And the DC political circus gets even more ridiculous

Quote:

---

Quote:
We can't have a public trial because of the risk to the jury (they'll probably be murdered if they convict)
Ever heard of something called the Witness Protection Program? Yeah, that renders this argument irrelevant.

---

It's called the Witness Protection Program because it's for Witnesses not Juries kthxbye.

Quote:

---

Quote:
but the thing is that because they are a part of a group that plans attacks on civillians, and the army is trying to figure out how to stop those attacks on civillians, we can't give them the Geneva rights, which would mean that all we'd get is name/rank/serial number.
One very important fact that several people have pointed out in this thread, which you, for whatever reason, continue to disregard, is that we have absolutely no proof in many of these cases that they are terrorists. In many cases, we are simply holding people because we believe they have information about friends or family members that they are withholding from us; we have no actual proof, per se, that these people themselves have done anything wrong. So, no, we're not just holding people who have done evil.

And either way, we're supposed to be better than that. The whole purpose of fighting this war was, so President Bush has been telling me for the past year and a half, to spread freedom and democracy to the Arab world. Holding prisoners without habeas corpus doesn't sound like freedom to me. Even terrorists are given some rights under the Constitution; the Bill of Rights applies to everyone. Holding government to any less stringent a standard than that is nothing but sheer hypocrisy.

---

We're capturing them for the most part on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Other than Begg, I can't think of anyone who's being grabbed randomly.

And they'd not be under the constitution anyway. To be under the constitution, they'd have to be either citizens of America or living on American soil legally. American law doesn't apply to everyone on the planet. At best, they're under international laws, not American laws.

And if we gave them full Geneva rights, the only thing that they could legally be made to tell us are Name Rank and Serial Number. That doesn't help us at all.

Quote:

---

Quote:
and the risk of giving out intelligence ("we caught this guy because we got a hold of his cellphone records", therefore no more cellphone calls we can track)
If the records are being obtained illegally, our government shouldn't have them in the first place. Transparency of government is a necessary evil.

---

Well there actually was such an incident during the 93 bombing trial, the FBI admitted in open court that they could listen in on Al-Qaida's satilite phones. So al-qaida members attending the open court sessions heard the testimony and soon after, al-qaida doesn't use satilite phones anymore.

Quote:

---

Quote:
as well as the fact that even knowing who we have at any point tells them which plans are compromised.
Who said we had to release the prisoners' names?

---

We don't but if you bring a guy into open court people who know him will recognize him, plus his lawyer is going to be contacting every person he knows to be a witness for the defense.

Quote:

---

Quote:
If you were given information that an attack was going to happen in your neighborhood, that you knew came from torture, and the cops came and said "Cloud 9, since this info came from torture, should we act on it or not?" Which way do you want it? Would you really stand for the rights of the guy in gitmo who was tortured into giving the info, or do you protect your family and friends in your neighborhood? You can only have one.
I'd still stand for the rights of the guy who was being tortured, because believe it or not, America is supposed to be better than that, and I don't believe that the lives of three thousand Americans are worth the lives of one hundred thousand Iraqis.

---

I suppose I can't call you a hypocrite at least as you'd not act on info gotten from torture. I can't say I agree with you on the priorities.

Quote:

---

It's called the Witness Protection Program because it's for Witnesses not Juries kthxbye.

---

If a jury is sequestered(which is done in some cases), then I'd imagine they'd have armed guards. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

It's called the Witness Protection Program because it's for Witnesses not Juries kthxbye.

---

Are you implying that they can't use it for juries as well? I'd like to see a source on that.

Quote:

---

We're capturing them for the most part on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Other than Begg, I can't think of anyone who's being grabbed randomly.

---

So everyone who lives in Iraq and Afghanistan is a terrorist now?

Quote:

---

And they'd not be under the constitution anyway. To be under the constitution, they'd have to be either citizens of America or living on American soil legally. American law doesn't apply to everyone on the planet. At best, they're under international laws, not American laws.

---

I see no point in the Bill of Rights that makes a distinction between American citizens and non-American citizens. If you can point out to me any part of this document that invalidates the Bill of Rights for non-citizens, I'll concede the point, but as far as I recall the Bill of Rights makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

Quote:

---

And if we gave them full Geneva rights, the only thing that they could legally be made to tell us are Name Rank and Serial Number. That doesn't help us at all.

---

well, I don't think it's morally right for us to be coercing anything more out of prisoners, but we've already established that elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Well there actually was such an incident during the 93 bombing trial, the FBI admitted in open court that they could listen in on Al-Qaida's satilite phones. So al-qaida members attending the open court sessions heard the testimony and soon after, al-qaida doesn't use satilite phones anymore.

---

These are the sacrifices we have to make. However, I'd argue that if the government were concerned with protecting such spying methods, they shouldn't have been disclosed in an open court.

Quote:

---

We don't but if you bring a guy into open court people who know him will recognize him, plus his lawyer is going to be contacting every person he knows to be a witness for the defense.

---

Those are valid points. What are the circumstances for military trials? I might be willing to agree to one of those in this case.

Quote:

---

I can't say I agree with you on the priorities.

---

well, does that mean you think the hundred thousand Iraqi lives that have resulted from this war are justified given the 3,000 American deaths in 9/11? As far as I've been able to tell, we've only lost around 3,000 lives to al-Qaeda in the past four years, and allegedly in retaliation for that we've taken over 100,000. It seems to me like *America* is the nation that doesn't have its priorities straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

If people are still too damn stupid to see any truth, this isn't my fault. Nevermind the fact that we found WMD supplies, paraphenalia, protection, plans, and small amounts of WMDs themselves--nevermind the fact that Saddam had years and years without any supervision to sell, trade, develop, produce, and hide his weapons--nevermind the fact that Saddam had a history of not only pursuit and application of technology for more and deadlier WMDs, but also hostility towards America and the Western World for their "interfering", and of refusing to comply with much of anything laid down by convening authorities...we didn't find as much as we expected, so it's all wrong, huh?

Edited to remove inflammable content

---

I actually aggree with most of this, and in fact, I can add a thing or three, since I was actually in the Persian Gulf twice during my enlistment in the US Navy. Even BEFORE 9/11, I saw reconnaisance photos during the nightly intel briefings in CIC (we were in the Gulf as part of UN operation preventing weapons and oil smuggling to and from Iraq) that, well, even though I can't reveal any details, since the information is classified, let me say that if Saddam didn't have any WMDs, then I'm a monkey's uncle. I know what I saw in those photos, and it sure as heck wasn't the local camel auction! Yeah, we may not have found much in the way of WMD as of yet, but you have to remember that about 1/3-1/2 of the country is open desert, perfect place to bury stuff that one doesn't want found (especially since the drifting sand erases all evidence of things getting buried in a matter of days). As a matter of fact, a full squadron of Russian Foxbat fighter-bombers were found buried in one of said deserts recently (Soldier of Fortune Magazine was the only one to carry the story, AFAIK). The interesting thing is that the FoxBat's PRIMARY mission is to deliver chemical and biological weapons to targets at long range......

As for the Guantanamo bay, I've also seen intel reports (you know, the ones that have SECRET stamped on them in red letters), and we are NOT torturing anyone there. This is just another lame democrat attempt to make Bush look bad (not that he really needs help, mind you), and generally tick the military and veterans' groups off. All prisoners at Guantanamo get their 3 square meals a day (although there might be those who'd argue the point, Army food does NOT constitute a form of torture), clean bedding, and all other rights under the Geneva convention. As a matter of fact, the International Red Cross as well as the Red Crescent (both of whom I'd trust much further than the stupid, incompetant UN) have sent inspectors to Guantanamo and FOUND NO WRONG DOING!!!! Therefore I rest my case.

If Saddam still had WMDs when we invaded Iraq, then how come the CIA called off the weapons search as hopeless? It seems like if there were any hope of finding anything, they wouldn't have given up, given how much the Bush administration desperately wanted them to find stuff.

And people from our own government have even admitted that people were tortured at Guantanmo. It seems to me that's a pretty difficult claim to counteract.

begg matters hugely. he is one of the few though not the only to talk openly about his time in cuba. are we really to believe that he is an oddity? a one off? or one of many including others who were released without charge? remember 99% percent of all men ever held in camp x-ray are still in camp x-ray.

gnostic yevon you are totally missing the point. you are not giving them basic human rights. those are being breched. that is why it is a crime against humanity. that is why every soldier in charge of the place should be in the hague right now and that is why we are having this discussion.

and they are not members. they are suspected members. there is a huge difference. they are not tried and as such are not guilty. they are not treated within international law. to wrap them up as all guilty before they have even been charged with any crime is stupid.

icky things? the use of the strappado is icky? having a man crap himself is icky? no it is not icky. it is torture. it is one the most horrible crimes and to actively partake in it should be deemed a war crime and tried in the same way as nazi leaders were at nuremburg, molisevic is and sadamme will be. and in the case of a killing can be punished by the death penalty. and don't forget america's charming habit of sending it's prisoners to countries which wil perform even "ickier" things.

the question should in fact be whether i want a legally innocent (or even guilty because i wouldn't torture any man) to be tortured. the answer in short is no. do i want lebenzrhaum for the sake of a few jews and slavs? that is a similar question.

is america so paranoid after 9-11 that it is willing to lower itself to torture? and claim it is just, moral and right? is that what america has became over the last 4 years? a country where people are tortured and the population doesn't care?

to be under the constitution or geneva is irrelavant. they are governed by human rights treaties. it would still render torture illegal. and the men who perform it war criminals.

actually the public saw alot of reconasiance photo when powell graced the UN with his presence and showed alot of them to us. apparently those satellites which were told could read the regiment of a soviet soldiers cap badge can't explain why all those chemical weapons factories didn't have any sign of chemical weapons. or track the mobile labs. or see those missles anymore. funny that...........

the red cross and crescent actually condemned the treatment of prisoners in quantanamo. they are not given basic human rights as torture is illegal by all conventions. if you don't belive that men are tortured then ask the man who came back to britain after 3 years with a cracked skull, epilpepsy and black outs. he could have just hit himself over the head with the tray he gets 3 sqaure meals on but i some what doubt it...

also the cia has a handy pamphlet on hot to torture people. it had a second one issued after 9-11 which involved water torture, depravation of oxygen, light sealing, palestinian hanging etc. it was repealed but was issued and probably followed until it's repel.

if america has any right to invade a country on humanitarian grounds first it must prove it is capable of humanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

begg matters hugely. he is one of the few though not the only to talk openly about his time in cuba. are we really to believe that he is an oddity? a one off? or one of many including others who were released without charge? remember 99% percent of all men ever held in camp x-ray are still in camp x-ray.

---

Ok then why has no other person been brought forwrd? If he's not a "one off", then where are the others? Why is it every time we have this argument, all you have is Begg?

Quote:

---

icky things? the use of the strappado is icky? having a man crap himself is icky? no it is not icky. it is torture. it is one the most horrible crimes and to actively partake in it should be deemed a war crime and tried in the same way as nazi leaders were at nuremburg, molisevic is and sadamme will be. and in the case of a killing can be punished by the death penalty. and don't forget america's charming habit of sending it's prisoners to countries which wil perform even "ickier" things.

---

The Nazis and Milosovic were running death camps and they were filled with civillians who had never even held a gun. Honestly if you can't tell the difference between Milosevic rounding up people for the crime of being Bosnian, and Bush allowing the army to intern people who are captured on the battlefields shooting at them, then there is no point in trying to explain it to you. If you can't tell the difference between death camps and prisons, then you need a visit to dictionary.com.

And as to this being torture -- no it isn't. No one is being beaten or denied medical care. We make people listen to rap and turn up the air conditioner, both things Americans do to themselves on a fairly regular basis. And people in nursing homes and hospitals crap themselves daily.

Quote:

---

is america so paranoid after 9-11 that it is willing to lower itself to torture? and claim it is just, moral and right? is that what america has became over the last 4 years? a country where people are tortured and the population doesn't care?

---

Is Europe so heartless as to not care whether 3000 more Americans die? Why does America need to sit back and let an attack happen rather than do what it can to find out where and when the next 9-11 will happen? Will Europe send appologies to the next victims? How many Americans are enough?

Quote:

---

to be under the constitution or geneva is irrelavant. they are governed by human rights treaties. it would still render torture illegal. and the men who perform it war criminals.

---

But cold rooms and rap music aren't torture. Crapping your pants isn't torture. Gourmet dinners aren't torture.

Quote:

---

and they are not members. they are suspected members. there is a huge difference. they are not tried and as such are not guilty. they are not treated within international law. to wrap them up as all guilty before they have even been charged with any crime is stupid.

---

But being held indefinitely without the necessity of proof and without being charged with anything(and not even knowing what to charge them with) is NOT stupid?

Quote:

---

Is Europe so heartless as to not care whether 3000 more Americans die? Why does America need to sit back and let an attack happen rather than do what it can to find out where and when the next 9-11 will happen? Will Europe send appologies to the next victims? How many Americans are enough?

---

By the very same logic, we could ask how many Arab lives are enough. 100,000 Iraqis have been killed in this war you seem to think is so crucial. And to what end? To stave off an attack that might claim another 3,000 lives? We're supposed to be better than that.

Quote:

---

And as to this being torture -- no it isn't. No one is being beaten or denied medical care. We make people listen to rap and turn up the air conditioner, both things Americans do to themselves on a fairly regular basis. And people in nursing homes and hospitals crap themselves daily.

But cold rooms and rap music aren't torture. Crapping your pants isn't torture. Gourmet dinners aren't torture.

---

Well, whose definition are you using? I'm using the UN's:

Quote:

---

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

---

Playing rap music at loud volumes in the presence of Muslims certainly could be considered inflicting severe mental suffering.

Hey if its tupac its kewl with me :cool:

but seriously my head hurts with having to keeep up with politics for awhile I'll read this stuff but man having to hear that the US gov. is screwing everyone over.You know that negetive thing just wears you down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Quote:

---

And as to this being torture -- no it isn't. No one is being beaten or denied medical care. We make people listen to rap and turn up the air conditioner, both things Americans do to themselves on a fairly regular basis. And people in nursing homes and hospitals crap themselves daily.

But cold rooms and rap music aren't torture. Crapping your pants isn't torture. Gourmet dinners aren't torture.

---

Well, whose definition are you using? I'm using the UN's:

Quote:

---

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

---

Playing rap music at loud volumes in the presence of Muslims certainly could be considered inflicting severe mental suffering.

---

How can a cold room and rap music be torture for a Muslim if millions of western teenagers do the exact same thing to themselves?

The standard is pain and suffering. Vanilla Ice aside, rap isn't pain and suffering. Anything that a person might choose to do for themselves almost by definition cannot be torture.

I don't know about you but I don't go to my freinds' parties cause of loud music. It ain't a matter of choice. To people who haven't already ruined thier ears on loud music, it is very very painful. I have been in tears on occasion from someone nearby turning up music to loud.

Rap, that doesn't matter. It is the volume. Doesn't matter type of music if it is loud, and the person doesn't generally listen to it, it equals intense pain.

not really lol thats just you complaining but hey my hearing is pretty horrible on my right ear especially.When I was little my cousin stabed me int eh ear with a pencil busted my right ear drum.Now thats intense pain I remember that still got scar tissue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

How can a cold room and rap music be torture for a Muslim if millions of western teenagers do the exact same thing to themselves?

The standard is pain and suffering. Vanilla Ice aside, rap isn't pain and suffering. Anything that a person might choose to do for themselves almost by definition cannot be torture.

---

You're missing out on one crucial difference: The white kids choose to do it. The Islamic prisoners don't. Using your logic, we could come to the conclusion, "Well, some women choose to have sex, so it doesn't matter when people get raped."

I am sorry Aaron but I disagree. The music might be annoying to them but unless they blast it at 200db then it is nothing more than annoying.