Amnesty International continues its march towards irrelevance

[Elind]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp

“World leaders are in a state of denial but their failure to act has a high cost,” Irene Khan, the secretary general of Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/), said in a statement accompanying the report. “As Iraq and Afghanistan show, human rights problems are not isolated tragedies, but are like viruses than can infect and spread rapidly, endangering all of us.”

As has become apparent in recent years, AI is incapable of making distinctions between governments that have clear discriminatory policies against some of their citizens and governments that are in effect waging war against their enemies. By failing to have any measure of relativity or, for that matter, practical human limitations, between what might be called evil versus politics, and lumping all together as the same, what they end up doing is giving all the excuse countries like N. Korea or Myanmar need to keep doing what they do since obviously the rest of the world isn't perfect either.

To imply that terrorists in Guantanamo and starving civilians in N. Korea have something in common is the perfect example of what Kim Il whatshisname calls the perfect useful idiocy.

AI are nothing but useful idiots.

[volatile]

You think we should ignore human rights abuses by those on "our side", just because it's politically expedient? That's exactly the kind of thinking Amnesty should be speaking up about.

Who exactly gets to decide the difference between evil and politics in your view? Wouldn't Kim Jong Il use similar criteria, but come to precisely the inverse conclusion as to whose actions belong in which category?

It's funny you draw a distinction between "discrimination" and "waging war" - you'll note that the whole reason Guantanamo exists, for example, is because of an arbitrary discrimination (between PoWs and "enemy combatants") created to facilitate extra-legal procedures...

[Cleon]

I saw this thread, and immediately thought to myself, "Either they criticized Israel or the US."

And sure enough...

It's horrible, the way they won't give the West a free pass on human rights violations. You'd think they had principles or something! How dare they not look the other way when it comes to the "good" guys.


"Useful idiots," indeed!

[Almo]

To imply that terrorists in Guantanamo and starving civilians in N. Korea have something in common is the perfect example of what Kim Il whatshisname calls the perfect useful idiocy.

The bold highlights your problem. They are suspected terrorists until proven otherwise in a court of law. If the evidence against them is so good, why are they being held without charge outside the US? Clear case of human rights abuse.

[Elind]

You think we should ignore human rights abuses by those on "our side", just because it's politically expedient? That's exactly the kind of thinking Amnesty should be speaking up about.

You illustrate my point well. You are incapable of making rational, as opposed to emotional, judgments.

Who exactly gets to decide the difference between evil and politics in your view? Wouldn't Kim Jong Il use similar criteria, but come to precisely the inverse conclusion as to whose actions belong in which category?

Rational people do, meaning those who are not simply useful idiots. I find it incredible that someone here can make that comparison, as if there is no moral distinction. You again illustrate my point very well, even as you are blind to it.

It's funny you draw a distinction between "discrimination" and "waging war" - you'll note that the whole reason Guantanamo exists, for example, is because of an arbitrary discrimination (between PoWs and "enemy combatants") created to facilitate extra-legal procedures...

What a crock of...

[Elind]

The bold highlights your problem. They are suspected terrorists until proven otherwise in a court of law. If the evidence against them is so good, why are they being held without charge outside the US? Clear case of human rights abuse.

Utter mindless rubbish. I presume you consider all the dead ones murdered and we should jail all US military personnel immediately since they didn't have a trial before pulling a trigger?

[Elind]

I saw this thread, and immediately thought to myself, "Either they criticized Israel or the US."

And sure enough...

It's horrible, the way they won't give the West a free pass on human rights violations. You'd think they had principles or something! How dare they not look the other way when it comes to the "good" guys.


"Useful idiots," indeed!

Indeed. Congratulations for missing the point like the other examples we have here.

[volatile]

You illustrate my point well. You are incapable of making rational, as opposed to emotional, judgments.

I am? I'm not the one making arbitrary, unsupported distinctions between "evil" and "politics", am I? I'll ask you again - Who exactly gets to decide the difference between evil and politics?

Why is it rational to ignore human rights abuses just because they happen to serve your personal (or national) politics? Please explain that to me, because to me it just sounds fallacious - it's special pleading.

Rational people do, meaning those who are not simply useful idiots. I find it incredible that someone here can make that comparison, as if there is no moral distinction. You again illustrate my point very well, even as you are blind to it."Rational" people make the distinction between politics and evil? That's it That's your grand plan? That's a fallacious circular argument - rational decisions are rational because rational people have made them; we can determine who is rational by the decisions they make. You're chasing your own tail in this logically absurd argument.

Let me guess - the leaders of the US government are entirely rational, and their decisions to sanction torture, arbitrarily declare people outside of established legal conventions, engage in rendition, sanction the death penalty for juveniles etc. etc. are entirely political, whereas the actions of the Chinese, North Koreans and Burmese are done purely out of some ill-defined "evil", with no political purpose whatsoever?

That sure sounds pretty irrational to me. It's precisely the same type of argument used to justify the US' refusal to co-operate with the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

What you're missing is that, essentially, everything is political. The silencing of dissidents in China is political. The internment of Aung San Suu Kyi is political. The extra-legal Guantanamo camp is political. There's no such thing as "evil" in the way you're definign, because what is, and what is not evil entirely depends on your particular perspective. The whole point of organisations such as Amnesty International is to point out abuses of human rights wherever they occur, independent of the so-caled justifications of those carrying out the abuses. They are, in this respect, more relevant than they've ever been.

What a crock of...Why? The reason "enemy combatants" are held at Guantanamo and not on US soil is entirely down to a need to avoid the pesky contrivances of national and supra-national laws and conventions. You can call this a "crock" if you like, but it's entirely true.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/002/2005/en/dom-AMR510022005en.html

[JoeEllison]

I saw this thread, and immediately thought to myself, "Either they criticized Israel or the US."

And sure enough...

It's horrible, the way they won't give the West a free pass on human rights violations. You'd think they had principles or something! How dare they not look the other way when it comes to the "good" guys.


"Useful idiots," indeed!
You must be a psychic... and me too, apparently. :D

Remember, though, for many people there ARE two standards: anything "they" do is bad, and anything "we" do is acceptable as long as it is marginally less bad than what "they" do.

[NewtonTrino]

This fight was over a long time ago and the terrorists won. Those in charge of the west who are compromising our principals should all be put into a place just like Guantonamo themselves. No trials or access to legal counsel allowed, of course.

Now I also do agree that North Korea is a much worse place than anywhere in the west (and most of the world for that matter). However, "Kim Jong Il does it too" isn't really a valid excuse for our crimes.

What's so hard about just giving these people trials?

Bottom line, Amnesty and others are doing a valuable public service by pointing out the insanity of this situation. I hope the next president restores our rights (YES OUR RIGHTS are being violated here as well).

[Almo]

Utter mindless rubbish. I presume you consider all the dead ones murdered and we should jail all US military personnel immediately since they didn't have a trial before pulling a trigger?

The idea of Habeas Corpus is mindless rubbish? Detaining people without charge is fundamentally wrong. Answer my question: why do we have to hold these suspected terrorists outside the US? Why does a detention center in Guantanamo Bay even need to exist? "We have to hold these terrorists outside the US, in case the legal system there would free them." That assumes they're terrorists, AND assumes there's not enough evidence to hold or convict them. Making these assumptions is the action of a tyrannical state.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

[JoeEllison]

What's so hard about just giving these people trials?

Some of them are very likely innocent. The Bush administration and the Pentagon will have a hard time explaining why someone had to be held in violation of human rights laws, when they didn't do anything wrong.

[E.J.Armstrong]

... terrorists in Guantanamo ...

Who needs a fair trial when you are guilty until proven innocent in Elind's world?

[JoeEllison]

Who needs a fair trial when you are guilty until proven innocent in Elind's world?

That's the problem, isn't? When you've declared that someone is a terrorist, you've justified violating their rights because they are a terrorist, then you very well can't have a trial where there's a chance that the court will find that they AREN'T a terrorist, because then that makes you a criminal... or, in Elind's case, a supporter of and apologist for criminals.

[richardm]

The actual speech says:

Amnesty International challenged governments to set a new paradigm for collective leadership based on the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The most powerful must lead by example...
What's wrong with that?

To read many of the criticisms of AI in this forum you'd think that they only ever criticised the USA, but here they are actually encouraging the USA (And China, and Russia, and the EU) to show the dreadful regimes that you hate to try harder. Countries get criticised if criticism is necessary. Some people can't stand any sort of criticism, I guess. I'm sure there are people in Russia saying "How dare they criticise our actions in Chechnya; those people are terrorists!"

A quick glance at the front page of the Amnesty website today shows their current lead concerns:


Most powerful nations must lead the likes of Darfur, Zimbabwe, Gaza, Iraq and Myanmar by example (A new story, so at the top)
Darfur Crisis
UNHCR session on world food crisis
Iran urged to overturn sentences against women activists
Asian leaders urged to take further action on Myanmar
I can't see how anyone could find anything to complain about in that.

[volatile]

The actual speech says:
What's wrong with that?

To read many of the criticisms of AI in this forum you'd think that they only ever criticised the USA, but here they are actually encouraging the USA (And China, and Russia, and the EU) to show the dreadful regimes that you hate to try harder. Countries get criticised if criticism is necessary. Some people can't stand any sort of criticism, I guess. I'm sure there are people in Russia saying "How dare they criticise our actions in Chechnya; those people are terrorists!"

A quick glance at the front page of the Amnesty website today shows their current lead concerns:

Most powerful nations must lead the likes of Darfur, Zimbabwe, Gaza, Iraq and Myanmar by example (A new story, so at the top)
Darfur Crisis
UNHCR session on world food crisis
Iran urged to overturn sentences against women activists
Asian leaders urged to take further action on MyanmarI can't see how anyone could find anything to complain about in that.

Exactly. Well said. The point about Chechnya underlines my point about the inability to draw lines in the sand between "evil" and "politics" in the way Elnid is implying.

[Lonewulf]

But the people in Chechnya are terrorists, aren't they? Are you saying that Russia has been deceiving me? :(

There's a human right that's often forgotten: The right to do whatever we want to someone we call a "terrorist".

[Gurdur]

...You are incapable of making rational, as opposed to emotional, judgments.


You disagree with Elind, therefore you are incapable.

Tsk?

What a crock of...


No need to be so self-descriptive, Elind.

[Elind]

Why is it rational to ignore human rights abuses just because they happen to serve your personal (or national) politics? Please explain that to me, because to me it just sounds fallacious - it's special pleading.


You use a lot of words to say the same thing over and over. Is that because it becomes true if you hear it often enough?

Some positions are actually better than others, and so are some people. Your kind seems to thing everything is morally equivalent, so you use the same criticism for all.

Useful (to some) idiocy.

[Elind]

Who needs a fair trial when you are guilty until proven innocent in Elind's world?

Oh, I'd make an exception for you, purely on a personal basis.

[volatile]

Some positions are actually better than others, and so are some people. Your kind seems to thing everything is morally equivalent, so you use the same criticism for all.


Who decides who's better than who, and how is this decision to be logically tenable, credible, and morally and ethically sound? Amensty use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a considered and morally-coherent document based on a good deal of excellent philosophy, politics and history, to make these judgements (as the states themselves should, by the way). The UDHR exists for precisely this reason - every government (even those of Burma, Zimbabwe and the Sudan) thinks that what it is doing is, by definition, the morally correct thing to do. At the moment, it just sounds as if your criteria are "If my side do it, it's politics; if the other side do it, it's evil", coupled with an extremely simplistic, base way of looking at the world.

Guess what? The other side use exactly the same rhetoric, in reverse. You do not have an argument here, Elnid; all you have is some special pleading.

For the third time - who exactly gets to decide the difference between evil and politics? Why should Western countries get a free pass when they engage in the same behaviours they condemn in others; behaviours which are, to any standard, abuses of human rights, international treaties and the moral philosophy of the Enlightenment?

Western countries are perfectly capable of human rights abuses; indeed, it is very important for our systems of government and way of life that these abuses are highlighted and combated as soon as possible.

[NewtonTrino]

Man, there's a fascist under every Bush these days...

[Elind]

The idea of Habeas Corpus is mindless rubbish?

You label yourself as yet another who can't make a distinction between citizens and enemies; between war and peace; between crime and terrorism.

Detaining people without charge is fundamentally wrong.I guess killing them is always wrong too? So why don't you answer my question above instead of asking silly ones yourself?

Answer my question: why do we have to hold these suspected terrorists outside the US? Why does a detention center in Guantanamo Bay even need to exist? "We have to hold these terrorists outside the US, in case the legal system there would free them." That assumes they're terrorists, AND assumes there's not enough evidence to hold or convict them. Making these assumptions is the action of a tyrannical state.
You are a fool if you can say you think they are all "suspect" terrorists. You are a fool if you think they should be treated as common criminals, and in practice accorded greater rights than citizens. You do however have plenty of foolish company, possibly genetically connected to the OJ jury, if you get my point.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." - John Adams

[volatile]

You label yourself as yet another who can't make a distinction between citizens and enemies; between war and peace; between crime and terrorism.

Do you not think those countries who engage in what you so hand-wavingly call "evil" make the exact same distinctions you do?

You are a fool if you can say you think they are all "suspect" terrorists.

Please explain how we are to find out whether they are innocent or guilty of what they have been accused of if they are not afforded trials? Do you find it not in the slightest bit disconcerting that a large number of the Guantanamo detainees have been released without charge, the claims against them having been found baseless?

You are a fool if you think they should be treated as common criminals, and in practice accorded greater rights than citizens. You do however have plenty of foolish company, possibly genetically connected to the OJ jury, if you get my point.

Please explain how Guantanamo inmates are "accorded greater rights than citizens". That sounds pretty ridiculous, though if you can back it up, I'll gladly retract that accusation.

The whole point of the Universal Declaration is that it is just that - universal. It was brought in after World War 2 principally in response to the descent of Germany, a democratic, Western country, into state run on principles of hatred and cruelty. In some respects, the document is designed to be applied most forcefully against those countries which already possess a great deal of freedom and liberty. It recognises that freedoms are fragile, and must be defended against all onslaughts. I find it rather depressing that you have learnt nothing from history and are content to set aside human rights when such abuses oil the wheels of a political end-point.

[KoihimeNakamura]

You label yourself as yet another who can't make a distinction between citizens and enemies; between war and peace; between crime and terrorism.

He probably does. But he doesn't see why we should treat them so poorly. Or.. shouldn't we treat them like any POW before rightfully convicted?

You are a fool if you can say you think they are all "suspect" terrorists. You are a fool if you think they should be treated as common criminals, and in practice accorded greater rights than citizens. You do however have plenty of foolish company, possibly genetically connected to the OJ jury, if you get my point.

Why? Is there some reason why treating them with decency is foolish?

"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." - John Adams

Oh, irony.

[Lonewulf]

"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." - John AdamsI'm thinking you actually didn't get the gist of Adams' opinions.

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
-- John Adams

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.
-- John Adams

[Bob Klase]

You are a fool if you can say you think they are all "suspect" terrorists. You are a fool if you think they should be treated as common criminals, and in practice accorded greater rights than citizens. You do however have plenty of foolish company, possibly genetically connected to the OJ jury, if you get my point.

Khaled el-Masri. But I'm sure you don't get the point.

[Elind]

I'm thinking you actually didn't get the gist of Adams' opinions.

Of course I did. It is a tiresome gist heard frequently. The gist that you also don't get is that we can do nothing but post quotes from more insightful people; each a counter to the other when seen from a trivialist perspective.

The gist of worth is knowing when such quotes are applicable, not when they are convenient sound bites.

[Elind]

Do you not think those countries who engage in what you so hand-wavingly call "evil" make the exact same distinctions you do?

It seems we have already exchanged this point. Perhaps I'm suffering Deja Vue?

So? As I have already said; you are clearly incapable of making value judgments on such distinctions.



Please explain how we are to find out whether they are innocent or guilty of what they have been accused of if they are not afforded trials? Do you find it not in the slightest bit disconcerting that a large number of the Guantanamo detainees have been released without charge, the claims against them having been found baseless?You understand little and pay attention to less. The claims have not been found baseless. They have been judged as not worth holding further. Most have been released on agreement of being on probation by their home governments; although those same governments have been lapse enough to allow quite a number of them to return to terrorism, and quite a few of those have been subsequently confirmed killed in action (of course many of your useful idiot OJ jury cohorts simply say that is because they were so angry at being wrongly held in the first place that they decided to become killers later).





Please explain how Guantanamo inmates are "accorded greater rights than citizens". That sounds pretty ridiculous, though if you can back it up, I'll gladly retract that accusation.
Because they claim special rights as foreign citizens; including special rights of representation, special rights of evidence and technical rights under international law; and no doubt more. All fantastically profitable fodder for OJ lawyer teams.

The whole point of the Universal Declaration is that it is just that - universal. It was brought in after World War 2 principally in response to the descent of Germany, a democratic, Western country, into state run on principles of hatred and cruelty. In some respects, the document is designed to be applied most forcefully against those countries which already possess a great deal of freedom and liberty. It recognises that freedoms are fragile, and must be defended against all onslaughts. I find it rather depressing that you have learnt nothing from history and are content to set aside human rights when such abuses oil the wheels of a political end-point.You see everything as a political end point, it seems to me.

First, on a technicality that you seem to miss when convenient, this is not a matter of nation against nation anymore (try to avoid the obvious sidetrack here). There is no war between nations. Do you consider the Taliban a legitimate nation? OBL? Sunni fanatics? Shia fanatics?

I find it extremely depressing (not just rather) that some people see everything in relation to their own government turning against it's own, instead of the obvious dangers from outside it. It's sad that the better one is in defeating outside enemies the more some fear themselves.

[Elind]

Khaled el-Masri. But I'm sure you don't get the point.

Why don't you stop trying to be coy, and make your point instead of pretending to sure of someone else's?

Why haven't you mentioned all those civilians, unknown but no doubt real, who have lost their live as "collateral" damage? Are they less valuable than this guy, who claims he was sodomized by USA CIA agents?

There are many people in the USA who have been cleared of convictions after spending decades in jail, but those I have seen have been grateful for final vindication, not sounding like typical terrorist propagandists once released.

Al Masri may have been wrongly held, but he is alive and well and able to profit from his relatively short experience, and free to express his obvious biases. Many others are not so lucky, and that is what one has to expect to happen in war; unless one is an apologist like you.

[WildCat]

The bold highlights your problem. They are suspected terrorists until proven otherwise in a court of law. If the evidence against them is so good, why are they being held without charge outside the US? Clear case of human rights abuse.
No, they're not suspects in a criminal case. They're enemies captured in a war, and can be held without trial until their captors see fit to release them or until the war is over.

In fact, legal hurdles must be jumped to try them - not to hold them.

[WildCat]

Please explain how we are to find out whether they are innocent or guilty of what they have been accused of if they are not afforded trials? Do you find it not in the slightest bit disconcerting that a large number of the Guantanamo detainees have been released without charge, the claims against them having been found baseless?
Do you know that during WWII tens of thousands of Germans were held without charge by the US military and ultimately released without charges?

Explain the distinction please, or express your outrage that the Germans were also held.

[Lonewulf]

Of course I did. It is a tiresome gist heard frequently.Yes, the truth often gets repeated more than lies when it is revealed. It's the nature of the beast.

The gist that you also don't get is that we can do nothing but post quotes from more insightful people; each a counter to the other when seen from a trivialist perspective

The gist of worth is knowing when such quotes are applicable, not when they are convenient sound bites.And yet, you quote an "insightful person" that, quite frankly, would not agree with your stance here. That is indeed telling.

And your quote was of little value, even ignoring all of that.

Do you know that during WWII tens of thousands of Germans were held without charge by the US military and ultimately released without charges?

Explain the distinction please, or express your outrage that the Germans were also held.You mean like how we rounded up Japanese because they were Japanese, and held them in a concentration camp?

To be fair, though, we treated the Japanese far better than we're treating the current prisoners.

[Texas]

You mean like how we rounded up Japanese because they were Japanese, and held them in a concentration camp?

To be fair, though, we treated the Japanese far better than we're treating the current prisoners. LOL. Yes it is exactly the same thing. The sainted FDR rounded up thousands of AMERICAN citizens and "treated them well" in concentration camps. At GITMO we house enemy combatants captured on the battle field in Afghanistan and Iraq and horrors of horrors we may make them a bit uncomfortable when questioning them about their knowledge of terrorist activity. These guys aren't pets they are our sworn enemy and whether you like it or not they would cut your throat as as fast as mine.

[Lonewulf]

LOL. Yes it is exactly the same thing. The sainted FDR rounded up thousands of AMERICAN citizens and "treated them well" in concentration camps. At GITMO we house enemy combatants captured on the battle field in Afghanistan and Iraq and horrors of horrors we may make them a bit uncomfortable when questioning them about their knowledge of terrorist activity. These guys aren't pets they are our sworn enemy and whether you like it or not they would cut your throat as as fast as mine.Yes, you're right. Kahlid El-Masri certainly was an enemy combatant and made a "bit uncomfortable".

No, wait. He was beaten and repeatedly interrogated, and was given putrid water and only meager rations to eat. He was also proven to be malnourished. Oh, and get this; he wasn't guilty at all.

Perhaps you should do some more research on what you're actually defending here. The idea that we're only holding "enemies" and that we're only treating them "uncomfortably" is a sad myth that I wish was true.

"LOL" indeed.

[Texas]

Yes, you're right. Kahlid El-Masri certainly was an enemy combatant and made a "bit uncomfortable".

No, wait. He was beaten and repeatedly interrogated, and was given putrid water and only meager rations to eat. He was also proven to be malnourished. Oh, and get this; he wasn't guilty at all.

Perhaps you should do some more research on what you're actually defending here. The idea that we're only holding "enemies" and that we're only treating them "uncomfortably" is a sad myth that I wish was true.

"LOL" indeed. Wow so on the one hand we have thousands of well treated INNOCENTAMERICAN citizens in concentration camps and one guy that may be as innocent as the driven snow who's next action is a lawsuit. Yep you have utterly defeated me. Tell me, why didn't they just kill this innocent lamb to make sure his tale of "torture" was never told? Hell a lot of these guys would be malnourished if we didn't force feed their sorry butts.

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp

“World leaders are in a state of denial but their failure to act has a high cost,” Irene Khan, the secretary general of Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/), said in a statement accompanying the report. “As Iraq and Afghanistan show, human rights problems are not isolated tragedies, but are like viruses than can infect and spread rapidly, endangering all of us.”

As has become apparent in recent years, AI is incapable of making distinctions between governments that have clear discriminatory policies against some of their citizens and governments that are in effect waging war against their enemies. By failing to have any measure of relativity or, for that matter, practical human limitations, between what might be called evil versus politics, and lumping all together as the same, what they end up doing is giving all the excuse countries like N. Korea or Myanmar need to keep doing what they do since obviously the rest of the world isn't perfect either.

To imply that terrorists in Guantanamo and starving civilians in N. Korea have something in common is the perfect example of what Kim Il whatshisname calls the perfect useful idiocy.

AI are nothing but useful idiots.Tsk tsk...don't mind them dishing out to others, just not to you.

AI has never, to my knowledge, looked at the ends to justify the means.

[Lonewulf]

Wow so on the one hand we have thousands of well treated INNOCENTAMERICAN citizens in concentration camps and one guy that may be as innocent as the driven snow who's next action is a lawsuit.The question isn't whether or not this one person is innocent, but how many of the thousands that are held in secret prisons are innocent or not.

I can't give an exact estimate of how many people are being held, but it seems to be much larger than 9000. That's about equivalent to the 11,000 Japanese that were held -- of which some may very well have been guilty of being spies or having sympathies for their homeland.

If we have one innocent, we could very well have another. If even 5% of 9000 people are innocent, then that is 450 innocent people currently held in these prisons. And if there is no due process, and no trial of any sort, then there is no way to actually know if they are guilty or not. Thus, there could be as many as 50% innocents... or people that have hardly done anything that would "deserve" their treatment, if indeed you think that anyone deserves to be tortured or abused.

I'd also add that many of these prisoners are not picked up in the middle of a battlefield, in the middle of a battle. Many of them are picked up on name alone, as being "suspects", even when the actual evidence for this is very limited. Which is why comparing picking up "suspected terrorists" and holding them without evidence, and picking up uniformed german soldiers, isn't exactly very rational.

Yep you have utterly defeated me.That's nice, but "defeating you" isn't really my goal here. I am not here to wage a war.

Tell me, why didn't they just kill this innocent lamb to make sure his tale of "torture" was never told?Irrelevant.

Hell a lot of these guys would be malnourished if we didn't force feed their sorry butts.Wow.

[Texas]

The question isn't whether or not this one person is innocent, but how many of the thousands that are held in secret prisons are innocent or not.

I can't give an exact estimate of how many people are being held, but it seems to be much larger than 9000. That's about equivalent to the 11,000 Japanese that were held -- of which some may very well have been guilty of being spies or having sympathies for their homeland.

If we have one innocent, we could very well have another. If even 5% of 9000 people are innocent, then that is 450 innocent people currently held in these prisons. And if there is no due process, and no trial of any sort, then there is no way to actually know if they are guilty or not. Thus, there could be as many as 50% innocents... or people that have hardly done anything that would "deserve" their treatment, if indeed you think that anyone deserves to be tortured or abused.

That's nice, but "defeating you" isn't really my goal here.

Irrelevant.

Wow.Where in the heck are you getting 9000 from? Please post a link. As to this guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri


On May 17, 2007, El-Masri was arrested on suspicion of arson.

According to Die Welt Online (in German) the problem arose over a dispute over an iPod that El-Masri had bought at a METRO warehouse club store back in April in the Bavarian city of Neu-Ulm.[38] He claimed the iPod malfunctioned just hours after purchase. When he tried to return it, the store refused, and the situation escalated into a shouting match. El-Masri spat in the face of a female employee, and was barred from the store.

On May 17, 2007, El-Masri kicked in a door of the Metro store and used gasoline to start a fire. The fire caused over €500,000 in damages. Nobody was hurt. El-Masri was arrested near the scene of the crime. After arrest, a judge ordered him held in a psychiatric hospital for unknown reasons. On May 18, El-Masri's attorney, Manfred Gnjidic, conceded his client did burn down the store, but blamed it on his client's torture experiences and claimed that the German government did not provide enough therapy to him after his return from Afghanistan.[39]

German prosecutors in the arson case also revealed that El-Masri faced charges for allegedly attacking a truck driving instructor. They said El-Masri lost his temper after the instructor criticised him for failing to attend his lessons.[40]
Are you sure you want to rest your case on the credibility of this person?

[JoeEllison]

Tsk tsk...don't mind them dishing out to others, just not to you.

AI has never, to my knowledge, looked at the ends to justify the means.

You'll note at every step, the supporters of illegal detention and torture resort to naming "greater" evils, as though they excuse "lesser" evils. I wonder if they would allow someone to punch them in the face as hard as humanly possible, with the excuse of "at least you didn't get shot, so getting punched is A-OK!"

[Lonewulf]

Where in the heck are you getting 9000 from?I forget where I saw it. As I'm digging up articles to prove my point, I'm seeing much higher numbers; going up to 25,000 to 50,000.

Considering the whole "Secret Prisons" thing, though, I'm not sure I'll ever come up with a correct estimate. The exact number of prisoners isn't exactly published information. I'll see what I can come up with later today, for now I need to mosey on to school.

Are you sure you want to rest your case on the credibility of this person?The actions he committed after his internment is irrelevant to the way he was treated during his internment.

And no, I'm not resting my entire case on this one person. Actually, I'm rather laughing at you; to deny that potentially innocent people are being picked up strikes me as very similar to stating that 9/11 was a conspiracy, or that the Moon Landing was a hoax. It requires a lot of double think and apologetics.

[Texas]

I forget where I saw it. As I'm digging up articles to prove my point, I'm seeing much higher numbers; going up to 25,000 to 50,000.

Considering the whole "Secret Prisons" thing, though, I'm not sure I'll ever come up with a correct estimate. The exact number of prisoners isn't exactly published information. I'll see what I can come up with later today, for now I need to mosey on to school.

The actions he committed after his internment is irrelevant to the way he was treated during his internment.

And no, I'm not resting my entire case on this one person. Actually, I'm rather laughing at you; to deny that potentially innocent people are being picked up strikes me as very similar to stating that 9/11 was a conspiracy, or that the Moon Landing was a hoax. It requires a lot of double think and apologetics.

There are potentially innocent people in prison also. Should we close all the prisons based on that ?

[Skeptic Ginger]

This morning there was an hour long program on my public radio station interviewing Philip Gourevitch who just released a film on Abu Ghraib here in Seattle. You can replay the segment from the following link.

Go to "Weekday", Wed, 5/28, 9am if the link takes you to the current day or a home page. (http://www.kuow.org/programs/weekday.asp) The photographs from Abu Ghraib are seared into the world's mind. The black hood and the electrodes, the dogs, the human pyramid, the thumbs up. What happened in that place to make young Americans debase their Iraqi charges, and themselves? Why did they document it? Why can't we tear our eyes away?

Journalist Philip Gourevitch writes that when soldiers documented the abuse they dished out, they 'demonstrated two things: that they never fully accepted what was happening as normal, and that they assumed they had nothing to hide.'
Related Event: Standard Operating Procedure, the movie, is now playing at the Varsity in Seattle.

Guests:
Philip Gourevitch is editor of The Paris Review and a staff writer for the New Yorker. His first book, We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda, told survivors' accounts of the Rwandan Genocide. For his new book Standard Operating Procedure he collaborated with filmmaker Errol Morris. Morris interviewed soldiers who served at Abu Ghraib for the film Standard Operating Procedure.


It's a common tactic Bush and company use to point out the one person who they actually had evidence against, or to say "picked up on the battlefield" when that only applied to a few people they took to Gitmo. Many of the people at Gitmo and taken in the 'extraordinary renditions' were not picked up on any battlefield and there was not a lot of evidence against many of them.

Some of the men in Gitmo were turned in for reward money. Wanna make 5 grand? Just find some poor stranger or person you don't like and turn him over the the US soldiers and claim he is Taliban.

There is absolutely no excuse for torturing innocent people regardless of the cause. But it is beyond outrageous when Conde Rice and others knew Khalid El-Masri was innocent but they kept him in their secret prison for months after they found out because they weren't sure how to break it to the German government we had just kidnapped and tortured one of their innocent citizens. No apology, just selfish concern for covering their personal disgusting :rule10:. I can't even think of words that describe the disgust I am trying to convey here.

And Canada has apologized to their citizen, Maher Arar who we also kidnapped and had tortured for months based on bad evidence, but not only would Bush not apologize, they pretend there actually was something on this guy and have kept him on the no-fly terrorist list. The guy was innocent. Canada admitted they completely erred on that. What evidence did we have besides Canada's report? None!!!!

Elind, I really think you should read some of AI's reports. They are detailed and well documented.

[Texas]

BTW, it appears that the CIA picked this guy up based on information from German intelligence as a member of the Hamgurg cell. You know about that one don't you, the cell that planned 911? He had the exact same name. I think the finger pointing should start there. One glaring failure of the CIA is taking allied countries' intelligence and acting on it and then getting raked over the coals later. We saw it with the Iraq yellow cake intelligence from Italy and France.

[The Fool]

LOL. Yes it is exactly the same thing. The sainted FDR rounded up thousands of AMERICAN citizens and "treated them well" in concentration camps. At GITMO we house enemy combatants captured on the battle field in Afghanistan and Iraq and horrors of horrors we may make them a bit uncomfortable when questioning them about their knowledge of terrorist activity. These guys aren't pets they are our sworn enemy and whether you like it or not they would cut your throat as as fast as mine.
brilliantly constructed dishonesty.

To be fair, you have been told what to believe and I'm sure you do what you are told so It may not be your fault.

Please tell me again where the people in gitmo came from....from "battlefields in afganistan and Iraq"? I put this to you. You do not have a low flying clue where they came from. Do you simply accept that little "captured on the battlefield" line because its chanted on so many blogs? Its not even claimed by the US government....mainly because its not true.

How about I tell you what you are going to support? The US government can and does send anyone it likes to gitmo for any reason it likes and you or anybody do not have the foggiest Idea who they are or where they came from. The US government could pick you up off the streets today, bundle you off to gitmo....give us all a wink and a nod about some stuff it knows about you...add the magic word "terrorist" and its goodbye Texas. Indefinite detention....I'm sure they would allow you to write to newspapers from gitmo to support what was happening to you.

Just to add that the 2 australian citizens that are no longer in gitmo have not cut anyones throats yet...One of them was kidnapped by the US on the streets of Pakistan....are the streets of Pakistan the "battlefields" you are required to think all gitmo detainees came from?

[Texas]

brilliantly constructed dishonesty.


How about I tell you what you are going to support? The US government can and does send anyone it likes to gitmo for any reason it likes and you or anybody do not have the foggiest Idea who they are or where they came from. The US government could pick you up off the streets today, bundle you off to gitmo....give us all a wink and a nod about some stuff it knows about you...add the magic word "terrorist" and its goodbye Texas. Indefinite detention....I'm sure they would allow you to write to newspapers from gitmo to support what was happening to you.

Just to add that the 2 australian citizens that are no longer in gitmo have not cut anyones throats yet...One of them was kidnapped by the US on the streets of Pakistan....are the streets of Pakistan the "battlefields" you are required to think all gitmo detainees came from?

Maybe from reports like this one http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/


From Mike Mount
CNN Pentagon Producer


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Kuwaiti man released from U.S. custody at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in 2005 blew himself up in a suicide attack in Iraq last month, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.

But that comes from the Pentagon and I am sure that in your mind it is just propaganda.

[Dragoonster]

Do you know that during WWII tens of thousands of Germans were held without charge by the US military and ultimately released without charges?

Explain the distinction please, or express your outrage that the Germans were also held.

There is no distinction that would justify it. And yes, it was outrageous for FDR/Truman to do so.

No, they're not suspects in a criminal case. They're enemies captured in a war, and can be held without trial until their captors see fit to release them or until the war is over.

Only according to the Bush Administration. Which doesn't pay heed to the GC regarding the detainees. Which is attempting to make it's own subjective rules (which are being challenged and have been found lacking by our courts). Which is exactly the kind of arbitrary nationalistic justification for any mistreatment Amnesty International opposes.

AI deals with objective treatment of people. It doesn't delve into US or North Korean or Cuban or French politics or their unilateral definitions, nor should it have to. It exists to speak for global people equally, and caving in to the US would mean it should cave in to any other BS rationalization.

So--Do you know that Amnesty International doesn't accept Fidel Castro's political intent as justification for human rights violations? And that Castro equally applies GC protection to them as Bush does Gitmo detainees? That is--no GC protection applies?

Explain the distinction please, or express your outrage that Amnesty International criticizes Cuban holding of political prisoners.

[Dragoonster]

BTW, it appears that the CIA picked this guy up based on information from German intelligence as a member of the Hamgurg cell. You know about that one don't you, the cell that planned 911? He had the exact same name. I think the finger pointing should start there. One glaring failure of the CIA is taking allied countries' intelligence and acting on it and then getting raked over the coals later. We saw it with the Iraq yellow cake intelligence from Italy and France.

Please list every detainee in Guantanamo Bay, where they were picked up, and the evidence that led to their detention.

[JoeEllison]

Please list every detainee in Guantanamo Bay, where they were picked up, and the evidence that led to their detention.

Don't fall for the shifting goalpost. Is America allowed to violate human rights and international law if the intelligence is correct?

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, they're not suspects in a criminal case. They're enemies captured in a war, and can be held without trial until their captors see fit to release them or until the war is over.

In fact, legal hurdles must be jumped to try them - not to hold them.Right, a Canadian changing planes in the US on his way home to Canada was captured in a war.

No, WC, he was kidnapped from an American airport. He was not captured in a war.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you know that during WWII tens of thousands of Germans were held without charge by the US military and ultimately released without charges?

Explain the distinction please, or express your outrage that the Germans were also held.Well for a start, Saddam was not connected to 9/11 attack. Iraq did not attack the US. Iraq's invasion of another country was a decade earlier. No troops were gathering at the border ready to invade any other country. There were no WMDs. We invaded them, not the other way around.

So far of all the people detained at Gitmo, the ones released have not been prosecuted because there was no evidence against them.

[Corsair 115]

Utter mindless rubbish.It is encouraging to see you've happily abandoned the presumption of innocence which is so central to the legal system of the United States.

[JoeEllison]

It is encouraging to see you've happily abandoned the presumption of innocence which is so central to the legal system of the United States.Why else do you think they stick these prisoners in Cuba?

[Corsair 115]

Why else do you think they stick these prisoners in Cuba?I really don't have issue with the U.S. detaining suspects, but I do think at some point you have to either charge these individuals with a crime or release them. Five-plus years of waiting to be charged is too long in my opinion.

Before anyone retorts with the "we're at war" comment, I would ask when the formal declaration(s) of war was made and against which nation(s). Such declarations were quite clear and formal during WWII, but with Afghanistan and Iraq, it does not seem anywhere near as formal nor clear.

Grey areas really muddy things up...

[JoeEllison]

I really don't have issue with the U.S. detaining suspects, but I do think at some point you have to either charge these individuals with a crime or release them. Five-plus years of waiting to be charged is too long in my opinion.

Before anyone retorts with the "we're at war" comment, I would ask when the formal declaration(s) of war was made and against which nation(s). Such declarations were quite clear and formal during WWII, but with Afghanistan and Iraq, it does not seem anywhere near as formal nor clear.

Grey areas really muddy things up...My point is that, by sticking the prisoners outside of our borders, and under some horsecrap legal definition, the Bush administration has placed these people outside of any normal or sane standards of treatment. They have intentionally muddied the waters, in order to get away with their behavior.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Captured on the battlefield....NOT!

Columbia Journalism Review; So, Who Else Is At Gitmo? - What about the 400 or so other prisoners who have been held at Guantanamo Bay now for up to five years? - By Eric Umansky Fri 8 Sep 2006 (http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/so_who_else_is_at_gitmo.php)With the key help of an Afghan stringer named Sami Yousafzai, Newsweek retraced the paths traveled by a handful of Kuwaiti detainees now at Guantanamo. (The magazine didn’t name all the men, but at least one of them has been released while others are still at Guantanamo.) It found witnesses in Afghanistan supporting the claim that the men were indeed aid workers who, as was the case for many detainees, had been captured and sold for bounty by tribal leaders, and who, after successive rounds of selling, had ended up in U.S. custody.

Besides discovering that some of the prisoners at Guantanamo appeared to be innocent of any involvement in combat or terrorist activity, Gutman also found that the Pentagon wasn’t planning to investigate the detainees’ stories. Asked why not, a Pentagon official told Newsweek, “Your question suggests that there is something akin to a criminal investigation at work. That is not what we’re doing.”

“I tried to meet with [then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz, whom I know,” says Gutman. “I tried to talk to other officials, and they just had no interest in hearing what we knew. That was really the most distressing thing of all. They never tried to really learn who these people were. I talked to senior Pentagon officials: ‘You say you picked up people on battlefield. I want to know in what battle, where, when, etc.’ I was told, ‘We’re not asking questions like that.’ It tells you something about the administration strategy. They basically were going to throw away the key.”

Gutman knew that by looking at just five detainees, he only had a small slice of the picture. “But if we knew these guys were probably innocent, what about the others? I expected there would be a lot of other stories like this coming out. And I was wrong.”...

...In the past few years, the picture has begun to come into focus as more journalists have joined in exploring who the detainees really are. ...

...Each prisoner’s file included a page or two of the military’s summary of evidence, often accompanied by supporting memos and a transcript of the hearing in which the military had reaffirmed that the prisoner was in fact an “enemy combatant.” The files were publicly available at federal courthouses. But they had been rarely explored in depth, and their contents were never compiled systematically, which is exactly what Hegland set about doing.

After two months of sifting the information, Hegland had her answer. “The data was really clear,” she says. “It was mind-boggling.” It showed that most of the detainees hadn’t been caught “on the battlefield” but rather mostly in Pakistan; fewer than half were accused of fighting against the U.S., and there was scant evidence to confirm that they were even combatants. In other words, most of the detainees probably were entirely innocent.

Just a few days after Hegland published a three-part series on her findings in early February, a law professor at Seton Hall University, Mark Denbeaux, and his son, Joshua Denbeaux, who together have represented Guantanamo detainees, published a study that also used the Defense Department’s own data, though a somewhat different set. After stripping out the prisoners’ names, along with the supporting memos and transcripts, the Pentagon had publicly released the summary of evidence against every Guantanamo prisoner. Using that larger but less detailed data set, the Denbeaux’s findings echoed Hegland’s: Only 8 percent of detainees at Guantanamo were labeled by the Defense Department as “al Qaeda fighters,” they found, and just 11 percent had been captured “on the battlefield” by coalition forces.



Hegland's article (http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj1.htm) referred to in the above citation.

REPORT ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES - A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data; by Mark Denbeaux, Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law and Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees; Joshua Denbeaux, Esq., Denbeaux & Denbeaux David Gratz, John Gregorek, Matthew Darby, Shana Edwards, Shane Hartman, Daniel Mann and Helen Skinner, Students, Seton Hall University School of Law (http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf#search=%22seto n%20hall%20study%20guantanamo%22) (also cited above)

DOD 'Reading Room': Detainee Related Documents (http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/index.html) used in the above study of the 517.

This crap should piss you Bush apologists off as much as it pisses off the rest of us. Why defend the people who made this country less safe, trashed our reputation in the eyes of the world as the good guys, a reputation I might add that comes in handy when you need someone else's help.

Why anyone thinks this stuff makes us safer is absolutely incomprehensible. It makes us look incompetent, not tough.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please list every detainee in Guantanamo Bay, where they were picked up, and the evidence that led to their detention.See the above post. I assume Tex was unaware the information was readily available. Many of us have actually asked this question, but rather than suck up the propaganda we went looking for the actual sources of information.

[Dragoonster]

Don't fall for the shifting goalpost. Is America allowed to violate human rights and international law if the intelligence is correct?

Sorry, you're right.

...but well, "allowed to" is troublesome for me. Our courts are deciding whether we're allowed to by our laws, and our power in the world decides whether we're allowed to by global realpolitik crap.

Should we? Hell no. Should AI criticize us when we do it, particularly if we profer forth a moral imperative? Absolutely. AI is performing very well, applying its standards to all evenly, and recognizing that more powerful countries could set a great example to the rest of the world if they'd be non-hypocrites.

[JoeEllison]

When I say "allowed", I mean "acceptable under reasonable interpretations of international law and treaties that America has signed."

By that standard, we are NOT allowed to do what the Bush administration has authorized.

[Skeptic Ginger]

BTW, it appears that the CIA picked this guy up based on information from German intelligence as a member of the Hamgurg cell. You know about that one don't you, the cell that planned 911? He had the exact same name. I think the finger pointing should start there. One glaring failure of the CIA is taking allied countries' intelligence and acting on it and then getting raked over the coals later. We saw it with the Iraq yellow cake intelligence from Italy and France.Do you ever bother to check your facts or do you just exist in a happy world of make believe?

WA Post; Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake - German Citizen Released After Months in 'Rendition' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476_pf.html)Masri was held for five months largely because the head of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center's al Qaeda unit "believed he was someone else," one former CIA official said. "She didn't really know. She just had a hunch."

His name sounded similar and someone had a hunch. That was the evidence against this guy.

Unlike the military's prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- where 180 prisoners have been freed after a review of their cases -- there is no tribunal or judge to check the evidence against those picked up by the CIA. The same bureaucracy that decides to capture and transfer a suspect for interrogation-- a process called "rendition" -- is also responsible for policing itself for errors.

The CIA inspector general is investigating a growing number of what it calls "erroneous renditions," according to several former and current intelligence officials.

One official said about three dozen names fall in that category; others believe it is fewer. The list includes several people whose identities were offered by al Qaeda figures during CIA interrogations, officials said. One turned out to be an innocent college professor who had given the al Qaeda member a bad grade, one official said.Notice the kind of information you get when you torture people. That's a no brainer on its own.

[JoeEllison]

Notice the kind of information you get when you torture people. That's a no brainer on its own.

I remember plenty of times that we talked about how we would respond to torture when I was in the Marines. We all knew that we could never hold out, if it came down to it... so our strategy was to immediately start talking, tell them anything and everything and more than what they wanted. None of it had to be true, it just had to sound true enough to leave them scrambling for a day or three, after which most of what we knew would have changed anyways.

[Dragoonster]

Before anyone retorts with the "we're at war" comment, I would ask when the formal declaration(s) of war was made and against which nation(s). Such declarations were quite clear and formal during WWII, but with Afghanistan and Iraq, it does not seem anywhere near as formal nor clear.

Grey areas really muddy things up...

Good point. I hear tell "al qaeda" has declared war or jihad on us (and they were at 2000-Afghanistan times perhaps a militia/citizen taking up of arms of the taliban, to conform with GC definitions). So if "we're at war" is one justification, and our declarations of war don't even need to be official or signed by Congress, then Wildcat should accept that some "illegal combatants" are afforded GC protections if their hierarchy has declared their own equally nebulous state of war, and/or at one point they were recognized as as a public armed force. Or he can further stance-dance and say the ones we picked up weren't al qaeda, or incredibly ironically, refer to the GC to define warring states.

When I say "allowed", I mean "acceptable under reasonable interpretations of international law and treaties that America has signed."

By that standard, we are NOT allowed to do what the Bush administration has authorized.

Agreed.

To be properly skeptical, as Corsair brought up re: grey areas, the GC conventions and other law are not terribly clear. The "competent military tribunal" to decide status when that status is unclear (which to me is mandated for Gitmo detainees as it is unclear) has no time limitation for example.

[volatile]

It seems we have already exchanged this point. Perhaps I'm suffering Deja Vue?

So? As I have already said; you are clearly incapable of making value judgments on such distinctions.


You haven't actually answered the question, which is why I keep asking.

Besides, of course I'm not capable of making value judgements objectively - but then, neither are you. Which is why the UDHR was established inn the first place; it's designed as an objective measure of humanly decent behaviour in all circumstances. All your talk of value judgements and evil and necessity and means and ends mean nothing, because those you oppose use exactly the same rhetoric to justify their actions.

As such, you need to defer to an objective measure in order to estimate when boundaries have been breached. The world governments understood this in 1948, for reasons already given and for reasons that should be obvious if you read any history of Germany after 1900. The UDHR is just that measure, and by that measure, the USA are rightly criticised.

Please explain, as you have yet to do so, why your country should have the right to be above criticism when transgressing human rights, whilst others should not? What particularity (legally, morally, whatever) means the US' actions are to be held to a different standard to everyone else? Why shouldn't the UDHR be universal, in other words?

You keep saying I'm a fool and that I "don't understand", but you haven't made an argument at any level beyond some special pleading.


You see everything as a political end point, it seems to me.

Of course. What the Chinese do to dissidents is political. What the Burmese do to Aung San Suu Kyi is political. Should their human rights abuses be ignored because they're "political"? Of course not... it's an absurd statement; and a bitterly immoral one.

First, on a technicality that you seem to miss when convenient, this is not a matter of nation against nation anymore (try to avoid the obvious sidetrack here). There is no war between nations. Do you consider the Taliban a legitimate nation? OBL? Sunni fanatics? Shia fanatics?

The UDHR doesn't care who someone is, what their politcal affiliations are or where they come from. All it cares for is that they're people. Which is why it's universal.

I find it extremely depressing (not just rather) that some people see everything in relation to their own government turning against it's own, instead of the obvious dangers from outside it. It's sad that the better one is in defeating outside enemies the more some fear themselves.

The Chinese say the same thing. The Burmese say the same thing. Robert Mugabe says the same thing. This is not a justification for human rights abuses, because it is a justification everyone who abuses human rights is able to (and does) use. You still don't have an argument; you're just bleating that the ends justify the means, which is exactly the type of thinking that Amnesty rightly and roundly criticise.

[CFLarsen]

The bold highlights your problem. They are suspected terrorists

Not even that: They are "enemy combatants", alleged members of al-Qaida.

[Travis]

I'm curious. Could someone, if possible, list in total all the undeniable proof we have of torture being used in GITMO. Much thanks to anyone who can.

[volatile]

I'm curious. Could someone, if possible, list in total all the undeniable proof we have of torture being used in GITMO. Much thanks to anyone who can.

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/05/28/knee-jerk-redaction/

How about that, just for starters? The CIA admitting to using waterboarding in their internal documents.

"As Attorney General Mukasey has acknowledged, CIA agents waterboarded prisoners because this memo told them that they could. The memo is being withheld not for legitimate security reasons, but in order to protect government officials from accountability for their decisions." - http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/35222lgl20080508.html

Bear in mind, of course, that as someone has already said in this thread, comparisons between the US and other nations, or saying that what the US government have done isn't "as bad" as what other governments are doing, is entirely beside the point. Amnesty do not, and should not, engage in relativism; indeed, the UDHR was established precisely because engaging in this type of relativism exacerbated (if not exactly led to) the institutionalisation of cruelty in Nazi Germany.

[The Fool]

Maybe from reports like this one http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/


.

But that comes from the Pentagon and I am sure that in your mind it is just propaganda.

You parrot a much debunked propaganda piece that All the people in gitmo were captured on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. To add weight to your claim you give a single example of what one prisoner did after release ...Nothing about the origin of your single example...does it get any more irrelevant?

Forgot to add that you also included some vague suggestion that I dismiss everything from the pentagon as propaganda.....maybe you have a single example of me saying something about something other than the pentagon to add weight to that too?

I would suggest that this old chestnut about "battlefield captures only" needs a couple of weeks off before you use it again. At least until its latest debunking slips off the first page.

[Elind]

Yes, the truth often gets repeated more than lies when it is revealed. It's the nature of the beast.

If you are one who argues that the truth is that which is repeated most often, then our discussion is ended. Presumably that makes you a theist also?

And yet, you quote an "insightful person" that, quite frankly, would not agree with your stance here. That is indeed telling.

You time travel now? My quote was more relevant than the other one. It addressed the point being made. The former was just suddenly changing track from lambasting the supposed treatment of terrorists (alleged:boggled:) to the tiresome one of the inevitability of tyranny if we don't treat our enemies better.

And your quote was of little value, even ignoring all of that.

You just didn't get the gist.

You mean like how we rounded up Japanese because they were Japanese, and held them in a concentration camp?

That is a stupid comparison of different issues. That is the precise problem with people like you who can't distinguish between apples and potatoes.

To be fair, though, we treated the Japanese far better than we're treating the current prisoners.

You know this? Be specific if you want to pretend intelligence.

[Lonewulf]

You know this? Be specific if you want to pretend intelligence.We didn't use waterboarding or beat or starve the Japanese that were interned.

So yes. I do know this.

[Elind]

Please explain, as you have yet to do so, why your country should have the right to be above criticism when transgressing human rights, whilst others should not? What particularity (legally, morally, whatever) means the US' actions are to be held to a different standard to everyone else? Why shouldn't the UDHR be universal, in other words?

Actually, I have never said that any such thing applied only to the USA. I thought that was obvious.

The USA just happens to be the convenient whipping boy for all those who live in lala land where the wabbits live with the foxes in peace and harmony because they have learned to be nice.

People aren't always nice, and there can be good reasons and circumstances not to be nice, like winning wars and making your enemy fear you, instead of laugh at you.

You, symbolically speaking, will always lose wars because you would rather die than let your enemy think you were a mean sob. Your ideals aren't worth squat if they don't survive you, but one day you may grow up enough to realize that life isn't Disney.

[David Wong]

Do you know that during WWII tens of thousands of Germans were held without charge by the US military and ultimately released without charges?

Explain the distinction please, or express your outrage that the Germans were also held.

You know damned well what the distinction is. You have to know.

In WW2 we had specific governments we were at war with, were holding uniformed soldiers, and had a definite way of knowing when that war was over.

Today we have a situation where the nebulous war can last as long as we want it to, have NO definition of what will signal the end of it, and are holding people who are not uniformed soldiers and may not have any kind of official connection to the enemy, even if they were fighting for them.

I agree with the War on Terror, but you can't, for the purpose of winning an argument, pretend that the rules have not changed. They have, and we have unsuccessfully tried to straddle the line between treating these people like criminals and treating them as prisoners of war, and have been trying to do it in such a way that they have no rights as either.

When someone says they should have rights as accused, we say, "They're not protected under our legal system! They're enemy soldiers!"

When someone says they should have rights under the Geneva Convention, we say, "They're not protected under the Geneva Convention! They're not soldiers!"

We can't keep doing it that way. If they're criminals, they have rights. If they're soldiers, they have other rights. We have to decide.

[Elind]

We didn't use waterboarding or beat or starve the Japanese that were interned.

So yes. I do know this.

Oh, OK, one of those arguments.

I suspect the food in Gitmo is better than was available in the WWII internment camps. I don't know of any cases of starvation in Gitmo, and I don't know of any alleged Japanese Americans who were known with great confidence to have knowledge of impending mass murder plans in the USA, but if there had been such Japanese Americans, say three of them amongst the many thousands, then I would be all in favor of unpleasant but non physically damaging interrogation methods.

Waterboarding sounds like a very good alternative to, say, cutting body parts, don't you think?

[volatile]

Actually, I have never said that any such thing applied only to the USA. I thought that was obvious.

The USA just happens to be the convenient whipping boy for all those who live in lala land where the wabbits live with the foxes in peace and harmony because they have learned to be nice.

People aren't always nice, and there can be good reasons and circumstances not to be nice, like winning wars and making your enemy fear you, instead of laugh at you.

You, symbolically speaking, will always lose wars because you would rather die than let your enemy think you were a mean sob. Your ideals aren't worth squat if they don't survive you, but one day you may grow up enough to realize that life isn't Disney.

So, in that case - you're OK with Chinese dissidents, British internment, the Burmese keeping Aung San Suu Kyi in prison for decades and with human rights abuses wherever they occur? Because, as I keep pointing out to you, your logic of "all's fair in love and war" is the exact same logic that everyone uses to justify human rights abuses. With this framework, there really is no difference between evil and politics, because you have no objective measure with which to demarcate the difference. Don't you understand that?

Let me ask you this: do you believe it is even possible, in theory, for someone's human rights to be abused? Can governments ever go too far?

I assume from your earlier posts about "evil" that you believe the answer to these questions are both "Yes". The question then becomes, as I keep asking you, how do you decide when that line has been crossed? The international community decided in 1948 to draw that line in the sand, and that line is immutable; it is, as I said, universal. You have no alternative to that, other than apologetics and special pleading as far as I can tell.

[Elind]

We can't keep doing it that way. If they're criminals, they have rights. If they're soldiers, they have other rights. We have to decide.

What do you mean when you say "we" have to decide?

Some of us have decided. Have you?

[Lonewulf]

Oh, OK, one of those arguments.Indeed. I have many others.

I suspect the food in Gitmo is better than was available in the WWII internment camps.Evidence?

I don't know of any cases of starvation in Gitmo, and I don't know of any alleged Japanese Americans who were known with great confidence to have knowledge of impending mass murder plans in the USA, but if there had been such Japanese Americans, say three of them amongst the many thousands, then I would be all in favor of unpleasant but non physically damaging interrogation methods.Okay, what kind of interrogation methods, and how much evidence would we need to have "great confidence"? Because I don't have much confidence that we're waiting until we have "great confidence" in picking up prisoners. All the evidence I have ever seen has pointed to potentially innocent people being picked up with very little evidence -- just a pointed finger and a quick witch hunt.

Waterboarding sounds like a very good alternative to, say, cutting body parts, don't you think?So if I punch you, that's perfectly okay because the other alternative was to shoot you.

Tip: There are other kinds of interrogation techniques that don't involve torture.

Furthermore, waterboarding is the only admitted technique. There's a lot of other techniques that were blackened out, if you recall the post earlier. Techniques that aren't quite being revealed, but can include snipping off of flesh or the cutting off of body parts for all I know.

Why are these torture techniques hidden so completely? What is there to hide? Perhaps they're afraid that the public won't quite like what they're doing to these individuals?

[Lonewulf]

What do you mean when you say "we" have to decide?

Some of us have decided. Have you?Indeed. The decision being that they have no rights at all.

[Elind]

I assume from your earlier posts about "evil" that you believe the answer to these questions are both "Yes". The question then becomes, as I keep asking you, how do you decide when that line has been crossed? The international community decided in 1948 to draw that line in the sand, and that line is immutable; it is, as I said, universal. You have no alternative to that, other than apologetics and special pleading as far as I can tell.

You keep talking about immutable lines. Nothing is immutable in life, and nothing is perfect, but some things are better than others. The international community which you allege "drew a line in the sand" has obviously grossly ignored that same line ever since as witnessed by the many excuses for "governments" that are allowed to vote on world matters as if they deserved respect. Perhaps, to be kind, some of them are smart enough to recognize that lines in the sand are stupid if immutable, but honorable if seen as ideals to be kept in perspective.

If you can't see any fundamental difference in qualities between the regime in Burma, say, and the USA because you can point to alleged specific case similarities, and I say alleged, then we have nothing more to discuss. You live on a different planet in a fantasy world but, in case you haven't noticed, I've already said this several times.

[richardm]

If you can't see any fundamental difference in qualities between the regime in Burma, say, and the USA because you can point to alleged specific case similarities, and I say alleged, then we have nothing more to discuss.

I don't think anyone is saying there is no fundamental difference between Burma and the USA, are they? Unless I've missed something, this is your interpretation based the fact that Amnesty International criticise some of the actions of both governments.

[Elind]

Indeed. The decision being that they have no rights at all.

Are you proud of that summary?

They have the right to say that they were just a tourist and someone handed them the gun and ammo and asked them to hold it while they took a pee.

We have the right to sentence them to jail for most of their life.

You have the right to spend much energy apologizing for them.

I have the right to say what I think about it.

None of us would have any of those rights where most of those poor poor prisoners originated from.

[volatile]

You keep talking about immutable lines. Nothing is immutable in life, and nothing is perfect, but some things are better than others.

Everyone says that. No matter what side they are on! How do you propose we decide what is "better than others"?

I have an idea - how about we draw up a list of ethically sound, morally coherent, politically uncontentious and historically aware conditions, and ask countries to pledge to them whatever the circumstances?

Elind - those you call evil, those you mark as worse than others, use the exact same logic you are using.

The international community which you allege "drew a line in the sand" has obviously grossly ignored that same line ever since as witnessed by the many excuses for "governments" that are allowed to vote on world matters as if they deserved respect. Perhaps, to be kind, some of them are smart enough to recognize that lines in the sand are stupid if immutable, but honorable if seen as ideals to be kept in perspective.

I don't "allege" anything. It's historical fact. Germany prior to WW2 was a "normal", democratic country. The UDHR was drawn up precisely because without safeguards, good countries can go bad very quickly.

If you start allowing countries to opt out of human rights agreements because they are politically inexpedient, then there is no point having those agreements at all; they are designed to be applicable at the precise moment the rights they protect become politically problematic.

If you can't see any fundamental difference in qualities between the regime in Burma, say, and the USA because you can point to alleged specific case similarities, and I say alleged, then we have nothing more to discuss. You live on a different planet in a fantasy world but, in case you haven't noticed, I've already said this several times.

There are differences - of course. But that alone does not give the US, or anyone else, free reign to break the rules. The rules exist precisely because all countries can use the expediency justification to ride roughshod over human rights, and that way leads to despotism and state-sponsored cruelty. Have you not been reading anything anyone's said to you in this thread?

You say the US are "better" than Burma. I agree. On what grounds do you make the distinction? What would the US have to do in order for the situations to be reversed? In other words, do you hold the US to the same external standard you hold Burma to, and how is that standard defined? Why is the US better than Burma? Might it be because the US is, generally, much more aware of the ethical standards of the Enlightenment which the UDHR enshrines?

[Lonewulf]

Are you proud of that summary?Are you proud of what you wrote after this line? If so, that makes me sad.

They have the right to say that they were just a tourist and someone handed them the gun and ammo and asked them to hold it while they took a pee.Okay, so now your claim is that everyone picked up as a prisoner had a gun and ammunition. The examples listed earlier in this thread had no such thing.

Welp, looks like you've already failed.

We have the right to sentence them to jail for most of their life.Without Habeas Corpus and giving them no chance to defend themselves and having scant evidence that they're even connected to terrorists...

Not a very good "right", I'd say, since it rather relies on taking the rights from others.

You have the right to spend much energy apologizing for them.Indeed, I have the right to say when I don't like how my own country is treating others, especially innocents. In fact, I'd rather say I have a duty to speak up.

I have the right to say what I think about it.I don't deny that. No matter how inane your opinions are, they do fall under free speech.

None of us would have any of those rights where most of those poor poor prisoners originated from.Ah yes. The "Well, there's mass murderers out there, so it's perfectly fine to shoot someone I don't like in cold blood" defense.

Not very convincing.

[Elind]

Indeed. The decision being that they have no rights at all.

Are you proud of that summary?

They have the right to say that they were just a tourist and someone handed them the gun and ammo and asked them to hold it while they took a pee.

We have the right to sentence them to jail for most of their life.

You have the right to spend much energy apologizing for them.

I have the right to say what I think about it.

None of us would have any of those rights where most of those poor poor prisoners originated from.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Are you proud of that summary?

They have the right to say that they were just a tourist and someone handed them the gun and ammo and asked them to hold it while they took a pee.

You could just say they're lying instead of being cute. Ever heard of presumed innocent? :rolleyes:

We have the right to sentence them to jail for most of their life.

You have the right to spend much energy apologizing for them.

There's this thing called due process of law. I'm sure you've heard of it.



I have the right to say what I think about it.

None of us would have any of those rights where most of those poor poor prisoners originated from.

And a tu queque fallacy to wind up.

[WildCat]

You mean like how we rounded up Japanese because they were Japanese, and held them in a concentration camp?

To be fair, though, we treated the Japanese far better than we're treating the current prisoners.
Nope, not even close to addressing my point. I have never defended the rounding up, internment, or property confiscation of Americans of Japanese heritage by the Democrats (;)) in WWII.

We're talking enemies captured in a war - which those held in Gitmo are.

[WildCat]

There is no distinction that would justify it. And yes, it was outrageous for FDR/Truman to do so.
Dude, do you even have a clue that I'm talking about German soldiers who surrendered to US soldiers? In the war?

Only according to the Bush Administration. Which doesn't pay heed to the GC regarding the detainees. Which is attempting to make it's own subjective rules (which are being challenged and have been found lacking by our courts). Which is exactly the kind of arbitrary nationalistic justification for any mistreatment Amnesty International opposes.
Evidence? Do you even know the requirements the GC makes to qualify as a POW under the GC?

So--Do you know that Amnesty International doesn't accept Fidel Castro's political intent as justification for human rights violations? And that Castro equally applies GC protection to them as Bush does Gitmo detainees? That is--no GC protection applies?

Explain the distinction please, or express your outrage that Amnesty International criticizes Cuban holding of political prisoners.
What war was Cuba fighting again? :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Right, a Canadian changing planes in the US on his way home to Canada was captured in a war.

No, WC, he was kidnapped from an American airport. He was not captured in a war.
Is this the guy identified by RCMP as a terrorist? Can you tell us where, exactly, the battlefield is in the war against al Qaeda and those associated with them?

Well for a start, Saddam was not connected to 9/11 attack. Iraq did not attack the US. Iraq's invasion of another country was a decade earlier. No troops were gathering at the border ready to invade any other country. There were no WMDs. We invaded them, not the other way around.
:confused: We were talking about Gitmo, remember? Which contains no one captured in the Iraq war.

So far of all the people detained at Gitmo, the ones released have not been prosecuted because there was no evidence against them.
No, they were released because it was determined they were no longer a threat.

Are you claiming we don't have the right to inter enemies captured in a war?

[WildCat]

Captured on the battlefield....NOT!

Once again, please identify the exact geographic parameters of this battlefield in the war authorized by Public Law No: 107-40 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm)?

Didn't think so.

[quixotecoyote]

Are you claiming we don't have the right to inter enemies captured in a war?

I'd claim that if you choose to use that as your justification, you should treat those enemies as prisoners of war.

I also think that should you choose not to do so, you should treat those individuals as civilian criminal suspects and proceed that way.

The unlawful combatant category seems to be a situation where anyone can be labeled with it for being in the wrong place/wrong time, it's almost impossible to shake the label, and it's specifically designed to circumvent due process and the rights of the individual (which I hope we can agree is a bad thing).

[WildCat]

So if "we're at war" is one justification, and our declarations of war don't even need to be official or signed by Congress,
Perhaps you missed it? http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm

then Wildcat should accept that some "illegal combatants" are afforded GC protections if their hierarchy has declared their own equally nebulous state of war, and/or at one point they were recognized as as a public armed force. Or he can further stance-dance and say the ones we picked up weren't al qaeda, or incredibly ironically, refer to the GC to define warring states.
Holy straw man batman!

Some of the Taliban do in fact qualify for POW status under the GC, some do not. Which is why most captured Taliban do not end up in Gitmo.

[WildCat]

I'd claim that if you choose to use that as your justification, you should treat those enemies as prisoners of war.
"Prisoner of War" is a legal term clearly defined in the Geneva Conventions. Not all captured enemies qualify for POW status, and do not qualify for the POW protections in the GC. This doesn't, of course, mean you can mistreat them, it does mean they don't get the preferential treatment POW's get.

I also think that should you choose not to do so, you should treat those individuals as civilian criminal suspects and proceed that way.
So enemies who don't play by the rules of the GC designed for the protection of civilians in a war should get better treatment than combatants who abided by the rules and customs of warfare?

The unlawful combatant category seems to be a situation where anyone can be labeled with it for being in the wrong place/wrong time, it's almost impossible to shake the label, and it's specifically designed to circumvent due process and the rights of the individual (which I hope we can agree is a bad thing).
No, it's simply the category into which they fit.

[WildCat]

You know damned well what the distinction is. You have to know.

In WW2 we had specific governments we were at war with, were holding uniformed soldiers,
And what happened to enemy soldiers who were caught out of uniform posing as civilians? Are you sure you want to go there?

and had a definite way of knowing when that war was over.
Which is why, perhaps, we aren't holding all enemy combatants forever and have in fact released most of them?

Today we have a situation where the nebulous war can last as long as we want it to,
Really? You know how to end it now? Please tell!

have NO definition of what will signal the end of it, and are holding people who are not uniformed soldiers and may not have any kind of official connection to the enemy, even if they were fighting for them.
What is the motivation to hold those not connected to the enemy? Doesn't the fact that there have only been 500 or so held at Gitmo at any time (most have been released) reveal that we are in fact using the place sparingly?

When someone says they should have rights as accused, we say, "They're not protected under our legal system! They're enemy soldiers!"

When someone says they should have rights under the Geneva Convention, we say, "They're not protected under the Geneva Convention! They're not soldiers!"

We can't keep doing it that way. If they're criminals, they have rights. If they're soldiers, they have other rights. We have to decide.
They're soldiers, and they have the rights of the GC depending on which GC classification they fall under.

[godless dave]

It's horrible, the way they won't give the West a free pass on human rights violations. You'd think they had principles or something! How dare they not look the other way when it comes to the "good" guys.

It's almost as if they hold all governments to the same standard.

[Elind]

You could just say they're lying instead of being cute. Ever heard of presumed innocent? :rolleyes:



There's this thing called due process of law. I'm sure you've heard of it.



And a tu queque fallacy to wind up.

This is not a civil criminal situation. It is not a police matter. Seems that all those who seem to have a problem with fighting wars to win, do so by pretending there is no such thing. The rules, like it or not, are not the same.

[JoeEllison]

It's almost as if they hold all governments to the same standard.

How dare they be neutral and impartial?!?!

[Elind]

I don't think anyone is saying there is no fundamental difference between Burma and the USA, are they? Unless I've missed something, this is your interpretation based the fact that Amnesty International criticise some of the actions of both governments.

Some people seem to think so.

Whether one agrees with with A.I. or not, when they put out single reports they apply the same brush to all in it, regardless of how politically nuanced the specific words may be. That is 101 in political bias, or soliciting donations and they know exactly what they are doing.

A.I. reminds me of Greenpeace. An organization I think I gave money to many years ago, but now I think they act like clowns. Their rationale has become self service and the justifications circular. I recently read an article by one of the first founders, and why he left Greenpace because of what they let themselves become.

The ACLU is another that doesn't seem to know when to pick good battles anymore, but often seems to do so just because they can.

Then of course we have that icon of outdoor skills and safety that has become a self serving religion. You know "from my dead hands....." and all that.

[Finnegan]

How dare they be neutral and impartial?!?!

They're supposed to support human rights. These people are not human!

Incidentally, John Bolton has just narrowly evaded arrest (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7424785.stm).

[Elind]

Are you proud of what you wrote after this line? If so, that makes me sad.

Me too, for the opposing reason.

Okay, so now your claim is that everyone picked up as a prisoner had a gun and ammunition. The examples listed earlier in this thread had no such thing.

I was being facetious, obviously. It's an excuse I think I've read, or close to it.

Welp, looks like you've already failed.

If you say so you must think so.

Without Habeas Corpus and giving them no chance to defend themselves and having scant evidence that they're even connected to terrorists...


Some evidence may very well be stronger than others. Usually is that way. You seem to know what it is and that all our people are getting commission on filling beds at Gitmo for that useful MSM quote "for no reason".

Not a very good "right", I'd say, since it rather relies on taking the rights from others.

Certainly, there is a principle that some people need to have rights taken away. You think it should be us, and I think it should be them. Simple.

Indeed, I have the right to say when I don't like how my own country is treating others, especially innocents. In fact, I'd rather say I have a duty to speak up.


and speak up you may, and do, because of those who lock up some who would deny you that right, but you don't trust them based on a "gut" feeling you have, it seems.

[NewtonTrino]

Elind, you are just as bad as the terrorists.

I don't understand how giving people DUE PROCESS can possibly hurt us. If they are legit terrorists that should show up in court. If there isn't enough evidence to convict them of a crime they should be let go. This process was put in place to protect you and I from despots and tyrants. If we surrender these rights to the evil-doers we are doing ourselves harm NOT THEM. Don't you get that the issue here is much bigger than a (IMHO overblown) terrorist threat? Due process should be applied in ALL cases.

For the record I have no problem holding enemy combatants during a real war under the rules of the geneva convention. However the terrorists that attacked us are and have been simply criminals, not members of an enemy military establishment.

Bush should be put on trial for high treason for allowing Guantanamo to exist.

[WildCat]

For the record I have no problem holding enemy combatants during a real war under the rules of the geneva convention. However the terrorists that attacked us are and have been simply criminals, not members of an enemy military establishment.
And this is the problem - those who don't think we are at war and the military is over there doing police work.

How many more soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen must die before you admit we are at war?

[Ziggurat]

Elind, you are just as bad as the terrorists.

Um... how can posting anything on a message board equate to cutting people's heads off and blowing up children? Have you lost all sense of perspective? Yes, it appears you have.

I don't understand how giving people DUE PROCESS can possibly hurt us. If they are legit terrorists that should show up in court.

It's called "discovery". Because the accused has access to the evidence against them, any intelligence sources used to catch a terrorist are compromised whenever that terrorist is put on trial in an ordinary civilian court. You may think that price is worth paying, and perhaps it is, but you're delusional if you think that price doesn't exist. It's exactly what happened when we put the 1993 WTC bombers on trial.

Bush should be put on trial for high treason for allowing Guantanamo to exist.

Treason is the only constitutionally defined crime. And Guantanamo doesn't match that definition in any way, shape or form, regardless of its legality. You really don't understand this constitution that you pretend you want to defend, do you?

[Lonewulf]

Certainly, there is a principle that some people need to have rights taken away. You think it should be us, and I think it should be them. Simple.No, I don't think that our rights should be "taken away". That strawman pretty much costed you the rest of my patience.

and speak up you may, and do, because of those who lock up some who would deny you that right, but you don't trust them based on a "gut" feeling you have, it seems.No, I don't tend to trust authorities that pick people up based on flimsy evidence and then proceed to do things to them that, according to all the evidence I've seen, is morally reprehensible. Besides that, I'm a firm believer that the government -- and it's agents -- require certain controls and limitations. This is why we have a Constitution.

The court of law, Habeas Corpus, etc. were designed for a reason. So was the Geneva Convention, for that matter, and the idea of universal human rights.

You may not actually agree with any of these; you may believe that you should have the right to go ahead and torture anyone you want to just because you feel you are "justified"; or that because there's someone worse out there, whatever you do to someone is automatically nullified and perfectly moral. Just recognize that the same justifications you use to justify your actions against people you dub the "enemies" are excuses that are made by men that you abhor. Or maybe you don't abhor them; I don't know. Maybe you hero worship them. Don't know, don't care.

It's called "discovery". Because the accused has access to the evidence against them, any intelligence sources used to catch a terrorist are compromised whenever that terrorist is put on trial in an ordinary civilian court. You may think that price is worth paying, and perhaps it is, but you're delusional if you think that price doesn't exist. It's exactly what happened when we put the 1993 WTC bombers on trial.The alternative price scares me just as much.

[Texas]

.

The court of law, Habeas Corpus, etc. were designed for a reason. So was the Geneva Convention, for that matter, and the idea of universal human rights.

You may not actually agree with any of these; you may believe that you should have the right to go ahead and torture anyone you want to just because you feel you are "justified"; or that because there's someone worse out there, whatever you do to someone is automatically nullified and perfectly moral. Just recognize that the same justifications you use to justify your actions against people you dub the "enemies" are excuses that are made by men that you abhor. Or maybe you don't abhor them; I don't know. Maybe you hero worship them. Don't know, don't care.

The alternative price scares me just as much.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22616052/
There are presently 275 detainees in GITMO. 100 of these are from Yemen captured in Afghanistan. The US is ready to release them into the custody of the government in Yemen with the only condition being that they are to be prevented from attacking American interests. The Yemeni government has so far refused. GITMO had a peak population of just over 600 in 2002 at the height of action in Afghanistan. With the exception of those that are going to be put on trial the only ones remaining are those whose home countries are not willing to accept or control. There are only 5 planned trials for detainees that are accused of helping to plan and support 911. The rest are being repatriated to their home governments when possible. Those who are not able to return to their home countries more than likely will be held as POWs/enemy combatants which ever term you wish to use.

[Elind]

Elind, you are just as bad as the terrorists.

:D I expect nothing different from you.

I don't understand how giving people DUE PROCESS can possibly hurt us. If they are legit terrorists that should show up in court. If there isn't enough evidence to convict them of a crime they should be let go. This process was put in place to protect you and I from despots and tyrants. If we surrender these rights to the evil-doers we are doing ourselves harm NOT THEM. Don't you get that the issue here is much bigger than a (IMHO overblown) terrorist threat? Due process should be applied in ALL cases.

You're a childish idiot.:mad:

For the record I have no problem holding enemy combatants during a real war under the rules of the geneva convention. However the terrorists that attacked us are and have been simply criminals, not members of an enemy military establishment.

Wow. :eye-poppi I bet it took a lot of thinking to redefine reality to suit yourself.

Bush should be put on trial for high treason for allowing Guantanamo to exist.

Of course, and your kind will find good reason to do that to every president or government you get a bee up your butt about. That is also what is called tyranny, but by useful idiots.

[Elind]

No, I don't think that our rights should be "taken away". That strawman pretty much costed you the rest of my patience.



What do you think I care about your patience, costed or not?:confused:

If I haven't already made myself clear, you have costed my interest long ago.

[quixotecoyote]

"Prisoner of War" is a legal term clearly defined in the Geneva Conventions. Not all captured enemies qualify for POW status, and do not qualify for the POW protections in the GC. This doesn't, of course, mean you can mistreat them, it does mean they don't get the preferential treatment POW's get.

Lovely, since you've discarded the idea of labeling them prisoners of war, I assume you'll dispense with the 'do what ever we want because we made them prisoners during war' line.


So enemies who don't play by the rules of the GC designed for the protection of civilians in a war should get better treatment than combatants who abided by the rules and customs of warfare?

You have it ass backwards. Civilians acting as spies and saboteurs face death if convicted according the rule of law.

No, it's simply the category into which they fit.

Of course they fit! It was a category created specifically so we can do whatever we want with them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm curious. Could someone, if possible, list in total all the undeniable proof we have of torture being used in GITMO. Much thanks to anyone who can.Are you too lazy to check the Net yourself for this information or are have you simply chosen to ignore the news for the last 6 years?

Here, let me get you started, just Google, Gitmo torture. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suggon=0&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=7px&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=gitmo+torture&spell=1) You currently get "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,340,000 for gitmo torture"

Forbes.com: US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo; in Iraq, Afghanistan - UN; 06.24.2005 (http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html)

Of course they watered it down a bit compared to all the other evidence that has been reported on.GENEVA (AFX) - Washington has, for the first time, acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.

The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

We're talking enemies captured in a war - which those held in Gitmo are.Nope, you, Elind and Tex are talking enemies captured in a war. The evidence directly from the DoD says that is false. Why would you ignore that evidence? It does not help our country nor our homeland security to simply believe government propaganda. A true democracy is a government by the people, not a government ruing over oblivious sheeple. That government ruling over oblivious sheeple using control of the information those people get is the government my parents warned me against. That is supposedly how the Commies treated their citizens.

This country stood for free speech which meant a government that either didn't lie to the people or when they did, a boatload of investigative reporters exposed said government. Now those investigative reporters write books and blogs instead of coming to you from prime time TV land, but they are still there if you would just wake up and smell the skunkweed.

You need to watch a few John Wayne re-runs. Notice in WWII movies the Americans are the good guys, they don't torture people, and they win all the wars. If you are going to live in a fantasy world, that one certainly looks to be the better choice.

Face it. Bush betrayed you and the rats continue to flee the ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Happened). That should tell you something, like maybe the rats know something you don't.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is this the guy identified by RCMP as a terrorist? Can you tell us where, exactly, the battlefield is in the war against al Qaeda and those associated with them? Funny, I don't think anyone else in the airport at the time this guy was kidnapped noticed they were on a battlefield. I would have to say the answer to your question is obvious, there is no battlefield.

:confused: We were talking about Gitmo, remember? Which contains no one captured in the Iraq war.No, we were talking about AI reporting on the behavior of the US which included significant human rights abuses. Gitmo was just one place this occurred. If you want to get into the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib, which has also been mentioned, then we'll be here all day.

No, they were released because it was determined they were no longer a threat.

Are you claiming we don't have the right to inter enemies captured in a war?I am claiming you are buying the government lie that is what is actually occurring.

[Corsair 115]

We're talking enemies captured in a war - which those held in Gitmo are.Then can you then point to the formal declaration of war passed by Congress, yes? Which nations were named in it?

Is this the guy identified by RCMP as a terrorist?If you're referencing the Maher Arar case, best not to bring that up. It's a damnable black mark against both the U.S. and Canadian governments.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Nope, you, Elind and Tex are talking enemies captured in a war. The evidence directly from the DoD says that is false. Why would you ignore that evidence? It does not help our country nor our homeland security to simply believe government propaganda. A true democracy is a government by the people, not a government ruing over oblivious sheeple. That government ruling over oblivious sheeple using control of the information those people get is the government my parents warned me against. That is supposedly how the Commies treated their citizens.

This country stood for free speech which meant a government that either didn't lie to the people or when they did, a boatload of investigative reporters exposed said government. Now those investigative reporters write books and blogs instead of coming to you from prime time TV land, but they are still there if you would just wake up and smell the skunkweed.

You need to watch a few John Wayne re-runs. Notice in WWII movies the Americans are the good guys, they don't torture people, and they win all the wars. If you are going to live in a fantasy world, that one certainly looks to be the better choice.

Face it. Bush betrayed you and the rats continue to flee the ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Happened). That should tell you something, like maybe the rats know something you don't.

You'd have better luck if you acutally backed up your assertions and didn't use sheeple.

I mean, I'm pretty sure you're right, but posts like this won't help you at all.

[Travis]

I'd like those that oppose GITMO to propose how they would handle the situation and deal with the possible outcomes of those actions.

Otherwise you're pretty much just sitting back condemning from your arm chair without offering up constructive alternatives. I, personally, think the situation is whole lot more complicated then many on here are making it out to be.


Who would you release?

By what criteria do you select those for release?

Who would you declare a POW?

Why are they declared POW's?
How long do you keep them?
How do you repatriate them if their home countries won't receive them?
Do you repatriate them if their home countries promise to summarily execute them on arrival?

Who would you prosecute as a criminal?

Why are they criminals and not POW's?
In what jurisdiction do you prosecute them?
What if the body of evidence against them is confidential?

Do you declassify the material for the purpose of the prosecution?
Do you disregard all classified evidence even though it might mean a guilty and potentially dangerous individual might go free?

What if key witnesses against them are undercover agents who's identities can't be compromised?
Do you disregard their testimony even though it might mean losing the case?
Do you compromise the agents identity and use their testimony?

What if other nations protest the prosecutions regardless of how they are conducted?

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'd like those that oppose GITMO to propose how they would handle the situation and deal with the possible outcomes of those actions.

Otherwise you're pretty much just sitting back condemning from your arm chair without offering up constructive alternatives. I, personally, think the situation is whole lot more complicated then many on here are making it out to be.

I'll take a shot, bear in mind I'm also verging on the edge of sleeping. My text is in blue.



Who would you release?
By what criteria do you select those for release?Er. Unlike skeptigirl, I've not looked into it too deeply. I suppose it'd matter depending on trials, but I'd [COMPLETE LATER]
Who would you declare a POW? Anyone actively caught on a battlefield as a hostile force. Ad hoc, but it might work.


Why are they declared POW's?Well, laying bombs or shooting at troops/civilians is a dead give away...

How long do you keep them?Risky bit, but I'd probably try to release them to the local government. And then if they go back to being a hostile force member.. well, ... this approach has some problems, so I'll think it through.

How do you repatriate them if their home countries won't receive them?... hm. Well, I'd try to actually answer the last one : I suppose federal/military prisons work..that would leave them under GC rules.

Do you repatriate them if their home countries promise to summarily execute them on arrival?Yes. At least, the first time.
Who would you prosecute as a criminal? Anyone not caught as a POW. Yes, this would include sleeper agents, people of terrorist attacks...



Why are they criminals and not POW's?See above.

In what jurisdiction do you prosecute them?This is a bit of a risky part. I'd nominally say Federal, but the attorneys and judge would need security clearances, which could be a little dicey.

What if the body of evidence against them is confidential?see above.

What if key witnesses against them are undercover agents who's identities can't be compromised?See above, but I'd most likely need to do the entire "no face, vox voice.." I'm uncomfortable with this and the last idea, but it's too risky otherwise.

What if other nations protest the prosecutions regardless of how they are conducted?They are welcome to come up with a better idea. Seriously.

[Travis]

Are you too lazy to check the Net yourself for this information or are have you simply chosen to ignore the news for the last 6 years?

I will take the high road and ignore your caustic snarkiness and simply address this. I try to keep up on what's going on but I don't trust Journalists. Not since 8 years ago when a few journalists reported that my innocent little brother had 47 weapons in his bedroom when he did not. Since then I think of Journalists as the scum of the Earth. I do not like them and I certainly do not trust them. They lie. They lie either to push an agenda or, like my brothers case, to create sensationalism to sell their stories. Bottom line is that as far as I'm concerned they lie more than any other professional collective, more than politicians and more than lawyers.

For that reason I'm gonna need more proof of what's happening in GITMO than anything written in a periodical. That, I simply can't trust.

ETA I will note that any torture, if it is happening at GITMO, is something I totally condemn. I do not think there is any place for it in a civilized society. While I know Europeans think us Americans are barbaric, backwards, drooling dolts I think we are civilized and should know better.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You'd have better luck if you acutally backed up your assertions and didn't use sheeple.

I mean, I'm pretty sure you're right, but posts like this won't help you at all.Wanna go back and look again?

I'm sorry if sheeple is annoying but it is a valid adjective in this case. The evidence that Bush and the whole Republican leadership have been on a propaganda mission for a decade. The Rove Playbook is talked about regularly. Scandal after scandal keeps surfacing.

There were the retired military brass being paid to give supposed unbiased opinions on the major news networks. The whole Plame affair was the WhiteHouse outing an undercover CIA agent to cover up Wilson's claims the WhiteHouse was lying about WMDs, and they were lying! They faked the Jessica Lynch story and tried to cover up the Pat Tilman incident. The number of soldier suicides was lied about in a big way. Returning coffins cannot be seen. Independent news media in Iraq have been specifically targeted.

This administration is the culmination of years of political marketing gone wild. The Democrats would probably do the same but the Republicans are just better at it currently. The bottom line is this propaganda needs attention. It will be ineffective if it is better disclosed.

[Travis]

Wanna go back and look again?

I'm sorry if sheeple is annoying but it is a valid adjective in this case. The evidence that Bush and the whole Republican leadership have been on a propaganda mission for a decade. The Rove Playbook is talked about regularly. Scandal after scandal keeps surfacing.

There were the retired military brass being paid to give supposed unbiased opinions on the major news networks. The whole Plame affair was the WhiteHouse outing an undercover CIA agent to cover up Wilson's claims the WhiteHouse was lying about WMDs, and they were lying! They faked the Jessica Lynch story and tried to cover up the Pat Tilman incident. The number of soldier suicides was lied about in a big way. Returning coffins cannot be seen. Independent news media in Iraq have been specifically targeted.


IT was the media that faked the Jessica Lynch story. Not the White House...and it was the Army that tried to cover up the Tilman incident.

That's about all the defending of the Bush White House I can stomach for the moment.

[albion]

IT was the media that faked the Jessica Lynch story. Not the White House...and it was the Army that tried to cover up the Tilman incident.

That's about all the defending of the Bush White House I can stomach for the moment.

No. The story was created by the Pentagon and reported as if true by the media. The responsibility for the misinformation clearly lies at the feet of the Pentagon who released the video and told the reporters in Doha a (I'll be kind and say) erroneous tale.

[Dragoonster]

Dude, do you even have a clue that I'm talking about German soldiers who surrendered to US soldiers? In the war?

Not when you don't specify whether you're talking about those captured on the battlefield or the 10,000+ German Americans held in internment camps along with the Japanese Americans as "enemy aliens". Dude.

Evidence? Do you even know the requirements the GC makes to qualify as a POW under the GC?

Yes, I didn't provide a link because I figured you don't, or need to refresh yourself. Dismissals of GC protection generally only cite 1.4.A.2, missing the "one of the following", instead thinking all of the following must meet those critera. There are a couple of other types of detainees it would apply to. The point is their status is in dispute and the GC requires a competent military tribunal to determine status when it's in dispute. George Bush unilaterally declaring them "enemy combatants" not afforded GC protections isn't a competent military tribunal.

What war was Cuba fighting again?

Castro would call it a War on Dissidents or something. Which would hold about as much weight as George Bush declaring we're in a general War on Terror.

Perhaps you missed it? http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/se...sjres23_eb.htm

Please point out where that authorizes or declares a state of war on Terror. Or how it computes with another thing you say...

We were talking about Gitmo, remember? Which contains no one captured in the Iraq war.

Holy straw man batman!

When a person's assertions or justifications are confusing, I'll have to guess at it.

Some of the Taliban do in fact qualify for POW status under the GC, some do not. Which is why most captured Taliban do not end up in Gitmo.

Obviously we and AI don't have the faith that you do in our adminstration being competent at sorting them out, or in the types or entitlement of rights granted to them by either the GC, or US law.

[Travis]

No. The story was created by the Pentagon and reported as if true by the media. The responsibility for the misinformation clearly lies at the feet of the Pentagon who released the video and told the reporters in Doha a (I'll be kind and say) erroneous tale.

Really, because I seem to recall the Press Release in Doha pretty much telling the true story with the media later embellishing it.

What's the evidence that the Pentagon originated the fantastic elements of the story?

[albion]

Really, because I seem to recall the Press Release in Doha pretty much telling the true story with the media later embellishing it.

What's the evidence that the Pentagon originated the fantastic elements of the story?

She said as much in her testimony before congress

A female US soldier who came to personify the US invasion of Iraq yesterday appeared before a Congressional hearing to reject the Pentagon's portrayal of her as "Rambo from West Virginia", shot down in a blaze of glory.

Appearing as a witness at the Congressional committee investigating military misinformation from the battlefield, Jessica Lynch said: "Tales of great heroism were being told. My parent's home in Wirt county [West Virginia] was under siege of the media all repeating the story of the little girl Rambo from the hills who went down fighting. It was not true."

"However, I am still confused as to why they chose to lie and tried to make me a legend when the real heroics of my fellow soldiers that day were, in fact, legendary." She said the US people did not need to be told "elaborate tales". She concluded: "The truth of war is not always easy to hear but it always more heroic than the hype."

When she was captured at Nassiriya, the US military told the media she had been wounded but carried on firing until the end.

She had in fact been riding in a truck and had not been firing a weapon. The US military also presented her escape as a heroic feat, ignoring the role of friendly Iraqi medical staff in the rescue.

Ms Lynch said she was not politically motivated and supported the troops in Iraq. But she added: "I believe this is not a time for finger pointing. It is time for the truth, the whole truth, versus misinformation and hype."

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956255,00.html)


The original article from the Post

WASHINGTON -- Pfc. Jessica Lynch, rescued Tuesday from an Iraqi hospital, fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers after Iraqi forces ambushed the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition, U.S. officials said yesterday.

"She was fighting to the death," the official said. "She did not want to be taken alive."

Post Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030403rescuenatp3.asp)

[Skeptic Ginger]

IT was the media that faked the Jessica Lynch story. Not the White House...and it was the Army that tried to cover up the Tilman incident.

That's about all the defending of the Bush White House I can stomach for the moment.Are you serious? The military totally set up the Lynch rescue (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956255,00.html). The hospital contacted the military and said we have this soldier, come and get her. The rescue was faked. How do you figure the news media did that? Lynch herself has complained publicly because the soldiers who died in the firefight were not given what she felt was their due respect.

And there is evidence the Tillman cover up went pretty high up (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/a-coverup-at-the-highest_b_7878.html).

[Travis]

Again you are relying on Journalists and they are not to be trusted any further then they can be thrown.

The very first Military Press Release I saw on the rescue mentioned the assistance of the Hospital staff and the complete lack of enemy soldiers at the Hospital when the rescue was performed.

Unless you can come up with an actual Military Press Release that states the untruths of the "mythologized Lynch rescue" and only produce Journalist accounts of the "mythologized Lynch rescue" you are only helping to bolster my assertion that Journalists make stuff up and therefore cannot be trusted.

[Lonewulf]

Yes, it's a conspiracy of reporters.

[Travis]

Yes, it's a conspiracy of reporters.

I'm not sure "conspiracy" is the word to use. What Headline is more sensational, "Tiny Blonde Female Soldier Knocked Unconscious & Captured Is Rescued From Abandoned Hospital" or "All American Beauty Who Fought Until Her Ammo Ran Out Is Rescued By Commandos From Fortified Bunker?"

I heard the former first and only heard of the action packed version many months later and only then in the context of it being debunked. For some reason everyone else seems to have heard the action packed story first and then found out the truth.

[Lonewulf]

So, you're saying that the reporters in the Post Gazette, the Guardian, and the Huffington Post are all telling the same lies, and there's no kind of conspiracy? So they're all lying individually in ways that back each other up, but there's no kind of pre-planning at all?

Memories may not be as reliable as you count on them being.

[Travis]

I'm trying to remember how this whole Lynch thing is even relevant.

[Earthborn]

Who would you declare a POW?Anyone who qualifies as a POW according to the Geneva Convention Relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War, which can include fighters from a force that is not a High Contracting Party itself, which can include fighters not wearing distinctive insignes or uniforms and so forth. Many of the people who have been taken to Gitmo don't fall neatly into GC categories, but then again the GC isn't limited only to those categories. They are quite similar to some of the categories, and "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Why are they declared POW's?Because they do not count as civilians.

How long do you keep them?The Geneva Convention is very clear about that: you keep them until hostilities are over. Also note: you can't keep them under prison conditions. Prisoners of War are (usually) not criminals, because being a soldier is not a crime.

How do you repatriate them if their home countries won't receive them?You don't. If their home countries don't want them, you are stuck with them.

Do you repatriate them if their home countries promise to summarily execute them on arrival?No. The Geneva Convention is also very clear on that: you can't transfer any POWs, even for repatriation, to conditions that you wouldn't send your own troops into.

Who would you prosecute as a criminal?Those who have commited a crime.

Why are they criminals and not POW's?It is possible that they are both. Being a soldier or fighter doesn't make one a criminal, but someone may have commited a crime anyway; by commiting an act that would be unlawful for a soldier of the detaining power for example.

In what jurisdiction do you prosecute them?Again the Geneva Convention is clear: the jurisdiction of the detaining power or international law.

What if the body of evidence against them is confidential?

Do you declassify the material for the purpose of the prosecution?
Do you disregard all classified evidence even though it might mean a guilty and potentially dangerous individual might go free?

What if key witnesses against them are undercover agents who's identities can't be compromised?
Do you disregard their testimony even though it might mean losing the case?
Do you compromise the agents identity and use their testimony?
According to the GC, the accused should have all the means to effectively defend him/herself. Therefore secret "evidence" (if you can call it "evidence" if it is secret) is inadmissable. Note that this does not necessarily mean a guilty and potentially dangerous individual must be set free. You can always continue to treat this person as a POW, with all the niceties that would require, for as long as the duration of the conflict. If this person then starts to act in a way that proves that s/he is guilty and potentially dangerous, you can act on it then.

What if other nations protest the prosecutions regardless of how they are conducted?If they happened in accordance to the Geneva Conventions? Then those other nations can go *hug* themselves.

[Elind]

So, you're saying that the reporters in the Post Gazette, the Guardian, and the Huffington Post are all telling the same lies, and there's no kind of conspiracy? So they're all lying individually in ways that back each other up, but there's no kind of pre-planning at all?

Memories may not be as reliable as you count on them being.

Been away a bit. Hello again.

I would say they are not liars, nor conspirators, just a*h*l*s.

Why complicate simple things with complicated concepts?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure "conspiracy" is the word to use. What Headline is more sensational, "Tiny Blonde Female Soldier Knocked Unconscious & Captured Is Rescued From Abandoned Hospital" or "All American Beauty Who Fought Until Her Ammo Ran Out Is Rescued By Commandos From Fortified Bunker?"

I heard the former first and only heard of the action packed version many months later and only then in the context of it being debunked. For some reason everyone else seems to have heard the action packed story first and then found out the truth."Heard" That's your problem right there. You missed the film version courtesy of the US Army. It's either that or you live in an alternate Universe. Check the sources of the misinformation clearly noted in the third YouTube video and note who made and released the footage.

The raw footage:
Bjmtdi5LFrA

The edited version:
6b3O8JxSZJ0&feature=related

The news eventually is corrected after an investigation and Jessica's actual account:
NgLiUDXFMe4&NR=1

Lynch testifying later about the scam:
ZyJI-WOWuRg&feature=related

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm trying to remember how this whole Lynch thing is even relevant.Tokorona objected to my use of the word, "sheeple", to describe the Bush target market for the steady stream of Iraq war propaganda. In defense of the description's validity I cited a few examples. You seemed to have missed the Lynch details.

That's all, carry on....

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm seriously wondering why it's "the terrorists"(TM) that deserve torture and no one else.

The US has a shamefully high domestic homicide rate. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm) Likewise when it comes to robbery, rape, etc. I would gather that as a US resident, you have a far higher chance of being raped, robbed or shot at than you do being blown up by a car bomb. "Ordinary" domestic criminals present a far, far higher danger to you as a US resident than "the terrorists"(TM) ever could.

Why, then, does a guy who's in jail for homicide deserve a trial in your eyes? Because he's not a foreigner? Because he's not "a terrorist"(TM)? Because Dubya hasn't ranted on an on to you how dangerous murderers in the US are?

Or a far more interesting question: If Dubya declared a War on Murder, would you all of a sudden support the torture and detaining without trial or suspected domestic killers? After all, who's to say the guy you imprisoned for homicide won't go right back to killing once he's released?

Anyone who qualifies as a POW according to the Geneva Convention Relative to the treatment of Prisoners of WarThe Red Cross is in on it too?!

"Red Cross-Red Crescent Societies continues its march towards irrelevance"-thread in 5... 4... 3...

:D

[Elind]

I'm seriously wondering why it's "the terrorists"(TM) that deserve torture and no one else.

The US has a shamefully high domestic homicide rate. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm) Likewise when it comes to robbery, rape, etc. I would gather that as a US resident, you have a far higher chance of being raped, robbed or shot at than you do being blown up by a car bomb. "Ordinary" domestic criminals present a far, far higher danger to you as a US resident than "the terrorists"(TM) ever could.

Why, then, does a guy who's in jail for homicide deserve a trial in your eyes? Because he's not a foreigner? Because he's not "a terrorist"(TM)? Because Dubya hasn't ranted on an on to you how dangerous murderers in the US are?

Or a far more interesting question: If Dubya declared a War on Murder, would you all of a sudden support the torture and detaining without trial or suspected domestic killers? After all, who's to say the guy you imprisoned for homicide won't go right back to killing once he's released?

The Red Cross is in on it too?!

"Red Cross-Red Crescent Societies continues its march towards irrelevance"-thread in 5... 4... 3...

:D

This is an extraordinarily inane series of inane analogies that illustrate only one thing; namely that the writer is incapable of making distinction between one issue and another if they have any one factor in common.

It's kind of like saying chickens have two legs, so they should be allowed to call a lawyer before processing for the supermarket.

[Safe-Keeper]

This is an extraordinarily inane series of inane analogies that illustrate... [and so on]In what way?

[Elind]

In what way?

That you ask the question illustrates that you can't understand; but to simplify a small aspect, nobody "deserves" torture (or what others call harsh interrogation). It is not a matter of punishment for its own sake.

[Lonewulf]

Of course, no. The ends justify the means, right?

So, can you definitely justify these ends? Can you actually compare what we get through torture, and what we get through a lack of torture? Or is this just something you accept on the face of it, and expect us to do the same?

[Elind]

Of course, no. The ends justify the means, right?

So, can you definitely justify these ends? Can you actually compare what we get through torture, and what we get through a lack of torture? Or is this just something you accept on the face of it, and expect us to do the same?

According to you, all you have to do is say "the ends....etc." and that "we" therefore automatically have to accept that what you call "ends" is of the nature you think it is.

I call it cowardice and hypocrisy.

[Safe-Keeper]

That you ask the question illustrates that you can't understandHow very convenient.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I suspect the food in Gitmo is better than was available in the WWII internment camps. I don't know of any cases of starvation in Gitmo, and I don't know of any alleged Japanese Americans who were known with great confidence to have knowledge of impending mass murder plans in the USA, but if there had been such Japanese Americans, say three of them amongst the many thousands, then I would be all in favor of unpleasant but non physically damaging interrogation methods.

This is a pretty good example of "the ends justifies the means". Which I have to admit is a consistent world view. I just don't think many people share this world view, at least I hope not.

LLH

[Elind]

How very convenient.

Convenient for whom? I suspect it is a recurring inconvenience for you.

C'est la vie.

[JoeEllison]

This is a pretty good example of "the ends justifies the means". Which I have to admit is a consistent world view. I just don't think many people share this world view, at least I hope not.

LLH

It is a view that is also consistent with the terrorists' world view. People who want to distort civilized values and the rule of law in order to "fight terrorism" are a greater threat than the terrorists. All the terrorists can do is kill people which is horrible enough, but they cannot destroy our country or our way of life. People who are willing to abandon the things that make us better than the terrorists are capable of much more damage in the long run.

[Elind]

This is a pretty good example of "the ends justifies the means". Which I have to admit is a consistent world view. I just don't think many people share this world view, at least I hope not.

LLH


Here we go again...All one has to do is say the magic words, "The ends justify the means" and then point to a prior inanity and pretend it "justifies the argument".

The point is that one does not retroactively define principles just by quoting phrases that may or may not be applicable to a given circumstance, and then make it a truth.

This phrase "World view" is another good example (you get two bonuses in the same two sentence).

As to what you hope; well that is what Obama is all about, so carry on hoping so you don't have to do anything else that matters.....

[Lonewulf]

Elind. Can you please give us any kind of ends that really are justifiable in the actions that have been taken? Can you then definitively demonstrate that these ends could not possibly have been uncovered by any other possible means?

Could you also definitively prove that all forms of torture in these secret prisons are "only uncomfortable treatment"? If you look at the form that was released earlier in this thread, a lot of the forms of interrogation were blacked out, and waterboarding was the only released form of interrogation.

You can use all the buzzwords you can use, but as it is, not all of us are convinced when all we have are forms with blacked-out words and "You Can Trust Us!" as the major slogan. Because this may surprise you, but I do not tend to trust people that keep many things secret, and do not seem to have a good track record for earning my trust.

[Safe-Keeper]

Convenient for whom? Don't play stupid.

It's convenient for you that "I couldn't understand", since it means that you won't have to explain yourself. Rather, you can remain there on your high horse and throw insults.

People who want to distort civilized values and the rule of law in order to "fight terrorism" are a greater threat than the terrorists.It is indeed worrisome that after 9/11, oppressive regimes can (and indeed do) paint their enemies as "terrorists" and gain sympathy for their oppressive acts from "War on Terror" supporters. Sure, this has been going on for a long time, but it's after 9/11 that it really gained momentum.

What's even more disconcerting are the people I have encountered, many times, in past debates on torture who first vehemently opposed the idea that the US was doing something as horribly as torture, and then, when proven wrong and shown that Bush's administration was indeed using torture, turned around 180 degrees and (in the same thread) suddenly started supporting torture. It was most frightening.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

... but if there had been such Japanese Americans, say three of them amongst the many thousands, then I would be all in favor of unpleasant but non physically damaging interrogation methods.

Waterboarding sounds like a very good alternative to, say, cutting body parts, don't you think?

Listen to what you are saying: You'd be willing to "waterboard" 70,000 US citizens in an effort to catch 3 potential terrorists? Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but that just seems sick to me.

LLH