CNN video of Guantánamo Bay censored

Gee, guess there really was nothing to hide after all. No First Amendment violations here either.

Quote:

---

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba, July 7 (UPI) -- Taking up U.S. President George Bush's challenge for reporters to visit the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba, CNN did, but its video was censored.

In response to allegations of prisoner abuse at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba, Bush made the challenge in June, and again Wednesday while in Denmark.

However, a CNN crew that toured the facility was not allowed to see the worst-behaved inmates, who are kept in a block behind a mesh fence.

The prison holds about 520 prisoners from 44 countries, most of them captured during the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.

CNN employees were not allowed to speak to the prisoners, and military censors demanded the crew erase video footage they said would allow viewers to identify a prisoner.

In the hospital wing, one prisoner shouted in English, "We take the torture in here," but it was not possible to talk to the prisoner about his allegation, the network said.

---

not sure what to say about this... but this actually makes me more curious and more suspect then I ever was before.

Omg, I'm completely surprised by this turn of events!

Pardon my sarcasm.

Bush & Co have repeatedly made it clear that eliminating news of crimes is more important than eliminating the crimes themselves. Remember Abu Ghraib? Rumsfeld's first response was to condemn the media for publishing the photos.

If you can control the press, and control what info it feeds the public, then you can prettymuch manufacture "reality" as it is perceived by the people.

Quote:

---

If you can control the press, and control what info it feeds the public, then you can prettymuch manufacture "reality" as it is perceived by the people.

---

True, but how do you think that Bush's overall rating in the United States are deteriorating? More alligations of the Iraq war have been brought through the press, and although Bush may have limited control over the media, it isnt enough to stop his declining rates. People percieve things much different when they oppose something rather than support something

Bush can't win anymore. The majority doesn't support Iraq, they don't believe Bush. The only thing that he has going for him is that he is 'tough' on terrorism. With the terrorist attack in Britian and Spain I bet it gets harder and harder for him to look that way. It is even worse with Britian though because it was planned in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

CNN employees were not allowed to speak to the prisoners, and military censors demanded the crew erase video footage they said would allow viewers to identify a prisoner.

---

There's a reason for that; prisoners cannot be filmed in such a way to identify themselves for their own protection, unless of course they sign a contract stating as much.

But this is no surprise to me, however the video of Guantanamo is ultimately not as important politically speaking as the huff over the censorship. People who previously supported the war and supported Bush WON'T support censorship.

So in the long run, I'm sure many people who are aware that this is wrong will be pleased with this turn of events. Approval ratings will dip even lower and if Bush wishes to maintain his integrity, he will have to begin actively listening to the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

So in the long run, I'm sure many people who are aware that this is wrong will be pleased with this turn of events. Approval ratings will dip even lower and if Bush wishes to maintain his integrity, he will have to begin actively listening to the public.

---

Why would he half to start listening to the public? He isn't going to be in office again in 4 years. Unless the republicans decided it is better to go against him than with him, he isn't going to face any sort of impeachment or anything. The man basically doesn't have anything to fear so why does he need to start listening to the public.

You think the only reason a president does anything is for reelection?
Why do you think anyone would want to be reelected in the first place?
Because being in that office gives them the power to control things,
however there are checks and balances so if the president goes against
the grain completely, he will fail. Bush has the ability, working with
congress, which also depends on the people, to pass and veto different
laws where he sees fit. This ability is one of the things that defines a
president. Someone who is said to have gotten many things done is
someone who has followed through with his ideas in the form of laws and
reform.

.opt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

If you can control the press, and control what info it feeds the public, then you can prettymuch manufacture "reality" as it is perceived by the people.

---

This is the message Metal Gear Solid 2 tries to give you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

But this is no surprise to me, however the video of Guantanamo is ultimately not as important politically speaking as the huff over the censorship. People who previously supported the war and supported Bush WON'T support censorship.

---

Very good point. I don't care one bit about the people in Gitmo (Well I do, I care about the soldiers who go through daily threats, abuse, and attacks.), but censorship is a much bigger issue. Well, it would be, except for the whole 'not allowed to identify the prisoners' bit.

I'd also like to know why the worst of the worst of the worst (The worst few hundred captured of several tens of thousands are the ones in Gitmo.) are being believed when they've demostrated they're more than happy to kill and maim. Are they going to have a second's compunction about lying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optium

You think the only reason a president does anything is for reelection?
Why do you think anyone would want to be reelected in the first place?
Because being in that office gives them the power to control things,
however there are checks and balances so if the president goes against
the grain completely, he will fail. Bush has the ability, working with
congress, which also depends on the people, to pass and veto different
laws where he sees fit. This ability is one of the things that defines a
president. Someone who is said to have gotten many things done is
someone who has followed through with his ideas in the form of laws and
reform.

.opt

---

I agree but Bush doesn't strike me as that kind of person. To me it has always seemed that it was his way or the highway and I don't see him changing that for anything.

And this is surprising...how?

Bush doesn't care what this does to his approval ratings - he got reelected. And unless he does something really retarded, there's no way in hell he can be impeached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

And unless he does something really retarded

---

How really retarded does Bush need to be to get kicked off? Getting his cock sucked by a secretary?

That would do it as it would be demanded by his conservative base and the other republicans would do so to save themselves from the bases outrage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

How really retarded does Bush need to be to get kicked off? Getting his cock sucked by a secretary?

---

And then lying about it under oath, yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optium

You think the only reason a president does anything is for reelection?
Why do you think anyone would want to be reelected in the first place?
Because being in that office gives them the power to control things,
however there are checks and balances so if the president goes against
the grain completely, he will fail. Bush has the ability, working with
congress, which also depends on the people, to pass and veto different
laws where he sees fit. This ability is one of the things that defines a
president. Someone who is said to have gotten many things done is
someone who has followed through with his ideas in the form of laws and
reform.

.opt

---

I agree but Bush doesn't strike me as that kind of person. To me it has always seemed that it was his way or the highway and I don't see him changing that for anything.

---

Bush has the support of the House of Representatives now, and for the House, elections come by every two years. Which means in 2006, a lot of them will be up for reelection, and believe me, they want to get reelected. If the public no longer supports Bush, then it is no longer prudent for members of the House to support Bush. If the members of the House no longer support him, then it will be much harder for him to have his way.

"I'd also like to know why the worst of the worst of the worst (The worst few hundred captured of several tens of thousands are the ones in Gitmo.) are being believed when they've demostrated they're more than happy to kill and maim. Are they going to have a second's compunction about lying?"

actually they haven't. they haven't been given a trial. and so are guilty of nothing. some weren't on the battlefield at the time they were arrested. some are children. one is a cripple in pakistan at the time. one was blinded in custody.

and we wonder why america refuses to show us the full picture of it's concentration camp? because we all know what goes on in there.

and this censorship proves that there is something to hide. and we wonder why people hate america? because they have this place is one reason.

there is no defence of what goes on in this place and covering it up does not hide that fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

Bush has the support of the House of Representatives now, and for the House, elections come by every two years. Which means in 2006, a lot of them will be up for reelection, and believe me, they want to get reelected. If the public no longer supports Bush, then it is no longer prudent for members of the House to support Bush. If the members of the House no longer support him, then it will be much harder for him to have his way.

---

Seeing as how they would become flip-flopper by all of a sudden not going along with what Bush says it isn't very good for them either. Also most people probably have no clue how their representative does in office. They usually look towards the leadership of their party such as Presidents, Majority/Minority leaders, State Governors. That is if they even look at that. A lot still vote on blind party lines.

Thanks fire, that's the point I was trying to get across, but it's like 100
degrees and I don't have an air conditioner. :p

.opt

To prove that there was nothing illegal being hidden from the public, they release a censored videotape where most of the camp was off limits and no interviews were allowed? Whether there's anything to hide or not, this was NOT the way to handle the problem.

Guys it a millitary base. You can't walk around a millitary base randomly filming things. Honestly, it would be the same thing in any other millitary base in any other country. Just try walking up to a british millitary base, camcorder in hand, and see how long it takes for you to get arrested. It won't be long, and chances are you'd face charges.

Gnostic I ain't trying to argue that.. and I don't think many are. HOWEVER BUSH SPECIFICALLY DARED THEM if I recall. Meaning that for that particular dare they should at least have been allowed throughout the place. Black bars, blurry faces.. etc can act as sensorship to keep one from guessing a prisoner's identity.

If you are going to dare someone to come in and show the public you had damned well let them or else you really just botched yourself up.. bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

Gnostic I ain't trying to argue that.. and I don't think many are. HOWEVER BUSH SPECIFICALLY DARED THEM if I recall. Meaning that for that particular dare they should at least have been allowed throughout the place. Black bars, blurry faces.. etc can act as sensorship to keep one from guessing a prisoner's identity.

If you are going to dare someone to come in and show the public you had damned well let them or else you really just botched yourself up.. bad.

---

Even if it was a dare, there are always places in any millitary base where you won't be allowed to film. That would be the same as any base.

And black bars and so on would probablydo enough to hide the identitiy of prisoners. The CNN/Gitmo thing is actaully worse than no press at all, especially with the accusations swirling about the place.

I don't think Gitmo is a gulag or a concentration camp, which I've said before, but I suppose that's a different debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

The CNN/Gitmo thing is actaully worse than no press at all, especially with the accusations swirling about the place.

---

That was sort of what I was getting at. Not letting press into a military base would be standard fare, and rumors would be left at rumors. All this did was confirm that there is infact a lot to hide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

actually they haven't. they haven't been given a trial. and so are guilty of nothing. some weren't on the battlefield at the time they were arrested. some are children. one is a cripple in pakistan at the time. one was blinded in custody.

---

Links to those please? And secondly, they might not have been found guilty, but they're sure as hell not being held without due suspicion. Frankly, it's like those things you see on TV when the cops refer to someone as a suspect when the 'suspect' has gunned someone down in front of the cops.

Quote:

---

and we wonder why america refuses to show us the full picture of it's concentration camp? because we all know what goes on in there.

---

Well there are some conflicting conditions if I ever saw them. We can't know what goes on in there without being shown. We can only draw inferances.

Quote:

---

and this censorship proves that there is something to hide. and we wonder why people hate america? because they have this place is one reason.

---

So you put the human rights of inhuman scum (Who don't think twice about making people beg for their lives, releasing videos thereof, and promptly beheading them.) before the safety of three hundred million US civilians and the soliders defending them? And we wonder why America laughs at Europe.

Incidentally, as has been said, this censorship proves nothing whatsoever, except that their right to not be identified isn't being broached. Which hardly looks like a damning indictment.

But I do agree this wasn't the wisest way to handle it. People against Bush aren't going to care about the reasoning, all they will see is 'CENSORSHIP' branded in whacking great letters on his forehead.

This was just a stupid idea. Bush and them wanted to show there's nothing going on, but they failed to think of that it's a military base and portions are blocked off from unauthorized personnel, and the fact that the prisoners themselves can't be filmed - so this, effectively, did nothing, and will probably just galvanize the conspiracy-theorists further.

so milf asks for links. well instead ow writing up the whole list again. i hope i will be allowed to simply copyt from them from a previous post. i hope the higher ups will allow this.

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."

and of course moazzam begg who isn't listed there. but like many. was arrested imprisoned for 3 years (note that he wasn't in afghanistan but in pakistan and was probably not arrest by government or army troops). tortured. then released as innocent. if he was guilty of something why release him? and if he is not why torture him for 3 years? why hold a 10 year old under the same conditions? a cripple who was in pakistan at the time?

this all make guantanamo bay a war crime. censoring war crimes is not big or clever. those who participate in it at war criminals and should be imprisoned also.

why if these men are guilty can we not try them? why if they are innocent do they hold them? why if they are human can we torture them? and why is this covered up and swallowed by americans who believe that it's okay to torture his fellow man?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

so milf asks for links. well instead ow writing up the whole list again. i hope i will be allowed to simply copyt from them from a previous post. i hope the higher ups will allow this.

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.

---

It's also forty years old. I'm pretty sure they've figured out whole new worlds of pain since then. :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

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."

---

Those are the valid things on Wikipedia. Using it as a source for information such as definitions of terms is a-ok. It's rather less reliable - seeing as anyone can contribute - to claim all those assertations are truthful based on what Wikipedia says.

Quote:

---

and of course moazzam begg who isn't listed there. but like many. was arrested imprisoned for 3 years (note that he wasn't in afghanistan but in pakistan and was probably not arrest by government or army troops). tortured. then released as innocent. if he was guilty of something why release him? and if he is not why torture him for 3 years? why hold a 10 year old under the same conditions? a cripple who was in pakistan at the time?

---

And when he got out, Moazzam Begg admitted that he had funded Al-Qaeda and had visited their training camps.

Quote:

---

why if these men are guilty can we not try them? why if they are innocent do they hold them? why if they are human can we torture them? and why is this covered up and swallowed by americans who believe that it's okay to torture his fellow man?

---

If they are guilty, trying them might require revealing some severely classified information and, as we're still smack in the middle of the war on terror, it's hardly prudent to tell the world who your agents and contacts are. And please, don't try and make this out to be an exclusively American thing. Every other nation on Earth has been and almost always still is more than happy to torture people for information. In addition, they were probably released because they gave the US what the US wanted, and in return got their freedom.

Now, let me ask you, if these people are guilty, (And I don't mean they're 'naughty boys' as you so ineptly put it.) they're going to make more than a few claims in order to bring down the US in the world's eyes. I'll believe it when I see it, not when some terrorists with grudges make claims.

but most of those men are not terrorist. they are free and innocent. and if they are not innocent why did we release them?

begg did not confess to funding al-qaeda. he funded the muslim struggle in bosnia and visted there. and visiting training camps (he denies he took part) is not a crime. and it certainly is not a crime worth 3 years of life and torture.

if these men were a true danger they would not be released. and if they were truly not being harmed then we would be able to see so. hiding facts just rouses suspicion.

inuse wikipedia alot because of the way it is organised and so is useful when needing mass links.

and the "naughty boy" thing. well i don't believe he really committed a crime. he fought for what he believed in and there is no evidence that he committed a crime. and the thread in which it orginated also had torture referred to as "icky things" so i thought reducing it to that level of language was reasonable.

to breach human rights and those who cover up such an act should be in the hague right now.

Quote:

---

If they are guilty, trying them might require revealing some severely classified information and, as we're still smack in the middle of the war on terror, it's hardly prudent to tell the world who your agents and contacts are.

---

How do you know they're guilty? So, because it's not convenient for us to give them a trial right now, we can hold them indefinitely, without even the necessity of probable cause?

I agree that Cloud No.9's "sources" aren't exactly conclusive(to make an understatement). I don't know what's going on at Gitmo, and this new CNN thing surely doesn't settle any point of the debate. It's all-but pointless to discuss it.

But it's not pointless to discuss the political reprucussions of what's happened concerning this. Bush dared the media, and the media bit. Now there are consequences to deal with, and I find them interesting to say the least.

bush and nelson mandella are similar in a way. mandella was put in prison for 30 years then released and made president.

bush on the other hand will be the opposite and will be in jail for war crimes and breaches of human rights. if it's done on his watch he is guilty.

lol Cloud. I think there's as great a chance of that happening as there is
of me running down the street naked screaming I am the walrus. I'm sure
you'd like to see both though. ;o

.opt

I sure as hell would. http://www.lastocp.com/forums/images...es/redface.gif

the man: you want to see optium naked?

and yes i do want it. a guilty man needs to be punished. bush is guilty of war crimes and guilty of human rights abuses in camp x-ray as well as other places.

(ends spam and hopes others will follow)

that was the joke, yes ;p

also to examine army bases is not difficult. we did it after deep cut and a few other places. why can the same not be done there? we don't need video footage. we need an unbiased international team to go in (i know a few have done already) be given full acces and come out and make a legal report on the conditions that can result in legal action.