And the DC political circus gets even more ridiculous

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[The Man]

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."

[Gnostic Yevon]

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.

[eestlinc]

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.

[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.

[The Man]

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.

[Gnostic Yevon]

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.

[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.

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.

[Big D]

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.

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.

[Guest]

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

[The Man]

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.

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.

[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.

[The Man]

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.

[Gnostic Yevon]

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.

[The Man]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

I disagree, for reasons stated above.

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.