Guantanamo Bay (1 Viewer)

[commandolomo]

'Tis official - the most powerful and important international governmental organisation declares the treatment of "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay torture.

I am just dumfounded as to how a nation, pushing an agenda based on civil and human rights in places such as China, Pakistan, Iran, Chile and Columbia, can live with such a place being run by their (democratically elected) government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4710966.stm

It is fair to say that if the "enemy combatants" were not radicalised before, they certainly are now.

Is it fair to assume that the American media has let Guantanamo Bay and its residents fall off its radar?

 

[ssteinke]

I don't normally chime in on the political jiber jaber posted on this site, but it seems that your viewpoint is rather simplistic. The notion that America is radicallising these scum by holding them prisoner for participating in one of the most notorious unprovoked attacks upon a civilian population is naive at best. Keep in mind that the people being held prisoner already believed that America provoked them just by having a presence in the Middle East, in turn building training camps to learn how to destroy, YES DESTROY, the infadels.

Civilian courts were never meant, nor should they be adjusted, to handle acts of war upon our country. I say keep them where they are.

Scott

 

[jeremie_ingram]

I must agree with Scott. Those detained at Guantanamo Bay have given reason to be there. You cannot hold one side of a dispute to a set of guidelines that the other fails to even acknowledge. Where is the declaration that the terrorists are unfounded by attacking civilians? Where is it stated that they are breaking all Geneva conventions by their tactics? Where is the uniform of the terrorist?
Detaining these individuals in facilities (that for most exceed the standard of living that they we allotted before) is far from torture. I would say that kidnapping and holding people hostage is torture, or even cutting of individual’s heads for video footage is torture. When you deal with terrorists, you have to error on the side of caution and pray that you can prevent future catastrophic events. I just hope that those countries that find America unjust realize that they too are targets in this war.
Know this, if you are not part of their society you are the enemy. Their goal is to ELIMINATE the enemy with extreme prejudice. This is not a war against America only; it is a war against everyone not in their belief.

 

[Rich]

I don't normally chime in on the political jiber jaber posted on this site, but it seems that your viewpoint is rather simplistic. The notion that America is radicallising these scum by holding them prisoner for participating in one of the most notorious unprovoked attacks upon a civilian population is naive at best. Keep in mind that the people being held prisoner already believed that America provoked them just by having a presence in the Middle East, in turn building training camps to learn how to destroy, YES DESTROY, the infadels.

Civilian courts were never meant, nor should they be adjusted, to handle acts of war upon our country. I say keep them where they are.

Scott

Is that why those who were held without trial by you from this country were released upon their return because there wasn't a scrap of evidence to suggest that they had anything to do with terrorism, either in your country or anywhere else.

 

[Rich]

I must agree with Scott. Those detained at Guantanamo Bay have given reason to be there.

Like what ? Your snatch squads are in their country ?
This is from the country that claims to be the leader of the free world, I don't think so

 

[commandolomo]

I don't normally chime in on the political jiber jaber posted on this site, but it seems that your viewpoint is rather simplistic. The notion that America is radicallising these scum by holding them prisoner for participating in one of the most notorious unprovoked attacks upon a civilian population is naive at best.

You seem to miss my "simplistic" point - the issue is one of the UN officially declaring that the American tactics/methods/means used in Guantanamo Bay are tantamount to torture. From this, the illegal incarceration of those held in Guantanamo Bay (nee Cuba) is doing little to change their perceptions of the west.

Furthermore, the vast majority of those held in Camp X-Ray & Delta have not been charged, let alone tried and convicted of any crime. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that those "captured" in the Afghan desert & now in Cuba have committed no crime?

We have international courts - "Civilian courts" - that deal with the most heinous crimes committed against people, races and creeds - have a quick look outside your borders to the Hague & Milosevic’s ongoing trial.

Are you suggesting that what can convict Hans Frank & Hermann Goering cannot deal with a Syrian farmer?

Detaining these individuals in facilities (that for most exceed the standard of living that they we allotted before) is far from torture.

It is laughable to suggest that their current standard of living, including tortuous methods of interrogation, stress positions, illegal detainment and solitary confinement is a welcome alternative to "the standard of living that they we allotted before".

I would say that kidnapping and holding people hostage is torture, or even cutting of individual’s heads for video footage is torture.

I could not agree more, yet this is the principal point I made - to lower oneself to means utilised by criminals, (and that’s all terrorists are, glorified criminals) reduces any credibility or moral authority one may hope to hold.

I pose this hypothetical scenario then:-

A group of about 300 American mercenaries are fighting in the Iranian mountains for a local warlord. They get captured by Iranian forces, and since being declared "enemy combatants" they get shipped off to North Korea. Little by little, more reports of mistreatment and abuse come into the public sphere, and still after 3 years and mounting pressure from the international community, there are no charges, trials or legal access. Even the Red Cross and Amnesty are declined access. Americans are being made to kneel with their forehead to the ground, hands bound and guns pressed to their backs. Yet the Iranian government have little notion of wrong doing and their populous overwhelmingly back their treatment of the American citizens.

Fair to classify these mercenaries as terrorists? As jihadi Muslims fight for Islam, they are fighting for money. Different motivation but the same principle.

When you deal with terrorists, you have to error on the side of caution and pray that you can prevent future catastrophic events.

As above, you would have no issue with the treatment of American at the hands of Iran? After all, Iran is just ensuring that no "future catastrophic events" occur at the behest of American hands.

Of course the above scenario could be easily ripped apart as simplistic, and un-nuanced to international events and issues, but the moral of the story holds sway - American authorities, with the implicit backing of it's people, as in Iran above, is acting in a morally reprehensible way, and one that belittles America's position as a global hegemon fighting for world justice.

 

[Kraj]

I think what Rich is trying to say in his characteristically obtuse manner, is a couple of things. As Jeremie pointed out, the terrorists have no uniform and no declaration of war. Holding soldiers as POWs and extracting information from enemies captured on the field of combat is one thing, but that's not what's occurring. The "war" on terror is more like a criminal investigation than a war; the people at Guantanamo first and foremost are suspects. While many may be guilty and their treatment justified, many are not; and the American legal system - above all else - abhors stripping the innocent of their rights.

It makes no sense to preserve an ideal by sacrificing it, to spread freedom by twisting it, and to protect the American way of life by corrupting it.

 

[jsanders]

I think what Rich is trying to say in his characteristically obtuse manner, is a couple of things.

You're using one of my words.

 

[jeremie_ingram]

I am not declaring innocence or guilt for the parties being held, but these were not random people who looked crossed eyed at "SNATCH SQUADS". Just as I cannot pass judgment on their guilt, you cannot pass it on their innocence. These were people involved in terrorist activities or bearing arms against the troops. Plain and simple. You ask how I would feel if the shoe were on the other foot and Americans were running terrorist rings in other countries. I would not go to bat for such an individual nor would I want my government to help them. When the captives are mentioned, they are referenced as if they were doing nothing when all of the sudden they got swept away.
Of course the basis of this thread is a "LEAKED" portion of a DRAFT REPORT that amazingly is published in an article. Thus far there is no report, no statement, and the entire thing is still hearsay. Furthermore, it is something supposedly being formulated by individuals that NEVER went to the facilities. HMMMMMMMM. Great US bashing, but I am used to it. Enough ammo to get the guns blazing here.
Let’s do the shoe on the other foot scenario again. Say it was CountyX (substitute country of choice here that has proclaimed hatred for America) that had captured the American terrorists. Say these Americans were some real hard core individual’s involved in a "party" that was dedicated solely to the purpose of spreading terror and swearing death to the general CountyX population. Do you think that CountyX would take the efforts to ensure proper medical attention was given to the Americans when they attempt to starve themselves to death? Do you think that the captives would be kept in moderately temperature controlled environments with creature comforts? Do you think that the soldiers guarding them would be under strict command and surveillance to ensure that they were not treated in any manner not allowed by governing treaties? Do you think they would be able to freely practice their religion as they see fit, and provided everything necessary to do so? How often do you think CountryX would allow investigators in to view the treatment of these captives? Since you are talking some real hard-core individuals here, do you think CountryX will let them get together and plan how to escape or cause trouble or would they try to keep them separated? And should these individuals escape, would CountryX want them in an area populated by the very people they have sworn to kill? Do you think that CountryX would do the mean things you mentioned or would the Americans be subjected to better/worse treatment?
Your right, there would be no such situation. If the shoe were on the other foot the terrorist Americans would most likely be slaughtered on the nightly news for everyone to see. You want to push a negative image, there’s one for you.
If America was in the business to harass innocent civilians, there would be a lot more people in the base in Cuba. And in case you didn’t know it, the base is considered US territory so we are not shipping them off for another country to hide away in their prisons. There are individuals there considered extremely dangerous, and should they manage to escape they would not be well within the boarders of the very land they seek to destroy. See, here in America we have a very diverse population consisting of many races, colors, and nationalities. Should any of the prisoners escape they could easily blend into our society where the hypothetical Americans would have that disadvantage.

I am tired of the bashing, but it will never end. There is a whole group out there that no matter what will find fault in the way America does things. They rarely see fault with any other country, and if America isn’t oppressing the rest of the world it’s hogging everything else. Forget the great things that we do, obviously its never enough.

 

[Rich]

You're using one of my words.

maybe, but it's none of your business

 

[BarryMK]

They rarely see fault with any other country, and if America isn’t oppressing the rest of the world it’s hogging everything else. Forget the great things that we do, obviously its never enough.

I personally do not "bash" the US, I sometimes point up (usually with humour) the fact that there is another point of view outside your borders but perhaps, just perhaps, the great things that you do are undermined and overwhelmed by the crass, thoughtless, amoral and illegal things you do? (Sadly, usually in the name of freedom).

 

[Rich]

Do you think that the soldiers guarding them would be under strict command and surveillance to ensure that they were not treated in any manner not allowed by governing treaties? Do you think they would be able to freely practice their religion as they see fit, and provided everything necessary to do so?

By flushing the Koran down the toilet ?

 

[ColinEssex]

Say it was CountyX (substitute country of choice here that has proclaimed hatred for America) that had captured the American terrorists.
Say these Americans were some real hard core individual’s involved in a "party" that was dedicated solely to the purpose of spreading terror and swearing death to the general CountyX population.
Do you think that CountyX would take the efforts to ensure proper medical attention was given to the Americans when they attempt to starve themselves to death?
Do you think that the captives would be kept in moderately temperature controlled environments with creature comforts?. . . . . . . . . .

So you're saying that because a country is a dictatorship and their imprisonment methods are somewhat barbaric - the USA should follow suit and ignore the Geneva Convention etc and treat any suspect as an American would be treated in their country?

But thats what the USA is doing when they fly these people to (what the UK press call) "torture camps" in places like Poland and Czechoslovakia. Sadly they land in the UK to refuel on US military sites so we can't officially intervene. The US know they can't torture people in the USA, so they do it in Europe.

Col

 

[Kraj]

You're using one of my words.

Yep, because it was a good choice.

Jeremie, overall I think your point of view is reasonable, but I still disagree on many points. You are quite correct that Americans would not (and do not) receive the same treatment by terrorists when captured. I think it's a fair point of view to say, "We shouldn't have to treat them any better than they treat us," but I think we should. Otherwise we're becoming just like them, which is a way they can win even if we kill every last one of them.

Part of why the terrorists hate us and want to destroy our society is because of the freedoms we protect. If we are going to fight a war in the name of freedom, what sense does it make to sacrifice freedom in the process? In the name of democracy, Bush circumvents it. In the name of human rights, we torture people. (And, yes, you have a point that the accounts of prisoner treatment are not necesarily 100% true, but we have already had many incidents involving torture that are confirmed.)

Do I think the U.S. is horrible for engaging in unethical behavior, or that the individuals carrying out questionable orders are despicable? No. Is there a good argument for bending the rules in order to stop terrorists? Absolutely. That doesn't mean it's right.

I am tired of the bashing, but it will never end. There is a whole group out there that no matter what will find fault in the way America does things. They rarely see fault with any other country, and if America isn’t oppressing the rest of the world it’s hogging everything else. Forget the great things that we do, obviously its never enough.

You're right, but keep in mind those comments are coming from a very small portion of the international community. Also keep in mind that the other great things the U.S. does fall by the wayside right now because the Iraq war is by far the most significant event affecting international politics the U.S. is responsible for. Once this mess is cleaned up, people will like us again.

 

[commandolomo]

Of course the basis of this thread is a "LEAKED" portion of a DRAFT REPORT that amazingly is published in an article. Thus far there is no report, no statement, and the entire thing is still hearsay. Furthermore, it is something supposedly being formulated by individuals that NEVER went to the facilities. HMMMMMMMM. Great US bashing, but I am used to it. Enough ammo to get the guns blazing here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4718724.stm

Not so much "leaked" nor "draft" anymore- is one to accuse the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights of "US Bashing"? For information, Ms Arbour is a Canadian

And as quoting the article, "And she was highly critical of Britain and other countries who have sought to reach agreements which would allow them to deport radical Muslim clerics and other Islamic extremists to nations with unsavoury human rights records."

I am dismayed that the governments of America, Britain and other nations continue to use the "War on Terror" in an attempt to legitimise torture, internment without trial and rendition. In a similar vein to what Kraj & others have said, one cannot attempt to hold a moral high ground when behind closed doors one acts in an amoral way.

If one has evidence that those in Cuba are guilty of a crime, try them! If there enough evidence, as per the principles of due process and justice, then their guilt will be proved. Can anyone provide one single legitimate reason as to why these people should be treated differently than any other criminal? If a normal criminal court can convict Zacarias Moussaoui, then what is so special about those in Cuba?

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is little enthusiasm for American authorities to actually prosecute Guantanamo Bay detainees. Is it not within the realm of possibility that American military and intelligence services are happy to use Cuba as an interrogation facility, where a number of jihadi terrorists can be tortured for info, without the expense and need for trial? Not the greatest leap of imagination is required to suggest that once all useful information has been "extracted", the US will (begrudgingly) extradite the vast majority of detainees back to their homelands.

International pressure and condemnation is rising, and I truly hope that Guantanamo Bay's time will soon be up.

 

[Kraj]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I will say that the television show "24" makes a compelling case for circumventing due process and such. While the show is obviously fiction, the premise is not implausible. There is a very real possibility that the following events could occur:

Law enforcement snags an individual who turns out to be connected with a major terrorist attack within the U.S. They can determine from his possessions that a major attack will be carried out in a major city in the next day or two, but they do not know which city, how many people are involved, what the method of attack is or precisely when it will occur. The captive does. What do you do? Are the alleged terrorist's rights worth the lives of potentially millions of people?

To me, the answer is an obvious 'no'. But then that begs the question of where the line actually gets drawn. It's a very tough subject.

 

[Rich]

http://www.slate.com/id/2136422/?nav=mpp

 

[jsanders]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I will say that the television show "24" makes a compelling case for circumventing due process and such. While the show is obviously fiction, the premise is not implausible. There is a very real possibility that the following events could occur:

Law enforcement snags an individual who turns out to be connected with a major terrorist attack within the U.S. They can determine from his possessions that a major attack will be carried out in a major city in the next day or two, but they do not know which city, how many people are involved, what the method of attack is or precisely when it will occur. The captive does. What do you do? Are the alleged terrorist's rights worth the lives of potentially millions of people?

To me, the answer is an obvious 'no'. But then that begs the question of where the line actually gets drawn. It's a very tough subject.

I've been to busy getting my affairs in order to read much of this lately.

But the answer to dealing with terrorism, is not GWBs war on populations.

We would be better off with a huge CIA goon squad budget, maybe 150 billion a year or so, which would include bounties and ultra trained kill squads.

Let the world know what’s happening.

We would also need a carrot, not just a stick. So the Euros and the Asians could offer trade incentives to cooperating countries.

3 years later no one in their right mind would allow terrorist to bread in their countries.

 

[ColinEssex]

Let the world know what’s happening.

The world already knows whats happening. . . . . . . things are much worse since the USA intervened.

We would also need a carrot, not just a stick. So the Euros and the Asians could offer trade incentives to cooperating countries.

You mean Europe? offer incentives to countries that allow any gun-toting USA killer wander around killing all in sundry?

er. . . I think not actually - can you see the French participating?

3 years later no one in their right mind would allow terrorist to bread in their countries.

I take it you mean "breed". . . . . . anyway isn't the war in Iraq supposed to stamp out terrorism? thats working a treat isn't it?

Col

 

[FoFa]

anyway isn't the war in Iraq supposed to stamp out terrorism? thats working a treat isn't it?

Actually, it seems to be working pretty good.
Have had no attacks here since they started.