're "heroes". ROFL!!!!!

37 killed yesterday. Still no WMD found. Still no links to terrorism found. Still no links to 9/11 found.

Which makes you a liar.

Typical leftist drivel. Exploit the numbers of dead "37 killed yesterday" - Like you REALLY care, it just gives you more fodder for your argument.

Which international law is the US in breach of? Please provide the specifics (treaty, art., para., subpara, clause, etc.) I have a nice International Law book with case studies if you need it...If they are, why don't you charge them with something? If you do some real research there are those who think what the US is doing is morally wrong, but not in technical violatio of any current legally binding international treaties.

How does what I am writing make me a liar? I disagree with your point of view and you are quick to call me "liar," "moron," etc. Perhaps you cannot handle debate of issues in a reasonable manner? It's really sad to see an adult fly off the handle in such an immature childish way.

koba65
29-01-2005, 03:08
"Koba, then don't argue we're abiding by Geneva when we don't have to. We conveniantly say we uphold it (even if we argue we don't have to) but then whenever we DO violate it, say that doesn't count because by Geneva, they're not POW's. Either stick to it or don't. Fact is, we're not. These tactics have been approved and admitted to. Rumsfield complained that he uses a standing desk so he doesn't see why it's unfair punishment, but Geneva forbids the extraction of information, period. So why are we using any methods at all ? Why would this even be a question for Rumsfield if he wasn't violating Geneva ? Get it ?"

You're misintepreting the articles in the Geneva Convention. To wit, a PRISONER is only obligated to answer with name, rank and serial number(as an aside, none of the GITMO guys would be able to answer anything other than name because they do not belong to any organized GC-recognized military formation). The GC does not preclude any captor nation from asking additional questions. If that was the case, every single signatory/ratifier of the GC who captured prisoners would be in violation of the very Convention they drafted. That's why the language in the Convention was very specific in what a prisoner was REQUIRED to answer, not what they were forbidden to be asked. Any person with any sense of what is valuable information to an opposing force knows that you need to interrogate prisoners. Do you realize that various battles in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Afghan War, Vietnam War, etc., etc., would have been lost had it not been for the interrogation of enemy PWs. Do you really think it's unreasonable to try to extract information from your enemy in order to prevent an attack? How many Brits on this forum would have preferred that their government only asked suspected IRA terrorists their name, rank, and serial number, instead of extracting information from them that prevented the local pub from being blown up?

If interrogating prisoners beyond rank, name and serial number was forbidden than why does every military in the world have interrogator career fields??? Wouldn't that career field be forbidden if the GC is interpreted as you suggest? That's also why the vast majority of servicemen and women throughout the world receive training on how to resist efforts of interrogators to extract information. Al Qaeda is no exception (even though it's a terrorist group). Perhaps some on here would crack under even a little of what has been described, but rest assured the majority of those Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives are probably laughing at it. BTW, the Al Qaeda training handbook tells its members to acuse the enemy of torture, human rights abuses, etc. Pay particular attention to Item no. 5 from the handbook:

"The main mission for which the Military Organization is responsible is:
The overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime. Other missions consist of the following:
1. Gathering information about the enemy, the land, the installations, and the neighbors.
2. Kidnaping enemy personnel, documents, secrets, and arms.
3. Assassinating enemy personnel as well as foreign tourists.
4. Freeing the brothers who are captured by the enemy.
5. Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigatepeople against the enemy.
6. Blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin; not a vital target.
7. Blasting and destroying the embassies and attacking vital economic centers.
8. Blasting and destroying bridges leading into and out of the cities.

Educate yourselves on what's allowed and what's not in interrogations:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4972114/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-05-interrogate-usat_x.htm

(Sparafucile: Pay specific attention to what is LEGAL and what is NOT)

Eddie Royle
29-01-2005, 04:49
"Events Saar describes resemble two previous reports of abusive female interrogation tactics, although it wasn't possible to independently verify his account.

In November, in response to an AP request, the military described an April 2003 incident in which a female interrogator took off her uniform top, exposed her brown T-shirt, ran her fingers through a detainee's hair and sat on his lap. That session was immediately ended by a supervisor and that interrogator received a written reprimand and additional training, the military said.

In another incident, the military reported that in early 2003 a different female interrogator "wiped dye from red magic marker on detainees' shirt after detainee spit (cq) on her," telling the detainee it was blood. She was verbally reprimanded, the military said."

Hey Matie, why did you delete this part of the article you quoted? To an outside observer one can see that this sort of behaviour at this facility is not allowed.

Claude Bottom
29-01-2005, 13:38
Let's see. During WW2, the US interred all - ALL - Japanese US citizens as "undesirables". Didn't matter who they were, it was presumed that they were "the enemy within". There were no trials, no compensation afterwards, guilt was just assumed. These were US citizens, by the way. Before Pearl Harbo(u)r, that is. Can JC give us his thoughts about this historical incident and perhaps draw some comparatives with the current situation in Hotel Gitmo ?

Bluebird
29-01-2005, 15:01
You're comparing the detainees at GITMO, 90% of whom are self-described Al Qaeda or Taliban members with members of a professional Armed Forces? Have you forgotten that membership in the Taliban and Al Qaeda is also voluntary and that their members volunteered in order to wage war against civlian populations, forming into bands of thugs that followed no doctrines or practices that would put them in the categories that afforded them the protections of the 3rd Geneva Convention?

Official estimates are that less than 10% of the detainees fall into this category. Additionally, US courts have ruled that they are to be provided legal counsel if they request it. Surprisingly few have requested it. Why would that be?

That's an amazing claim. Do you really think what is going on at GITMO is analagous with what occured in North Vietnam's POW system? You've got to be kidding me. But, since you do here's a taste of just a portion of the torture that American POWs endured:

"Kangaroo courtroom trials, no access to lawyers, and abuses, of which I'm sure, we could only begin to hazard guesses at. Who the hell knows what goes on in that modern day Alcatraz?"

Access to lawyers, and they have only had hearings thus far - so your description of Kangaroo coutroom trials is a bit premature since no trials have started yet.

Koba, firstly I'd like to say many thanks for those web site address you've provided - I did read them and I was most moved and informed (espescially), by the experiences of Rear Admiral Stockdale's accounts; and how the American POW's made every effort to communicate and maintain a degree of common, cultural, identity, with each other. That's both heroic and admirable, to say the very least.

The great thing about debate, is that it's just that....Debate, and I'd really like to know where you get your figures from - talking about the, "90% of whom are self-described Alqueida or Taliban members?"

From who, what (I.e. What state department), and where, have these figures appeared?

Moreover, what worries me here, is the "self-desription" bit. Under what circumstances did these people "self-descibe" their alliances/allegencies?

Strangely enough, talking about percantages, it was that small percentage - and I'm sure it will increase in time, who have already been sent back home - without charges!!!

Regarding access to lawers, you've stated thet the trials have have only just begun....Maybe I'm missing something here, but I always thought that a person could have/hire lawyers long before any trial dates...In order to have as good as case as possible, for when that date finally arrives.

You also state that many have refused leagal represention, and you wonder why....??? I've an idea why...They've probably been brainwashed into the fact, that they've only got two hopes anyway...Bob Hope and NO hope...

One more thing...Why did the US Supreme Court have to intervene and (formally re-state what, is after all the law anyway -effectively reading the riot act to the Bush Administration), stating that they should have access to legal councel, in the first place...When (according to the American Constitution and Geneva Convention) they already had that very fact, written into their statute books, anyway...???

It seems to me, that without learned people, saying..."Hey, hold up a bit - isn't this government trampling all over people's basic human rights," that Bush & Co, might just've got away with it too...the fact is...Wiser people managed to douse water on that plan...

Talking about intterrogation of detainess...The Washington Post's a good article on how to even "outsource" that one too....Seems the CIA's got quite good at that little wheeze...

koba65
29-01-2005, 19:14
Originally posted by Claude Bottom
Let's see. During WW2, the US interred all - ALL - Japanese US citizens as "undesirables". Didn't matter who they were, it was presumed that they were "the enemy within". There were no trials, no compensation afterwards, guilt was just assumed. These were US citizens, by the way. Before Pearl Harbo(u)r, that is. Can JC give us his thoughts about this historical incident and perhaps draw some comparatives with the current situation in Hotel Gitmo ?

Wrong again. Don't you guys research anything? Compensation has bee paid. Apologies made. As an aside, they were screwed by Roosevelt (A Dem).

http://www.asianesque.com/alterasian/internment/page7.html

Bluebird
29-01-2005, 20:15
Originally posted by koba65
Wrong again. Don't you guys research anything? Compensation has bee paid. Apologies made. As an aside, they were screwed by Roosevelt (A Dem).

http://www.asianesque.com/alterasian/internment/page7.html Thanks Koba - read that...Shame the Japanese government can't see fit to do the same and decent thing to the British and other (nationality(s) POW's) captured, during WW2.

And, another thing too, at least the American and British governments are trying to do something about the abuse of internees, from Afgahnistan and Iraq....

Claude Bottom
29-01-2005, 21:06
Originally posted by koba65
Wrong again. Don't you guys research anything? Compensation has bee paid. Apologies made. As an aside, they were screwed by Roosevelt (A Dem).

http://www.asianesque.com/alterasian/internment/page7.html

Dear dear. Koba, there in your post is the "c" word - "compensation". So. The US can illegally arrest a group of people and detain them without trial - indefinitely - and pay them compensation ?

Now I'll use the "p" word - "precedence".

Bluebird
29-01-2005, 21:19
Originally posted by Claude Bottom
Dear dear. Koba, there in your post is the "c" word - "compensation". So. The US can illegally arrest a group of people and detain them without trial - indefinitely - and pay them compensation ?

Now I'll use the "p" word - "precedence". Seems like a good word to me...sounds about right...No doubt, that after and IF they'll have been awarded any form of compensation - they'll then have to contedend with about twenty-odd years of footdragging - like the American Japanese citizens (arrested after the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour); and the American and British illegal invation of Iraq, will be nothing more than that of a distant memory...

And, those lucky, enough to ever see freedom again, will either be very old or long dead and buried....

koba65
30-01-2005, 00:03
Originally posted by Claude Bottom
Dear dear. Koba, there in your post is the "c" word - "compensation". So. The US can illegally arrest a group of people and detain them without trial - indefinitely - and pay them compensation ?

Now I'll use the "p" word - "precedence".

No arguing that, but the reason for paying the Japanese-Americans was to atone for interning people who were not disloyal to their adoptive homeland. There is no real comparison with the current situation at Camp X-Ray. I do feel there is a misperception about who is exactly held at X-Ray. Those who wind up in X-Ray are people who have been captured in battle or or in raids, then screened by the coalition forces in Afghanistan and have been found to either be self-described Al Qaeda or Taliban (i.e., they proudly proclaimed such), or have been captured while in the company of said Al Qaeda or Taliban. There have been literally thousands who have been captured, screened, and released while in Afghanistan. Is this an infallible system? No. Have mistakes been made? Of course, but there is a system in place to reduce the possibility of repeat.

Others have pointed out the Supreme Court rulings, Congressional pressure, etc. That's the beauty of our system - the checks and balances. I have a feeling that if someone was erroneously jailed and seeks compensation they may receive it. I also have a feeling that those who are screaming the loudest (the 4 from UK, the guy from Australia) might not be eligible because they may have been interned properly. Remember, some are being released even if they had membership or received training by Al Qaeda or the Taliban. This is because the "authorities' have decided they no longer pose a threat. Partially because they have been held long enough that they no longer possess operational value to their old organizations.

Furthermore, a lot of people here have demanded that the internees be classified as PWs. What they don't realize is that if they become classified as PWs, under the 3rd GC, they are not required to be released until the end of the "war." Anyone want to give a prediction when the "War on Terror" will be over??

Also, there have been at least a couple hundred or more who have been released from Camp X-Ray. We've heard allegations of abuse by about 6 or 7. Those are very low numbers. How many people do you know who have been imprisoned, or charged with a crime that readily admit to their guilt. Prisons are full of "innocent" men...

Are you, as a Brit, advocating paying compensation to the hundreds of ethnic Irish who were interned by your government in their struggle against Irish terrorism?

koba65
30-01-2005, 00:05
Originally posted by Bluebird
Seems like a good word to me...sounds about right...No doubt, that after and IF they'll have been awarded any form of compensation - they'll then have to contedend with about twenty-odd years of footdragging - like the American Japanese citizens (arrested after the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour); and the American and British illegal invation of Iraq, will be nothing more than that of a distant memory...

And, those lucky, enough to ever see freedom again, will either be very old or long dead and buried.... '

Just FYI for you: "Japs" is considered a racial slur to Japanese-Americans. Better get out your wallet and recompense them for this offense.

Also, the invasion was not illegal. Please refer to the 17 UN resolutions that authorized force for non-compliance of Saddam's Bathist regimne.

koba65
30-01-2005, 00:10
Originally posted by Claude Bottom
Let's see. During WW2, the US interred all - ALL - Japanese US citizens as "undesirables". Didn't matter who they were, it was presumed that they were "the enemy within". There were no trials, no compensation afterwards, guilt was just assumed. These were US citizens, by the way. Before Pearl Harbo(u)r, that is. Can JC give us his thoughts about this historical incident and perhaps draw some comparatives with the current situation in Hotel Gitmo ?

Once again, your history is flawed. If the U.S. interned "ALL" Japanese, Hawaii would have been empty. And, the most decorated American military unit (one of them is a sitting US Senator - Daniel Inouye) would not have been formed. The majority of Japanese interned lived in California, Washington, and Oregon. Japanese on the East coast were left fairly untouched. Once again, might I refer you to consult a history book before making such unsubstantiated claims.

http://www.japan-101.com/history/nisei_japanese_american.htm

http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Japanese/Japanese.html

Claude Bottom
30-01-2005, 00:46
Koba, you seem to be using good evidence to promote a bad argument. I'm using bad evidence to promote a good argument. Shall we have a drink, then ? :D

koba65
30-01-2005, 00:53
Originally posted by Claude Bottom
Koba, you seem to be using good evidence to promote a bad argument. I'm using bad evidence to promote a good argument. Shall we have a drink, then ? :D

Why not - pretty funny retort! :D As long as you realize that I'm not a proponent of genocide and false imprisonment...

rosieredwood
30-01-2005, 03:54
Let's get one thing straight -- if your comrades-in-arms decide to plow a 7 'frickin' 47 (or two or three) into the side of a building housing and employing A LOT'O FRICKIN' people, I don't care how long you spend on an island resort, eating regular meals per day... your only compensation will be a Zip-Loc bag of my excrement to keep 'ya warm through the night...

Bluebird
30-01-2005, 11:33
Originally posted by koba65
'

Just FYI for you: "Japs" is considered a racial slur to Japanese-Americans. Better get out your wallet and recompense them for this offense.

Also, the invasion was not illegal. Please refer to the 17 UN resolutions that authorized force for non-compliance of Saddam's Bathist regimne. Thanks for pointing that error out to me, any racial slur was not intentional...I duly apologise for any offence...

Bluebird
30-01-2005, 11:34
The (above) should've read - Japanese-American citizens

Halyavshik
30-01-2005, 11:41
Originally posted by koba65
You see Cocheese, I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don't want money, and I don't want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there in that faggoty white uniform and with your Harvard mouth extend me some f*****g courtesy. You gotta ask me nicely.

DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED ?

rosieredwood
30-01-2005, 12:23
........ You're DAMN RIGHT I DID!