And the DC political circus gets even more ridiculous

After reading a FBI agent’s description of Guantánamo Bay, Senator Rick Durbin (D-IL) said that if you didn’t know that was about an American prison camp, you’d assume it described a prison from a much more infamous regime. Here’s the description he read:

Quote:

---

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. ... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

---

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called Durbin’s comments a “heinous slander against our country and the brave men and women risking their lives every day to defend it.” After several comments like Frist’s, Durbin was driven to apologize.

In other words, torture is now accepted national policy, and denouncing torture is regarded as treason.

Today White House political advisor Karl Rove gave Durbin a huge thank-you for his apology:

Quote:

---

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

---

And people wonder why I want to move out of this country.

Discuss.

edit: There's currently a movement to ask Republican senators to denounce Karl Rove's words. I strongly encourage people to participate.

I would send my republican representatives a letter...if one existed for me. I am sending Durbin a letter letting him know my dissappointment that he apologized. I would also like to state that he wasn't FORCED to do anything and it was a choice he made.

yes, Durbin’s apology was definitely a choice on his part, and to me represents the spinelessness of most Democrats right now. :/

That is actually what I am writing to him about. He should be more like "STFU and do a good job Mofo!"

Rove: "OH NOES! they talk back!?!?"

Disgusting. Both of them. The torture is bad enough, but the fact that he apologized for speaking the truth? What's this country coming too?

I'd say the treasonous ones are those who propogate these inhumane conditions and hide behind the veil of patriotism in order to better control America.

quantanamo bay is nothing new. before when i made apost about it many people said it was alrigth cos they were terrorists and so deserved it anyway or some such crap. america has lost all it's humanity since 9-11. it is used as an excuse for all kinds of war crimes. the idea that these people don't count as they are not strictly POWs is a lie. yes the geneva convention has a seperate section for them. but they have basic human rights. not all prisoners were even on the battlefield when captured. or anywhere near it. or ever been near it. but rounding them up in cuba and treating them in a way which you would not treat an animal is classed as okay. because they are the enemy.

we hung the nazis for similar crimes. we are trying people in the hague for the exact same thing. and then to say that to show this is wrong is absurd. america is committing torture on a daily basis. and who cares? noone. why? because they're just the enemy. and america has developed the conscious that the enemy no longer has rights.

people will die for what america has done. people will no longer stand for such treatment.

we all knew this long ago though. personally i would try anyone in charge of quantanamo bay. from the top down. torturers cannot be seen not to get the justice the deserve. any man found guilty of such war crimes needs to be hung. orders or not.

What pisses me off above and beyond the torture is it's not just the enemy who gets thrown in there. I've heard several reports that they'd just grab anyone who looked like a terrorist and shove them in there without habeas corpus. The Supreme Court ruled that was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but from what I understand they've continued doing it anyway. It's like what Andrew Jackson said back in the day when he was slaughtering Indians: "The Supreme Court has made a decision. Now let it enforce it." I don't regard this as any better than that.

Anyway, Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid has called on Rove to apologize or resign. Which makes me happy.

For a good background article on what a quality person Karl Rove is, and why he gets away with what he does, read this article published in the Atlantic Monthly in November 2004. I think youi have to subscribe to read it, but here's the money quote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fromt he 2004 issue of Atlantic Monthly

"He [Rove] seems to understand - indeed, to count on - the media's unwillingness or inability, whether from squeamishness, laziness or professional caution, ever to give a full estimate of him or his work. It is ultimately not just Rove's skill but his character that allows him to perform on entirely different plane. Along with remarkable strategic skills, he has both an understanding of the media's unstated self-limitations and a willingness to fight in territory where conscience forbids most others."

---

If you want to know what tactics the article is talking about, try this site which reprints many parts of the article.

or just read Bush's Brain.

I haven't checked the blogs for a few hours, but as of about four hours ago, a bunch of Democrats had spoken out against Rove's remarks, and predictably, other Republican nutcases were chiming in with support of Rove.

This Democrat spoke out of his ass on topics he knows very little about, fabricating, manipulating, and exaggerating stories, and people bitch because he had to apologize for the slander? Boo friggin Hoo.

Terrorists and terrorist suspects being held in Guantanimo Bay are not being tortured. It's pretty damn simple. The answer isn't "anybody who speaks out against the torture in Gitmo is a hero, and the people that speak out against them are evil", the answer is "anybody that talks about the "torture" in Gitmo is full of ."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

This Democrat spoke out of his ass on topics he knows very little about, fabricating, manipulating, and exaggerating stories, and people bitch because he had to apologize for the slander? Boo friggin Hoo.

Terrorists and terrorist suspects being held in Guantanimo Bay are not being tortured. It's pretty damn simple. The answer isn't "anybody who speaks out against the torture in Gitmo is a hero, and the people that speak out against them are evil", the answer is "anybody that talks about the "torture" in Gitmo is full of ."

---

Then why does the Bush administration refuse to let UN inspectors into the facilities there and in Iraq and Afgan? They have denied access to them since 2002. With all the stories that come out there has to be SOMETHING. I don't care how big or small but they are once again hiding SOMETHING.

the white house i.e. the executive branch seems to be having a lot of influencccce in the other branch of the gov.

Well, I quite frankly disagree with Mr. Durbin's nazi analogy. The mass murder, and genocide death camps that took place during world war 2 does not compare to that of Guantanamo. We treat our prisoners way better then when a U.S. soldier gets caught, just keep that in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

Then why does the Bush administration refuse to let UN inspectors into the facilities there and in Iraq and Afgan? They have denied access to them since 2002. With all the stories that come out there has to be SOMETHING. I don't care how big or small but they are once again hiding SOMETHING.

---

Saddam kicks out UN weapons inspectors, and he's innocent. There are rumors that UN inspectors have a hard time meddling into Coalition affairs, and that means Bush is evil and hiding something?

Where is the UN's jurisdiction? It isn't a UN operation. It used to be, but that stopped when the controlling parties became involved in illegal trading with Saddam--there's your "blood for oil". If the UN wants to control it, they should get their asses in there and control the entire thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noname

Well, I quite frankly disagree with Mr. Durbin's nazi analogy. The mass murder, and genocide death camps that took place during world war 2 does not compare to that of Guantanamo. We treat our prisoners way better then when a U.S. soldier gets caught, just keep that in mind.

---

lol yeah thats our main problem we are literally too humane wiht our prisoners I mean do something that is humane but still torture(make 'em watch 12 hours of teletubbies).

Saddam had an image to keep up though. He was not exactly friends with the neighboring countries and for security reasons had to make it look like he had stuff by giving them a hard time. This is completely different in that we should have nothing to hide and don't tell the UN no or have not in the past. Doing what this administration is doing is how you get people to not trust you in the future. Given how the US has acted since Bush took office...I can't see the UN giving a damn about what we have to say when it comes to UN reform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

Saddam had an image to keep up though. He was not exactly friends with the neighboring countries and for security reasons had to make it look like he had stuff by giving them a hard time. This is completely different in that we should have nothing to hide and don't tell the UN no or have not in the past. Doing what this administration is doing is how you get people to not trust you in the future. Given how the US has acted since Bush took office...I can't see the UN giving a damn about what we have to say when it comes to UN reform.

---

So it was alright when Saddam did it, because he had a rep' to protect? Saddam DID have things to hide, and he did that well by jerking the UN around--and the UN put up with it until the U.S. stepped in and said "that's enough". The UN has lost the little respect it had earned in the past and not lost already, and is no longer a credible, honest, or powerful organization. And I don't see how the U.S. pissing off the UN would get people to trust us less--those that would trust us less would already side with the UN despite all the under-the-table deals, constant mishandling of military situations, and rampant cowardice concerning the most recent conflict. And we don't care what those countries think about us, because they didn't like us anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Terrorists and terrorist suspects being held in Guantanimo Bay are not being tortured.

---

So I guess the many military and FBI reports saying that people are being tortured in Gitmo, like the one I quoted in my opening post, mean nothing then, eh?

Durbin didn't explicitly compare Gitmo to a Nazi camp from what I understand, he just said you wouldn't expect it to come from a country that ostensibly loves freedom as much as the U.S.

Quote:

---

Well, I quite frankly disagree with Mr. Durbin's nazi analogy. The mass murder, and genocide death camps that took place during world war 2 does not compare to that of Guantanamo.

---

If you look at what we are doing as a whole, this is not true. But case by case, there will be some cases where his analogy is valid.

Quote:

---

Saddam kicks out UN weapons inspectors, and he's innocent.

---

Well, since he didn't have WMD's....

Although the sheer idiocy of that comment doesn't even warrant a response, I will simply point out the fact that Saddam not only had WMDs, he had a history of using them in brutal manners, and he was pursuing more.

Saddam had WMD. Which we sold to him. And he later destroyed. So by the time we invaded Iraq, no, he did not have WMD.

Quote:

---

Although the sheer idiocy of that comment doesn't even warrant a response, I will simply point out the fact that Saddam not only had WMDs, he had a history of using them in brutal manners, and he was pursuing more.

---

And these WMD's were?? Oh yeah, he didn't have them anymore! My argument stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Saddam had WMD. Which we sold to him. And he later destroyed. So by the time we invaded Iraq, no, he did not have WMD.

---

Not only did he no longer have these weapons, Bush's government has admitted that it knew he didn't have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

So it was alright when Saddam did it, because he had a rep' to protect? Saddam DID have things to hide, and he did that well by jerking the UN around--and the UN put up with it until the U.S. stepped in and said "that's enough". The UN has lost the little respect it had earned in the past and not lost already, and is no longer a credible, honest, or powerful organization. And I don't see how the U.S. pissing off the UN would get people to trust us less--those that would trust us less would already side with the UN despite all the under-the-table deals, constant mishandling of military situations, and rampant cowardice concerning the most recent conflict. And we don't care what those countries think about us, because they didn't like us anyway.

---

It was not alright that he didn't let them in but he eventually did and showed he had nothing. If you have nothing to hide then let them in or else you look untrustworthy and suspisous.

If Saddam had stuff to hide then how come no UN inspector found anything and how come we found nothing even now.

While I don't really like the UN...those things you put up there is why it is going to be going through reform so that it can be good again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Saddam had WMD. Which we sold to him. And he later destroyed. So by the time we invaded Iraq, no, he did not have WMD.

---

Not only did he no longer have these weapons, Bush's government has admitted that it knew he didn't have them.

---

Beautiful. Got a link? That'd come in handy for future debates, I think. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Although the sheer idiocy of that comment doesn't even warrant a response, I will simply point out the fact that Saddam not only had WMDs, he had a history of using them in brutal manners, and he was pursuing more.

---

yea, he used them in the early 90s. Every shred of evidence available indicates that while I'm sure he would have loved to have tons of WMD, he didn't, and he wasn't working on having them, and he was basically complying, and that he posed no significant threat to the US. But I guess it's easier to confront an enemy with imaginary WMD than confront an enemy with real WMD, like N Korea.

If you 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?

Yes, Big D, now you have an actual reason to do something, instead of taking an extremely general and non-insulting comment as a personal attack like last time. If you--yeah, you, and anybody who thinks like you--honestly believe not only that Saddam should have been left in posession and pursuit of more WMDs, but that he really didn't have any to begin with, you are a dumbass, and severely blinded to the world.

(By the way. When was the last time North Korea invaded another country, or used their WMD to slaughter hundreds of thousands of their own people, or supported known terrorists in every possible manner, or directly threatened slaughter on American civilians?)

EDIT: It's been fun pissing people off, but I just can't handle the stupidity anymore. I hope somebody near you all can smack some sense into you, or something. You'll have my prayers--mainly, that you don't breed, but still, prayers.

Thank you for your concern.

It's fun watching neocons blow a gasket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

If you 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?

Yes, Big D, now you have an actual reason to do something, instead of taking an extremely general and non-insulting comment as a personal attack like last time. If you--yeah, you, and anybody who thinks like you--honestly believe not only that Saddam should have been left in posession and pursuit of more WMDs, but that he really didn't have any to begin with, you are a dumbass, and severely blinded to the world.

(By the way. When was the last time North Korea invaded another country, or used their WMD to slaughter hundreds of thousands of their own people, or supported known terrorists in every possible manner, or directly threatened slaughter on American civilians?)

EDIT: It's been fun pissing people off, but I just can't handle the stupidity anymore. I hope somebody near you all can smack some sense into you, or something. You'll have my prayers--mainly, that you don't breed, but still, prayers.

---

lets see due to the fact of someone not being able to see that Iraq had no nukes and N.Korea said openly that they are making nukes.REally what kind of stupid person chooses Iraq unless O-I-L

yeah.The whole war on terrorist is pointless sinc eneocons define them as islamic extremist.yeah.There are tons of organizations that are terrorist.The white house used all the neocon's fears so they can do there own ambitions that wonb't fulfill your needs.Anyway they'll ignore NKorea and nuclear holocaust at the least will happen.

why in this topic are we yet again drawn into the mystery world of those lovely missing WMD which noone has found after years of trying.

can we not just go back to talking about people being tortured in guantanamo bay? yes if an ameircan soldier is captured he may well be treated badly. is that an excuse? america now lives with the motto an eye for an eye? are people really willing to sink to that level? is america not able to find some of those things called morals and take the upper ground? "he did it so we can do it too" is such a stupid argument. burma gasses it's civilian popultion so can america now do it? can america treat it's peopel in the same way korea does? can america commit genocide like sudan is? can america choose to commit torture because usbekisatn, saudi arbia, egypt, syria, do it (countries back by america as well)? of course they can. because that's the joy of being the worlds greatest super power. you can do what the hell you want. human rights? nope can't have them. rules of war? nope their bad too. the geneva convention? that's a no no. nuclear non-proliferation? can ignore that.

cna anyone please tell me in what circumstances camp x-ray should be allowed to continue in the eay it is greatly reported to do so? this isn't one report. it is tens of reports. from many different organisations. it is from the US's own guidlines. but still it goes on. because america has the ability to ignore every single international law in this world. who cares if people are being treated in a way the rspca (royal soceity for the prevention of cruelty to animals) would find shocking? it's america. they've had their reichstag fire. nothing is illegal now.

i want someone to tell my why this treatment of a human being is allowed to continue.

Interestingly, the U.S. has acknowleded today that torture went on at Gitmo and Abu Gharib, although they're still insisting it was the work of "a few bad apples."

An airconditioner turned on full blast isn't torture. OK. Neither is rap music. Or should I go to the UN about my neighbor's kid blasting Eminem all night long? If they'd been beating this guy or witholding medical care, food or water, that is torture. So Durbin is completely wrong from the start. Just for that, he should appologize.

But what is worse is the *way* he said what he said. It would have been one thing had Durbin simply read the report and said "This is wrong, and we shouldn't be doing it". What he said instead of that is "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings." Accusing the USA of being no better than Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, and the troops of being nothing more than totalitarian thugs. Dissent is one thing, accusing soldiers in a war of being as bad as nazis, to the point that such statements get read to the enemy is completely different.

no. Durbin said that nobody would believe the US government would condone such acts. He said "If I read this to you and didn't tell you what country committed these atrocities, you'd immediately assume it was some depraved totalitarian regime." That has nothing to do with the troops, and Karl Rove's "Al Jazeera is broadcasting his message to stir up hatred of the US" is a blatant lie.

The Arab world isn't angry that Dick Durbin pointed out we are committing atrocities. The Arab world is angry that we are committing atrocities at all. So am I, and os are a lot of Americans, and we should be.

forcing people to withstand extremes of hot and cold is torture. sleep depravation is torture. forcing men to crap themselfs is torture. it's a flagrant breach of human rights. would you like to be held in conditions like that? is that america's freedom and justice? humanity? we are not even talking guilty men here. they are fundamentally innocent. most of them don't even know what they are accused of.

and it is disgusting. it's hypocritical. it's wrong. it's a war crime. a human rights crime. a crime strictly defined so thoroughly in plenty of treaties. a crime i would want every man involved put on trial at the hague for. torture. i dare anyone hear to go out and buy a puppy and treat it in the same conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

Accusing the USA of being no better than Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, and the troops of being nothing more than totalitarian thugs. Dissent is one thing, accusing soldiers in a war of being as bad as nazis, to the point that such statements get read to the enemy is completely different.

---

He never said the soldiers were as bad as nazis though (although maybe he did imply that of the people responsible for the Abu Gharib atrocities, but really, can you blame him for that?). He just said the conditions in the prisons were comparable to the conditions in less freedom-loving regimes. I fail to see how saying the second statement implies the first.

I agree with eestlinc and Cloud No. 9.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

forcing people to withstand extremes of hot and cold is torture. sleep depravation is torture. forcing men to crap themselfs is torture. it's a flagrant breach of human rights. would you like to be held in conditions like that? is that america's freedom and justice? humanity? we are not even talking guilty men here. they are fundamentally innocent. most of them don't even know what they are accused of.

and it is disgusting. it's hypocritical. it's wrong. it's a war crime. a human rights crime. a crime strictly defined so thoroughly in plenty of treaties. a crime i would want every man involved put on trial at the hague for. torture. i dare anyone hear to go out and buy a puppy and treat it in the same conditions.

---

First off, they aren't innocent. They're people picked up on the battlefield trying to blow up American soldiers. If that's innocent then there can never be a guilty person.

And I stand by my words. Torture means that you are beating or starving, or denying medical care. None of the reports so far have even implied that those kinds of things are going on. You are partially right that it isn't comfortable. IT'S A PRISON. IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE COMFORTABLE. We need to get information from these people so other people aren't blown up. What should we do? Give them a proper British Tea and ask them politely when they are going to kill more Americans?

We've been over this territory before, and my position is still the same. We should treat them as well as we can without putting soldiers lives in danger. If there's a way to stop the killings without the air-conditioned room, I'd love to hear it. I don't like having to live in a world where you have to do icky things to protect people's lives. That's reality though, and you can either ignore it because you don't like it, or accept that this is just how the world works.

you would be right yevon if..... all prisoners were picked up onthe battlefield. but they aren't. begg was taken from pakistan. from his bed. in the same house as his wife and kids. which at the time were not american soldiers and he was not trying to blow them up. and he is not an isolated case.

and the men are innocent. they have not been given a trial (or actually arrested, been read their rights, been told what they are imprisoned for, seen a lawyer) so no they are not guilty. they have not been found guilty and so are innocent. that is the way the law works. you cannot ignore it for any reason.

international law forbids the treatment of any man in the way people are treat in camp x-ray. laws on animal handling even saw t is illegal. if yevon you are confident that it is humane to treat someone in such conditions then go buy a puppy and treat it that way.

it is torture. torture does not require bruises to make it torture. chinese water torture. depravation of light for sustained peroids of times. stress poisitions, not providing sanitation facilities. if this is all legal and above board. lock a dog in a cage, have it crap in there, make it either extremely hot or cold, don't let it sleep. then after you've done all that for 3 years and the dog is perfectly healthy and happy. then tell me this is not torture. that it's humanity, american justice (though noone has been found guilty so justice for what has to be asked).

and it is not a prison. it is a camp which does not follow any human rights agreements, pow treaties or allow inspections of conditions.

lowering a country to such a level were you treat animals better than people is a country that has every right to be said to appear to have nazi tendencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

And I stand by my words. Torture means that you are beating or starving, or denying medical care.

---

Many prisoners were beaten, some fatally, in Abu Ghraib. However, there were no photos, so the public didn't care. Psychological abuse, of the kind being alleged at Guantanamo, can constitute torture too, and it's entirely probable that physical torture is being used, since the US government has repeatedly been adamant that these prisoners have no rights under the Geneva Convention - which includes rights such as freedom from torture and c/i/d punishment, and guaranteed visits from Red Cross personnell.

Quote:

---

First off, they aren't innocent. They're people picked up on the battlefield trying to blow up American soldiers. If that's innocent then there can never be a guilty person.

---

No, many of them are "suspected terrorists", which means that there may only be a belief or suspicion that they've done anything wrong. As Cloud No. 9 has said, they've not been convicted of anything, let alone charged. They are, legally, innocent as they've not been proven guilty of anything at all.

It's notable that, when prisoners several British prisoners were released from Guantanamo, they were all permitted to go free after their return to Britain - since there was no evidence whatsoever that they had any terrorist connections.

Besides, and this shouldn't even need to be said, it is irrelevant whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply here, since torture is completely forbidden by international law. It's not an obligation that states can simply opt out of. Anyone, anywhere, who tortures another person - either physically or psychologically - commits an international crime which can be prosecuted anywhere in the world. There are no defences and no justifications which can legally excuse torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

you would be right yevon if..... all prisoners were picked up onthe battlefield. but they aren't. begg was taken from pakistan. from his bed. in the same house as his wife and kids. which at the time were not american soldiers and he was not trying to blow them up. and he is not an isolated case.

---

Mozzam Begg trained at terrorist training facilities, with other terrorists, to learn how to become a terrorist. He wasn't innocent.

Quote:

---

and the men are innocent. they have not been given a trial (or actually arrested, been read their rights, been told what they are imprisoned for, seen a lawyer) so no they are not guilty. they have not been found guilty and so are innocent. that is the way the law works. you cannot ignore it for any reason.

---

They don't deserve a trial, and a man's innocence does not stand or fall on the decision of a judge.

Quote:

---

international law forbids the treatment of any man in the way people are treat in camp x-ray. laws on animal handling even saw t is illegal.

---

Most international law doesn't apply to terrorists, only enemy Prisoners of War--which these "people" are not. Otherwise, show us something--anything--from your "international law" that forbids temperature control, restraint, and humiliation.

Quote:

---

if yevon you are confident that it is humane to treat someone in such conditions then go buy a puppy and treat it that way.

---

What way? Chain it up outside? Make it bare the heat of day and the cold and dark of night? Feed it simple, basic nutritional meals? Well...yeah, a lot of people treat their dogs like that anyway. Some might even *gasp* play music in front of them!

Quote:

---

it is torture. torture does not require bruises to make it torture. chinese water torture. depravation of light for sustained peroids of times. stress poisitions, not providing sanitation facilities. if this is all legal and above board.

---

These guys themselves because they choose to, not because they have to. They're restrained and kept under control, but given extremely basic living conditions.

Quote:

---

and it is not a prison. it is a camp which does not follow any human rights agreements, pow treaties or allow inspections of conditions.

---

1. It follows what human rights agreements need to be followed.
2. Once again, I point out the fact that they're not POWs.
3. If there are no inspections, how does anybody know what goes on? If they were really doing bad things, wouldn't they keep it a little private?

Quote:

---

lowering a country to such a level were you treat animals better than people is a country that has every right to be said to appear to have nazi tendencies.

---

First of all, look at the Democratic party and the people who support it--people like PETA that think raising animals for food is cruel and inhumane, and others who think killing human babies is a matter of convenience. America already has a ed up society.

Secondly, America is doing nothing on a scale anywhere close to Nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guest

They don't deserve a trial, and a man's innocence does not stand or fall on the decision of a judge.

---

How is it up to you to determine who deserves a trial? And if a judge is unfit to determine a man's innocence (your statement demonstrates a keen ignorance of American court law, by the way, since these people's cases would be handled by a jury), then surely paranoid soldiers in the midst of combat in a foreign nation are unfit to determine a man's innocence.

Besides, something called the fourth amendment disagrees with you.

Quote:

---

Most international law doesn't apply to terrorists, only enemy Prisoners of War--which these "people" are not. Otherwise, show us something--anything--from your "international law" that forbids temperature control, restraint, and humiliation.

---

As has been mentioned countless times in this thread already, not everyone who has been put in Gitmo/Abu Gharib/Bagram/wherever has been a terrorist. In fact, we have *solid proof* that some were not. (I can't find the news stories related to this right now, however).

I'd respond to the rest of your post, but I've got to run momentarily.

training at facilities makes you a terrorist? nope. and in fact begg only admits watching the training he never took part. and training doesn't make you a terrorist anyway. i could train all day and night on how to blow stuff up and i'm guilty of nothing as long as i don't use it. i wouldn't even be guilty of conspiracy. if i don't make a plan then it's not conspiracy.

if a man's innocence isn't determined by a judge or jury? who is it by? the army? his captives? can you judge whether someone deserves as trial and to be tortured by another factor?

the UN human rights charter forbids it for one. if they are EU citizens then the EU human rights charter forbids. basic morality forbids it as well.

the man in camp x-ray choose to crap themselves? because they all have toilets but decide not to use them? becuase it seemed like a cool idea at the time? yeah because all those suspects are just crazy and go round crapping all over the place out of free will cos they enjoy that kinda thing........

not being a POW does not remove you from human rights. people know what goes on in quantanmo from people who have been let out (after 3 years) and were deemed innocent (seems like a long time) without an apology, compensation, explanation.

i didn't say america was on the sclae of nazi germany. i said that it had tendencies to remove human rights, torture foreigners, commit war crimes and kill people in their captivity. which is quite a nazi thing to do.

There's also the fact that other countries are going to react to what we do regardless of whether we technically follow the Geneva Conventions or not.

I can't find the article I'm looking for. Some guy was picked up in New York or something despite the fact that the officers knew he was innocent of any crimes, and he wound up being beaten to death. I can't remember any of the details, unfortunately, and it happened a couple of months back, which is probably why I'm having a hard time locating the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

training at facilities makes you a terrorist? nope. and in fact begg only admits watching the training he never took part. and training doesn't make you a terrorist anyway. i could train all day and night on how to blow stuff up and i'm guilty of nothing as long as i don't use it. i wouldn't even be guilty of conspiracy. if i don't make a plan then it's not conspiracy.

if a man's innocence isn't determined by a judge or jury? who is it by? the army? his captives? can you judge whether someone deserves as trial and to be tortured by another factor?

the UN human rights charter forbids it for one. if they are EU citizens then the EU human rights charter forbids. basic morality forbids it as well.

the man in camp x-ray choose to crap themselves? because they all have toilets but decide not to use them? becuase it seemed like a cool idea at the time? yeah because all those suspects are just crazy and go round crapping all over the place out of free will cos they enjoy that kinda thing........

not being a POW does not remove you from human rights. people know what goes on in quantanmo from people who have been let out (after 3 years) and were deemed innocent (seems like a long time) without an apology, compensation, explanation.

i didn't say america was on the sclae of nazi germany. i said that it had tendencies to remove human rights, torture foreigners, commit war crimes and kill people in their captivity. which is quite a nazi thing to do.

---

First off, If all you have is Beg as a counter example, well there is an old saying "one sample makes for poor statistics". In other words, Begg doesn't matter unless you can point to a few others in his situation.

As to whether they crap their pants, well, gee I don't know.

We are giving them basic rights, 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. That isn't going to stop the next attack. We can't have a public trial because of the risk to the jury (they'll probably be murdered if they convict), 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), as well as the fact that even knowing who we have at any point tells them which plans are compromised. So we need MPs, I suppose, and closed trials.

There just aren't any other options. Only two: Live with attacks, or do some icky things and get the information we need. There is no other way. I hate that it has to be this way, and I'm not thrilled that these guys are getting pushed around and whatever else. But I think the alternative would be far worse for everyone.

So Cloud 9, I'll ask the question in a different way.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

We are giving them basic rights

---

I seem to recall a Supreme Court case that ruled that the practice of refusing habeas corpus was against the Fourth Amendment. Despite that ruling, I still continue to hear stories of prisoners being held without trial. So no, they are not being given basic rights.

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.

Quote:

---

That isn't going to stop the next attack.

---

Neither is holding random people without trial or any sort of proof that they have done anything wrong. In fact, that's probably going to make attacks more likely, because someone is going to be very pissed off that their uncle/father/brother/best friend/former roommate is being held without habeas corpus in a prison that tortures its inmates by a country that purports to be against such practices. I know I'd be pretty smurfing pissed off if that happened to a friend of mine, and I'd probably hate the country that was responsible for it, too.

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

So we need MPs, I suppose, and closed trials.

---

I disagree, for reasons stated above.

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.

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.

I'm under the impression they're playing it at 110 dB or higher. I can't remember the threshold of pain offhand, but repeated exposure to loud music can cause sustained hearing loss over an extended period of time. If you think it's fine to systematically remove someone's hearing without their consent, you're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't seem like the sort of thing the United States should be standing for.

Incidentally, there's an editorial in today's Washington Post from George H.W. Bush's presidential physician condemning the torture at Gitmo and elsewhere. (Note that registration is required to read it).

The threshold of pain, according to two internet sources, is roughly 120 dB. However, there are other factors(i.e., sensitivity of the ear) where this could vary. Also, the sound begins to give damage to the ear at 85 dB(for 8 hours - this time gets less as the dB raises).

This is all a moot point, since we don't actually know how loud the music's being played. However, if they are playing it above 100 dB for hours at a time, this could be constituted as torture, because not only could it be causing pain, but it definitely would be physically harming those forced to listen to it.

it is not what it is played. it is when it is played. in what manner is played. if i played loud music 24/7 for a week so loud you couldn't sleep like is reported to happen in quantanamo then it is torture. sleep depravation is torture. making a man crap himself is humilation and degrading and so is torture. stress positions are painful and so are torture. also the human rights act says all men should be allowed to practice their religion freely. for many muslims this means not to shave. forceful shaving of them and not giving them the necessary equipment to do so (water when doing the prayers, matts, the quran etc.) is not torture but is a breach of human rights.

i can choose to hang myself here and now but i wouldn't be best pleased if just because i can do it means the government can come over and do it for me. sleep depravation by creating an environment such as loud noise where you cannot sleep is torture as plainly defined. temperature control can also cause health problems.

gnostic yevon seems to be using the US's (and only the US's) definition of torture. which doesn't work anyway due to the nuremburg principles (number 5 i beliver) which says that making it legal in your country does not make it legal as internation law still governs it.

and you want another example other than begg of a man not on a battelfield but taken by american forces?

Maher Arar was a canadian man going to come back from holiday in america. he was arrested while changing planes at JFK (nowhere near iraq or afghanistan). he had worked with a man who had a brother called Abdullah Almalki who america suspected of having links to al-qaeda (almalki had signed arar's rental lease) on this basis arar was arrested in america. was he taken to a pokice station? placed in jail? nope he was deported. to canada where he was a citizen? nope he was deported to syria where he was racially profiled to come from. note that arar was not an immigrant in america but was deported by them anyway. a month later the canadian government were informed.

syria as we all know isn't a very nice to be held in jail. they practice torture (international law forbids the sneding of anyone to a country which is suspected of carrying out torture). it is known as torture by proxy. america now has a nasty habit of it. it send them away to somewhere like syira or uzbekistan. have them tortured for a while then have them sent back to cuba

back to the story. arar was tortured in syria for a year. and was forced to sign a false confession.

he was released back to canada 374 after his detention at JFK.

he tried to sue the american government but the american government used the State Secrets Privilege and stop the motion.

so yeah another man, innocent, tortured (by proxy this time) and nowhere near a battlefield.

Quote:

---

it is not what it is played. it is when it is played. in what manner is played. if i played loud music 24/7 for a week so loud you couldn't sleep like is reported to happen in quantanamo then it is torture. sleep depravation is torture. making a man crap himself is humilation and degrading and so is torture. stress positions are painful and so are torture. also the human rights act says all men should be allowed to practice their religion freely. for many muslims this means not to shave. forceful shaving of them and not giving them the necessary equipment to do so (water when doing the prayers, matts, the quran etc.) is not torture but is a breach of human rights.

i can choose to hang myself here and now but i wouldn't be best pleased if just because i can do it means the government can come over and do it for me. sleep depravation by creating an environment such as loud noise where you cannot sleep is torture as plainly defined. temperature control can also cause health problems.

---

You have really weird notions of what constitutes torture. Now if a prisoner has to shave (so as to remove lice and bugs), we're torturing him. If we don't hand them prayer rugs and korans and a proper water basin, it's against the law. Well, those "religious artifacts" are perfect places to hide weapons, which is absolutely that last thing you'd want as a guard in a prison. If the guy can't sleep at night, this is torture? This is absolute nonsense. You can't force somebody to fall asleep. I can't even force myself to fall asleep. And I'm pretty sure you'd be against tranquilizers too.

Stress positions are pretty bad, I guess. I really have no idea what this is all about. If it's possible not to do that, then we shouldn't, but I'm not sure that we can get intelligence from them without it. And unless we get the intelligence, Americans will die.

I really wish there was a better way, but I don't see one. And reallity being what it is, we need to find out where and when the next attack is. If not, more attacks will happen. That's the real world. It stinks, but that doesn't mean that you can simply deny what is going on. I don't see much fairness in asking a mother to give up her child or a child to give up her father just for a treaty. That would be quite frankly cruel. And all of this thinking of "It's the law" is to my mind asking Americans to do just that. Give up safety and please a few international lawyers. Although as stringent as international law is, I doubt that any POW camp could ever meet such standards.

And at least you have one other name other than Begg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

You have really weird notions of what constitutes torture. Now if a prisoner has to shave (so as to remove lice and bugs), we're torturing him.

---

Forcing them to shave violates freedom of religion, and therefore, the First Amendment.

Quote:

---

If we don't hand them prayer rugs and korans and a proper water basin, it's against the law. Well, those "religious artifacts" are perfect places to hide weapons, which is absolutely that last thing you'd want as a guard in a prison.

---

How hard is it for guards to examine them for weapons themselves? You act like finding hidden weapons is rocket science.

Quote:

---

If the guy can't sleep at night, this is torture? This is absolute nonsense. You can't force somebody to fall asleep. I can't even force myself to fall asleep. And I'm pretty sure you'd be against tranquilizers too.

---

um. Sleep deprivation is listed as torture in most definitions I've ever read.

Quote:

---

Stress positions are pretty bad, I guess. I really have no idea what this is all about. If it's possible not to do that, then we shouldn't, but I'm not sure that we can get intelligence from them without it. And unless we get the intelligence, Americans will die.

I really wish there was a better way, but I don't see one. And reallity being what it is, we need to find out where and when the next attack is. If not, more attacks will happen. That's the real world. It stinks, but that doesn't mean that you can simply deny what is going on. I don't see much fairness in asking a mother to give up her child or a child to give up her father just for a treaty. That would be quite frankly cruel. And all of this thinking of "It's the law" is to my mind asking Americans to do just that. Give up safety and please a few international lawyers. Although as stringent as international law is, I doubt that any POW camp could ever meet such standards.

---

see, I have a different opinion on how to deal with the whole War on Terror. That position is: Stop pissing off people in other countries. The war on Iraq has done absolutely the reverse of that. Despite what you constantly hear on right-wing talk shows, Al-Qaeda and other groups object to America's imperialism and its blind support of Israel (even when Israelis are guilty of exactly the same atrocities the Palestinians are accused of), not something intangible like its freedom. Remove their reason to hate us and you remove the source of their attacks on us. Somehow that seems a much more solid defense than trying to get intelligence through torture, which is just going to make more people hate us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

You have really weird notions of what constitutes torture. Now if a prisoner has to shave (so as to remove lice and bugs), we're torturing him.

---

Forcing them to shave violates freedom of religion, and therefore, the First Amendment.

Quote:

---

If we don't hand them prayer rugs and korans and a proper water basin, it's against the law. Well, those "religious artifacts" are perfect places to hide weapons, which is absolutely that last thing you'd want as a guard in a prison.

---

How hard is it for guards to examine them for weapons themselves? You act like finding hidden weapons is rocket science.

Quote:

---

If the guy can't sleep at night, this is torture? This is absolute nonsense. You can't force somebody to fall asleep. I can't even force myself to fall asleep. And I'm pretty sure you'd be against tranquilizers too.

---

um. Sleep deprivation is listed as torture in most definitions I've ever read.

Quote:

---

Stress positions are pretty bad, I guess. I really have no idea what this is all about. If it's possible not to do that, then we shouldn't, but I'm not sure that we can get intelligence from them without it. And unless we get the intelligence, Americans will die.

I really wish there was a better way, but I don't see one. And reallity being what it is, we need to find out where and when the next attack is. If not, more attacks will happen. That's the real world. It stinks, but that doesn't mean that you can simply deny what is going on. I don't see much fairness in asking a mother to give up her child or a child to give up her father just for a treaty. That would be quite frankly cruel. And all of this thinking of "It's the law" is to my mind asking Americans to do just that. Give up safety and please a few international lawyers. Although as stringent as international law is, I doubt that any POW camp could ever meet such standards.

---

see, I have a different opinion on how to deal with the whole War on Terror. That position is: Stop pissing off people in other countries. The war on Iraq has done absolutely the reverse of that. Despite what you constantly hear on right-wing talk shows, Al-Qaeda and other groups object to America's imperialism and its blind support of Israel (even when Israelis are guilty of exactly the same atrocities the Palestinians are accused of), not something intangible like its freedom. Remove their reason to hate us and you remove the source of their attacks on us. Somehow that seems a much more solid defense than trying to get intelligence through torture, which is just going to make more people hate us.

---

.Before you critisize when your in a prison as a guard pretty much your life is on the line and if you get comfortable around prisoners then you pretty much just lost your job.In american prisonss so many guards are killed and injured on duty by prisoners who made common weapons.EAsy to make weapon.Such as spears made from condensed magazines.

That doesn't excuse the guards from exercising basic human decency. Confiscating items from prisoners is one thing, and probably would solve that problem; depriving them of sleep or subjecting them to loud music or any number of other things, however, solves nothing and is a violation of basic human rights under the "cruel and unusual" clause.

Quote:

---

Stress positions are pretty bad, I guess. I really have no idea what this is all about. If it's possible not to do that, then we shouldn't, but I'm not sure that we can get intelligence from them without it. And unless we get the intelligence, Americans will die.

---

To quote some Law & Order judge: it's not about being right...it's about doing right. The "greater good" is NOT a valid reason under any circumstance, and is not an excuse for any infringement on individual rights.

stress positions are bascily placing the body in such a position that it is painful. and you do this for a long period of time. hog tying (tying the hands and feets together either by binding or by tying a shaft to the hands and having it placed behind the feet. having the prisnoner lean against a wall on his finger tips. short stick tying (placing a wooden pole on the soliders and tying the hands to it) after a time. thought i can happen quite quick, try it for yourself. it becomes amazingly painful. things like seen in abu gahrib of tying people to the a cage so they have to stand or hang for huge amounts of time is also in the same category. so is the strappado.

it's a technique called stress and duress that the americans use. you place the prisoner in the most stressful, harassing, mentally and physically wearing him down. it is supposed to invoke a feling of fear, helplessness, powerlessness and humiliation.

Cloud No.9 - do you have a source for these alleged torture techniques Americans use?

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/kubark.htm#IXE

that is the most acceptable full publishing of the kubark manual i can find. the part on pain gives notes the idea of stress positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manadel_al-Jamadi

he is the man in abu gahrib who died from the palestinian hanging technique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cure

a torture technique used in both places

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X-ray

a list of people held in guantanamo bay that proof a point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ismail_Agha (arrested by northern alliance not us army and is 14)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehdi_Muhammed_Ghezali (in pakistan)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamdouh_Habib (another one in pakistan and was exported for torture, was sexually abused in camp x-ray)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Esam_Hamdi (while he was a naughty boy the court ruling in his favour is significant)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdurahman_Khadr (two years with no explanation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz (alledges all kinds "ickiness")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asadullah_Rahman (is 10 years old for smurf sake!!!!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah_Abdul_Salam_Zaeef (an ambassador of the taliban to pakistan, captured in pakistan, and he's a cripple, i bet he was fighting hard)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah_Abdul_Salam_Zaeef (another one in pakistan, and was made blind by his captors. and the us happily allowed libyan interogators access to him.)

so for all those people whp thought begg was a one off. it looks like you were mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation as a form of torture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation the effects of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_execution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabach_technique has been believed to have been used on occassions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_boarding another nasty torture method.

so yep lots and lots of nasty things to do to your fellow man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Stress positions are pretty bad, I guess. I really have no idea what this is all about. If it's possible not to do that, then we shouldn't, but I'm not sure that we can get intelligence from them without it. And unless we get the intelligence, Americans will die.

---

To quote some Law & Order judge: it's not about being right...it's about doing right. The "greater good" is NOT a valid reason under any circumstance, and is not an excuse for any infringement on individual rights.

---

It's not simply that it the greater good. The way it is is that the US is essentially in a street-fight with these Al-Qaida members, and the international rules are being applied to one side of the fight without a single thought to whether it makes it more dangerous for that "honorable" person to defend himself. Especially when the other guy is not only breaking the "honorable" rules, but is possibly carrying a knife or a gun. You wouldn't do such a thing in a street fight, and war, as much as people would want to pretend otherwise, is nothing more than a giant street fight with cluster bombs. Sure if you know you're going to survive without getting massively hurt you should try to not injure the other guy too badly. The goal is to stop the fight, not to kill the other guy. But if you're defending youself and the only way to stop the fight is to break the guy's nose so he can't fight, then you have to do that. If you don't you're probably going to get seriously hurt, as well as anybody standing there. Prolonging the fight is actually worse for everybody.

As far as "not pissing off other countries", the other countries are already pissed. I don't think Iran or Pakistan is going to see that we've turned Guantanamo into a 5-star hotel and start loving us. Osama is already so pissed at us that he's already attacked us. Who exactly are we gonna convince at this point?

so imprisoning a 10 year old protect your country? blinding a man protects your country? torturing man to death protects your country? sexual abuse and degradation of a man protects your country? half drowning a man protects your country?

if gross breaches of human rights and torture is what is required to protect america then it has no right to protect itself.

The Abu Gharib torture photos and other incidents like them are the best recruiting tools al-Qaeda could ask for. Do you honestly mean to say that you believe that incidents like these AREN'T going to cause more people to turn against us? "Some of them already hate us" is NOT a valid reason to go throw caution to the wind and torture random prisoners at will. Doing that makes us no better than them, and on a purely practical level is just going to piss off MORE Arabs anyway.

Read about Bagram. Turned into another Abu Gharib. Turns out at least two people were beaten to death, and one was just some taxi driver who wandered in randomly. How is this not going to turn a TON of people who had very little against the U.S. into vehement, vigilant enemies? It's cracked to believe this isn't harming our cause.