ssteinke said:
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?
jeremie_ingram said:
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".
jeremie_ingram said:
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.
jeremie_ingram said:
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.