X-Ray Inmate Describes Torture [Archive]

rikzilla

12th March 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
My Hell in Camp X-Ray (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14042696_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-MY-HELL-IN-CAMP-X-RAY-name_page.html)

I bring this up because I haven't seen the subject brought up in this forum since the release of X-Ray British prisoners. Previously, when I brought up the subject of torture at X-Ray, the argument that came up was, 'why haven't the ex-inmates complained about it?' They're complaining now.

BWAHAHAHAHAH!

Oh! That's rich!

I'd have to say MM, that this jolly good fellow's story is just as probable as Aristide's.

As the little old lady at the bus stop in Forest Gump said:

"That's a lovely story,..and you tell it so well,...with such enthusiasm!"

:big:

-z

epepke

12th March 2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron
Aside from being quite disgusting, I have hard time believing that would happened. [/B]

It does seem a bit far-fetched, doesn't it? Being some obscure notion that I don't think that any American Marine would be likely to think up.

I mean, if they said, "they poured bacon fat on me as an act of humiliation," or "they fed me nothing but pork rinds and Budweiser," that would be at least somewhat believable. But this is just such an obscure Muslim (or pseudo-Muslim) fetish, it's just short of saying "they made me eat matzohs made with Gentile babies' blood."

Mr Manifesto

12th March 2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Answer me honestly; do you believe that an American woman soldier -- I assume it's a soldier because as far as I know there are no civilian on the base -- would do that? And do you accept one person's testimony to be good enough for a fact?

We don't know if it was a solider, a prostitute, a Cuban seeking a greencard or what. I don't believe an American soldier would do that, but we don't know if it was an American soldier, now, do we?

And one person's testimony might not be enough for fact, but, as I've brought up before, if conditions are so good for prisoners on X-Ray, why not let the media in?

The Fool

12th March 2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
No, no... this was an American hooker, apparently flown from the mainland to taunt the prisoners. At the behest of the Extreme Reaction Squad, of course.
Any reaction to this fable other than incredulity deserves scorn...
Have you had an "I believe" stamp made up for the US army press releases?

rikzilla

12th March 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

We don't know if it was a solider, a prostitute, a Cuban seeking a greencard or what. I don't believe an American soldier would do that, but we don't know if it was an American soldier, now, do we?

And one person's testimony might not be enough for fact, but, as I've brought up before, if conditions are so good for prisoners on X-Ray, why not let the media in?

In other news it has been determined that 5,673.2 angels can dance simultaneously upon the head of a ten penny nail.

We have no data for other size nails at this time. We just don't know, now do we?

We promise to allow full media participation for further tests with pins, tacks, and assorted other types of fastners.

-z

Grammatron

12th March 2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

We don't know if it was a solider, a prostitute, a Cuban seeking a greencard or what. I don't believe an American soldier would do that, but we don't know if it was an American soldier, now, do we?

And one person's testimony might not be enough for fact, but, as I've brought up before, if conditions are so good for prisoners on X-Ray, why not let the media in?

Well in the story he says American girl and like I already said, as far as I know there are no civilians on the base so that leaves only military personal and since you don't believe an American soldier would do that why do you believe the rest of the story?

crackmonkey

12th March 2004, 01:22 PM

Uh, they did. A reporter who was there was interviewed a few days ago on NPR. I believe the Red Cross was there as well.
Accroding to the prisoner's tale, the menstrual-blood-smearing fiend was an American hooker.

Tmy

12th March 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

And how do you figure that?

Its the nature of the game. Through out time the ol pow get info out of routine has involved tourure. Toss in the whole Camp Xray out of the way secrecy and thats a breeding ground for tourture.

You think they get info just by asking please?

Tanja

12th March 2004, 01:26 PM

I worked for several years with victims of the war in the former Yugoslavia. Many of them were soldiers or civilians who were detained in various camps.

Unfortunately, what they went through during detention goes beyond normal comprehention. Truth can be wierder and more disturbing than fiction. Physical and psychological torture, humiliation, sexual abuse of both male and female detaineees, people forced to torture each other...it all happened all too often.

I am afraid that when people are in position of such absolute power as a warden in a camp is to a detainee, many resort to committing horrible crimes, just because they can. Many of those who committed such attrocities were and are still are devoted fathers and grandfathers, they can be educated and intelligent people, yet they did unspeakable things.

Because of this experience, I can well imagine that the detainees were abused. Of course, this does not make anything they say automatically true, but it would not surprise me if it was.

Grammatron

12th March 2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Tmy

Its the nature of the game. Through out time the ol pow get info out of routine has involved tourure. Toss in the whole Camp Xray out of the way secrecy and thats a breeding ground for tourture.

You think they get info just by asking please?

There are things they do that are not legally considered torture that get them info they need.

Mr Manifesto

12th March 2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by epepke

It does seem a bit far-fetched, doesn't it? Being some obscure notion that I don't think that any American Marine would be likely to think up.

I mean, if they said, "they poured bacon fat on me as an act of humiliation," or "they fed me nothing but pork rinds and Budweiser," that would be at least somewhat believable. But this is just such an obscure Muslim (or pseudo-Muslim) fetish, it's just short of saying "they made me eat matzohs made with Gentile babies' blood."

I don't know if you're being serious or not, so excuse me for treating your post seriously if that wasn't your intention.

Do you honestly think that a detention camp that detains Muslim prisoners wouldn't have some sort of expert on Islam on the base?

Grammatron

12th March 2004, 01:28 PM

Why is it when Nie Trink Wasser posts crap like this everyone labels him an extremist and a loon but when someone from an equally extreme left makes a post with similar type of crap it's something we should consider and there's "obviously" truth in it?

Mr Manifesto

12th March 2004, 01:35 PM

Grammatron

12th March 2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

You think psychological torture is 'extreme'? For America? Don't forget this is the country that developed the 'School of Americas' manual on torture.

Still doesn't make his story fact.

Tmy

12th March 2004, 01:38 PM

Why is it that people believe that every other country except theirs does bad things.

Its like religious people who still dont believe that the priests abused those kids. After all, PRIESTS WOULDNT DO THAT.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 01:38 PM

I was stationed in Gitmo for three years. The only people there are military personnel and their families, some government contractors, a handful of Cuban defectors, and some Jamaican and Indian laborers who are all male.

Gitmo is 37 square miles, and every bit of it is military base. It is surrounded by ocean and the world's largest active minefield. There are approximately 5,000 people living there.

As for hookers, they are not tolerated. There was a high school hooker ring while I was there, but as soon as it became known to the military authorities, all hell broke loose.

Mr Manifesto

12th March 2004, 01:40 PM

Grammatron

12th March 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
Why is it that people believe that every other country except theirs does bad things.

Its like religious people who still dont believe that the priests abused those kids. After all, PRIESTS WOULDNT DO THAT.

I know my country does bad things, I just don't believe the things stated in the article happened.

The Fool

12th March 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
I was stationed in Gitmo for three years. The only people there are military personnel and their families, some government contractors, a handful of Cuban defectors, and some Jamaican and Indian laborers who are all male.

Gitmo is 37 square miles, and every bit of it is military base. It is surrounded by ocean and the world's largest active minefield. There are approximately 5,000 people living there.

As for hookers, they are not tolerated. There was a high school hooker ring while I was there, but as soon as it became known to the military authorities, all hell broke loose.
was imprisoning people without a trial or even a charge tollerated when you were there luke?

I can guarantee everyone one fact, there are tooooooo many people involved in this for the truth not to come out and it seems to me that some people had better start considering how they are going to rationalise thier support for the things that are done there.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

I'm sure nothing's changed since the war in Afghanistan.

Probably not much. I don't see how hookers in Gitmo would be a result of the war in Afghanistan. :D

I know exactly where Camp X-Ray is. When I was there, it was a buncy of decrepit barracks and outbuildings that were not being used. So the only change in Gitmo is probably that they ripped down the wrecks and built new facilities.

Psiload

12th March 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by epepke

It does seem a bit far-fetched, doesn't it? Being some obscure notion that I don't think that any American Marine would be likely to think up.

I mean, if they said, "they poured bacon fat on me as an act of humiliation," or "they fed me nothing but pork rinds and Budweiser," that would be at least somewhat believable. But this is just such an obscure Muslim (or pseudo-Muslim) fetish, it's just short of saying "they made me eat matzohs made with Gentile babies' blood." http://www.rationalexplications.com/blog/archives/home/unclebill/www/blog/before-thumb.jpeg No, I assure you it is all quite true. The American infidels have done all this, and more. Not to worry. Our armies are preparing for a counterattack, and we will be liberating our brothers from the jails of the infidel imminently!

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 01:50 PM

Also, MM, there have been other wars besides the current one. No major effects on Gitmo. The biggest impact besides the current situation was the Jonestown massacre.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

was imprisoning people without a trial or even a charge tollerated when you were there luke?

I can guarantee everyone one fact, there are tooooooo many people involved in this for the truth not to come out and it seems to me that some people had better start considering how they are going to rationalise thier support for the things that are done there.

That's exactly right. You can't keep 5,000 people's mouths shut. Especially when more than half are civilians. That is my biggest argument against every conspiracy theory involving the military or government that there is.

Mr Manifesto

12th March 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

That's exactly right. You can't keep 5,000 people's mouths shut. Especially when more than half are civilians. That is my biggest argument against every conspiracy theory involving the military or government that there is.

Are the 'more than half' civilians allowed to observe interrogations? No, didn't think so.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 01:58 PM

The article also mentioned something about the water being cut off, so let me tell you about the water situation in Gitmo. Castro cut off the water supply to the base in the 60s, and so all of the water and power on the base is supported by a desalinization plant. That is where the Indian contractors work. Because of the limits of such a system, water rationing was a fact of life. We weren't allowed to water our lawns but for an hour each week, which made our lawn rather difficult to cultivate to say the least, especially since the soil is nothing more than coral dust.

At one point, they planted an experimental grass in a corner of the base soccer field. Every night, on the local news, they would report how well it was growing. I kid you not. :D

Water and power outages are a fact of life in Gitmo. Prior to the Indian company getting the contract for the desal plant, there was an Egyptian company. It was big news when the new contract company broke the old record of 52 days without a power or water outage.

The Fool

12th March 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

I know my country does bad things, I just don't believe the things stated in the article happened.

My view is that even if the conditions are like club med, as the US claims, what is going on there is already a national disgrace for a nation that holds liberty, justice and the rule of law in such high esteem.

I'm, sure anyone who supports this gulag would be quite happy if they were kidnapped by a military squad in the night and imprisoned for 2 years without trial or charge....I'm sure they would spend thier time in the cage writing letters to GWB thanking him for the experience.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Are the 'more than half' civilians allowed to observe interrogations? No, didn't think so.

MM, you know nothing of military life. If the things claimed in the article were true, every last person on that base would know about it. They have nothing else to talk about down there.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

My view is that even if the conditions are like club med, as the US claims, what is going on there is already a national disgrace for a nation that holds liberty, justice and the rule of law in such high esteem.

I'm, sure anyone who supports this gulag would be quite happy if they were kidnapped by a military squad in the night and imprisoned for 2 years without trial or charge....I'm sure they would spend thier time in the cage writing letters to GWB thanking him for the experience.

What would you suggest be done?

Tony

12th March 2004, 02:04 PM

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 02:08 PM

Let me state unequivically that if a woman smeared menstrual blood on the face of one of the prisoners, everyone involved would have been punished severely.

Mr Manifesto

12th March 2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Let me state unequivically that if a woman smeared menstrual blood on the face of one of the prisoners, everyone involved would have been punished severely.

Uh-huh.

Mr Manifesto

12th March 2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

MM, you know nothing of military life. If the things claimed in the article were true, every last person on that base would know about it. They have nothing else to talk about down there.

And if they did know what was going on ('Hey, guys, know what I just did? Cool, or what!') they wouldn't keep shtum to avoid losing their jobs. No way. That's fantasy talk. And anyway, it wouldn't happen in the first place, because the soldier-boys would get punished if they did.

Earthborn

12th March 2004, 02:30 PM

I am afraid that when people are in position of such absolute power as a warden in a camp is to a detainee, many resort to committing horrible crimes, just because they can.Exactly. We may not know what is going on there, but we do know about human nature, from previous eras and human experimentation (http://www.prisonexp.org/) of what is likely to happen in situations similar to this. And we also know that for some reason, human rights organizations are not allowed in to take a look and neither are journalists.

The conditions this man describes really do not sound far fetched or extreme in comparison with what could happen, or what has provably happened in the past in similar situations.

I think it is up to the people who believe such things didn't happen to provide the evidence that American soldiers are somehow immune to human nature and able to defy the environment they are in.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Exactly. We may not know what is going on there, but we do know about human nature, from previous eras and human experimentation (http://www.prisonexp.org/) of what is likely to happen in situations similar to this. And we also know that for some reason, human rights organizations are not allowed in to take a look and neither are journalists.

The conditions this man describes really do not sound far fetched or extreme in comparison with what could happen, or what has provably happened in the past in similar situations.

I think it is up to the people who believe such things didn't happen to provide the evidence that American soldiers are somehow immune to human nature and able to defy the environment they are in.

You forget the burden of evidence is on the claimant, not the skeptic.

Earthborn

12th March 2004, 02:48 PM

No, Luke. I didn't forget that. I am the skeptic here: I do not believe that american soldiers are immune to human psychology. Since the Stanford Prison Experiment we know that things go horribly wrong in a prison situation unless there are special controls to prevent it from happening, even when there is a random selection who is going to be guard and who prisoner (even when innocent).

Without further evidence, the null hypothesis is human behaviour.

Skeptic

12th March 2004, 03:02 PM

Apparently, "Mr. Manifesto"'s and "The Fool"'s got their method of "proving" american atrocities from Ed Wood. His film, plan 9 from outer space (http://blake.prohosting.com/horrorsu/scripts/criswell.txt), is widely regarded as the worst movie ever made. In the introduction to the movie, Criswell the psychic says: "We are giving you all the evidence, based only on the secret testimonies of the miserable souls who survived this terrifying ordeal." At the end of the flying-saucers-invade-earth movie, Criswell triumphnatly declares: "My friend, you have seen this incident based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn't happen?".

Same thing here. It is rather obvious that an ex-inmate's claims of being smeared with menstral blood are about as credible as the "sworn testimony" that the grave-robbing alien invasion was real. But no matter how absurd the accusation, or how suspected the source, Messrs. "Fool" and "Manifesto" accept it with rapt attention, simply because it blames the US (only last week, they did the same with the "Aristide was kidnapped" canard). Like Criswell, they demand triumphantly:

"can you prove it didn't happen???"

The sad thing is that, yes, it IS possible--in fact, easy--to prove it didn't happen. The US army veterans on this board, some of whom actually served in that camp, instantly declared that this story is a hoax, as it goes against everything that they know about US army life in general and the camp in question in particular.

Did that convince Messrs. "Fool" and "Manifesto"? Of course not. Instead, in the true spirit of the late Criswell, they dismiss all all objections as "naive" replies of "brainwahsed" people, and simply invent ad hoc excuses to "prove" that the veterans are all wrong. Unfortunately for Messrs. "Fool" and "Manifesto", those very excuse expose such fall-down-laughing ignorance of the US Army, that it makes their original boneheaded error of believing this guy (or Atristide) seem almost rational by comparison.

I mean, that the woman who allegedly smeared her menstral blood on the prisoner "might have been" a hooker?! A "Cuban seeking a green card"?!?! Huh????????? Hey, I'm sure it's perfectly possible--after all, EVERY top secret military base surely has a gaggle of foreigners and professional criminals with "top secret" security clearance standing by.

You know, just in case.

Criswell at least had the excuse that what he was doing was fiction and light entertainment, not actually taken seriously by anybody. Of course, that's pretty much the case with "The Fool" and "Mr. Manifesto"'s claims, too, but in Criswell's case the non-serious entertainment aspect was intentional. What's "Fool"'s and "Mr. Manifesto"''s excuse, I wonder?

Earthborn

12th March 2004, 03:16 PM

"can you prove it didn't happen???"In this case it is more like: "Can you prove that there is anything that prevents something that is - considering human nature - likely to happen?"

Clancie

12th March 2004, 03:32 PM

Posted by The Fool

What is going on there is already a national disgrace for a nation that holds liberty, justice and the rule of law in such high esteem.
Yes, true. And until all the prisoners are given their due process...and legal representation...and the Red Cross is allowed to visit any time....then, I think it's perfectly fair to assume the worst.

If the US government is concerned with rumors of torture which are false, the best way to address it is to return people's civil liberties to them and treat them as "innocent until proven guilty"...and restore a "rule of law" to American policies.

Mr Manifesto

12th March 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

You forget the burden of evidence is on the claimant, not the skeptic.

What was the ex-inmate supposed to provide? Film footage? The claimant has made his statement, it's up to the US military to provide evidence to the contrary. Allowing interviews with the X-Ray inmates would be one step, if there was a way to allow the interview without fear of punishment.

Originally posted by Septic
The US army veterans on this board, some of whom actually served in that camp, instantly declared that this story is a hoax, as it goes against everything that they know about US army life in general and the camp in question in particular.

Who declared it was a hoax?

Mr Manifesto

12th March 2004, 04:30 PM

Powell denies Guantanamo beating claims (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1065252.htm)

Mr al Harith, who was held for two years without charge, claims he was beaten.

"I think that unlikely," said Mr Powell.

"We don't abuse people who are in our care. I think we have discharged all of our obligations under the Geneva Convention to treat people in our custody, our detainees, in a very humanitarian way."

Well, that settles that, then.

curious

12th March 2004, 04:45 PM

My first thought about the mestrual blood thing was that it sounded like a lie. My second thought was there would be no reason at all why it couldn't have been fake blood and I was reminded of a marine hazing story a JNROTC instructor told me where they would put peanut butter on bannanas and tell the blindfolded marines they were pieces of excrement . . .

With rules barring physical torture it wouldn't surprise me much if there were some imaginative techniques being thought up at Gitmo. Personally, I would work the sex angle if dealing with Isalmic fundamentalists as I think there is some serious sexual repression there that could be readily exploited. Plus I'd give'em drugs. With strippers + mdma we could crack anyone. Throw in some nice tunes and it would be the most benovolent torture ever . . .

epepke

12th March 2004, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Do you honestly think that a detention camp that detains Muslim prisoners wouldn't have some sort of expert on Islam on the base?

Well, I've been asked to believe for two years that there are no experts on Islam whatsoever in the United States Government, or even within 5 km of anybody who has ever touched a Republican.

I don't know at this point if I'm serious or not, frankly. I'm just in a state of bogglement.

I mean, we have an "intelligence" service that couldn't find its arse with both hands, a flashlight, a team of proctologists, and the entire contents of several San Francisco Meat District boutiques. We have a President who couldn't find an intern's arse which, given the last famous intern, would require some serious lack of perception. We have a chain of command of an army in Iraq who don't know the meaning of the word "logistics" or "rotation" or nearly a million
other words, that being about the number of words in English.

But when we get to Gitmo, which by all accounts is a hellhole of an assignment, all of a sudden it's The Man from UNCLE and people actually have functioning brains? With nefarious, secret, Muslim-only interrogation methods?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry or kick the television screen in.

Clancie

12th March 2004, 05:08 PM

Posted by Mr. Manifesto

Colin Powell: "We don't abuse people who are in our care. I think we have discharged all of our obligations under the Geneva Convention to treat people in our custody, our detainees, in a very humanitarian way."
Am I confused?

I thought we specifically -have't- classified the Gitmo detainees as POW's just so we DON'T have to protect them according to the Geneva Conventions.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
In this case it is more like: "Can you prove that there is anything that prevents something that is - considering human nature - likely to happen?"

I'm sorry, Earthborn, but the "its been known to happen before" argument is nowhere near evidence or a means to try to turn the tables onto the skeptic so that the guy making the original claim is exempt from having to prove his claims.

Otherwise, someone could accuse you of some atrocity and then say "It's been known for a woman to do something like this before, so if you doubt me you will have to prove it didn't happen."

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Who declared it was a hoax?

I strongly suspect the story is fabricated to incite fellow Muslims.

edited to add: "Hookers of Gitmo Gone Wild!" coming soon to an adult store near you. :rolleyes:

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

What was the ex-inmate supposed to provide? Film footage? The claimant has made his statement, it's up to the US military to provide evidence to the contrary. Allowing interviews with the X-Ray inmates would be one step, if there was a way to allow the interview without fear of punishment.

Without fear of punishment? You are really swallowing this stuff whole, aren't you?

I would definitely interview the inmates and would bet my next retirement check that is going to be done, if it isn't already. I would also interview the Marines in charge of the man's custody.

Bringing in a hooker, and shutting off the water supply prior to prayer times, and whatever other claims this guy is making, would require the cooperation of a lot of people to make happen. There would have to be systemic problems.

And like I said before, everyone on the base would know about it. In fact, it would have leaked out long before this guy's release, most likely.

Earthborn

12th March 2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Otherwise, someone could accuse you of some atrocity and then say "It's been known for a woman to do something like this before, so if you doubt me you will have to prove it didn't happen."You miss the point completely. It is not sabout whether something has happened before, it is about the circumstances that we know encourages such things.

Putting people in a prison with some people as the guards and others as the prisoners encourages abuse by the guards. We know this happens even when the 'guards' know the 'prisoners' are innocent and know the whole prison is just a simulation (and it happens in a few days!). So what do you expect to happen when the guards believe the prisoners are among the most dangerous terrorists in the world? Is that going to make them nicer to them?

This is why there needs to be strict control of outsiders to keep a close eye on what the guards are doing. And no, their superiors won't do: they are in the exact same situation. What is needed are human rights inspectors.

I don't have to prove that I am not doing anything wrong, because I am not trapped in a situation where I am likely to do anything wrong. If I ever will be, I would be glad if there are people around me checking what I do. I would be very worried if my superiors refused to let them in.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
You miss the point completely. It is not sabout whether something has happened before, it is about the circumstances that we know encourages such things.

Putting people in a prison with some people as the guards and others as the prisoners encourages abuse by the guards. We know this happens even when the 'guards' know the 'prisoners' are innocent and know the whole prison is just a simulation (and it happens in a few days!). So what do you expect to happen when the guards believe the prisoners are among the most dangerous terrorists in the world? Is that going to make them nicer to them?

This is why there needs to be strict control of outsiders to keep a close eye on what the guards are doing. And no, their superiors won't do: they are in the exact same situation. What is needed are human rights inspectors.

I don't have to prove that I am not doing anything wrong, because I am not trapped in a situation where I am likely to do anything wrong. If I ever will be, I would be glad if there are people around me checking what I do. I would be very worried if my superiors refused to let them in.

This is all just a variation of "it's been known to happen before." None of this is evidence of any kind to back up the man's claims.

You are assuming guilt because certain conditions exist which might bring about a crime just because a crime occured under the same conditions before. Unless you can prove it happens 100% of the time under the same conditions, you have nothing.

The burden of proof has not shifted to the skeptic.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 06:05 PM

Earthborn, I would like to see the study you infer in which "guards" mistreated "prisoners." I notice you put those terms in quotes. Is that because the "guards" were not actual trained and disciplined guards?

Marines are very disciplined. Especially in Gitmo.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 06:07 PM

Don't tell me you are thinking about this study! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/story/0,7369,716265,00.html)

Twenty-four "normal, healthy male college students" were recruited from the Stanford area as $15-a-day volunteer subjects. On a random basis, half were assigned to the role of guard and half to the role of prisoner. Three prisoners were allocated to each cell. The rest were on standby at their homes. The guards worked three-man eight-hour shifts - spending the rest of their time going about their usual lives away from the experiment.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 06:12 PM

From the same link:

Instructions were minimal. Guards were told only to do what they thought necessary to maintain "a reasonable degree of order" (excluding physical punishment or physical aggression). Prisoners were given no guidance about behaviour "appropriate for a prisoner role". Clearly Zimbardo was seeking to maximise the spontaneity of his subjects' responses. But he sorely underestimated the volatile nature of the environment he had created.

Not comparable to real life, is it Earthborn? Not the same conditions by any stretch!

Earthborn

12th March 2004, 07:15 PM

You are assuming guilt because certain conditions exist which might bring about a crime just because a crime occured under the same conditions before.Not 'might' but 'will' according to the best of psychological science. Put people in an extreme situation and they will collectively behave in a certain way. It is not a crime, it is a law of nature. Without control that is what happens.

This is as if we know a large boulder was placed on a ramp, and with a small stick to keep it up. I am claiming that now, two years later, the stick most probably broke and the boulder rolled down. There is someone who was there recently and he says that the boulder has rolled down. You say "Unless you can prove it happens 100% of the time under the same conditions, you have nothing." And you claim I have no evidence that it did. No, I don't. But, that does not mean it is unreasonable to assume that it did. I can't think of any similar situation where it didn't. You'll have to show what it is that could possible have kept it up for so long!

In Stanford it happened in a few days. What in Camp X-Ray is so different from Stanford University in 1971 that could have prevented such a thing from happening for several years? What?

Please note, I am not even asking you to prove beyond reasonable doubt what it might be. I am asking you what might reasonably have had such an effect.Not comparable to real life, is it Earthborn? Not the same conditions by any stretch!Abuse by prison guards around the world shows to me that instruction alone is not enough to prevent such behaviour. Maybe delay it, but instruction does not change humans fundamentally. Also, since in Guantanamo the guards are soldiers, perhaps you can explain to me what kind of instruction they received to make them prison guards?

Here's a part you conveniently ignored:
But he sorely underestimated the volatile nature of the environment he had created.It is a lesson in how the environment and the role people play in them effect their behaviour. The result of the experiment should tell us that we should be very, very careful when we put people in prison. And if we do, we should allow independent observers to check the conditions.Don't tell me you are thinking about this study! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/story/0,7369,716265,00.html)I am thinking of the original experiment which is described in that article, not the later recreation for the BBC. There is also a German movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250258/) based on it. It is pretty good.Earthborn, I would like to see the study you infer in which "guards" mistreated "prisoners." I notice you put those terms in quotes. Is that because the "guards" were not actual trained and disciplined guards?I already linked to it above, but here it is again, the Official Website of the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/). And you are right, the guards were not actually guards, and the prisoners were not actually prisoners. And the people involved knew that.Marines are very disciplined. Especially in Gitmo.So that's basically your argument. It can't happen because 'they are disciplined'. Well, if that makes you feel better. That doesn't convince me though.

ssibal

12th March 2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

What was the ex-inmate supposed to provide? Film footage? The claimant has made his statement, it's up to the US military to provide evidence to the contrary.

Right and some rape victom made a statement, what is she supposed to provide, film footage? It is up to whoever she is accusing to provide evidence to the contrary....:rolleyes:

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 09:35 PM

Earthborn, it is a shame you have such a negative opinion of the military and so willingly drink the bongwater when a story comes along to confirm your belief.

Explain to me how the Marines can be the bunch of undisciplined trigger-happy, bitch-slapping yahoos you seem to be willing to believe they are, and yet have enough discipline to keep it "Our Little Secret."

In Stanford it happened in a few days. What in Camp X-Ray is so different from Stanford University in 1971 that could have prevented such a thing from happening for several years? What?

Gee. In over 200 years our military has never attempted a coup. What has prevented such a thing from happening? What? :rolleyes:

If you can't figure it out, I can't help you.

Also, since in Guantanamo the guards are soldiers, perhaps you can explain to me what kind of instruction they received to make them prison guards?

Years of discipline. They obviously know enough not to bring in a hooker (which is a real BS flag to the story) and have her smear her menstrual blood on a prisoner.

The Marines in Gitmo serve on the line in watchtowers. That has been their regular duty there for over 40 years. They know what they are doing.

We had a transmitter site on one of the hills there. Due to the geography, the fence at that site was almost at ground level on our side, as it was built on the hill. You could almost step over it.

There was a watchtower at the site. One day I went up there on one of many work related visits and noticed the Marine up there was very young. Turns out he was 17. His parents had to sign a paper to allow him to enter the Marines.

The Cubans had felt that our fence and their fence and the zillions of landmines weren't enough, so their soldiers had started building another fence inside their fence. During the construction on this particular day, one of them made a break for it. He made a beeline for our side of the fence, with the young Marine watching the whole thing. The other three soldiers started chasing him with their automatic weapons.

The young Marine knew from his vantage point he could easily have given the defector cover fire, and he thought about it. But it was against the rules. He couldn't help the man until he reached our side, and then it was tradition to "capture" the defector and would earn him the Marine an automatic promotion. But until the defector reached our side, there was nothing he could do.

This Marine could only watch as the other soldiers shot the defector down.

That's discipline.

He never took his eyes off the minefield as he told me about it. That was also discipline. He was not to be distracted even by the events of the day or some Chief Petty Officer talking to him.

All I could do was sit down on that hill and we both stayed silent for a while.

They deal with that crap for years on end. They know they are the front line and the first sacrifices if there was an invasion. The Cubans have been known to take pot shots at them in their towers and their barracks on the front line.

Guarding prisoners is light duty, Earthborn.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 09:40 PM

Our military is the most open military in the world. We can't make a move without umpteen human rights organizations and news reporters riding herd with us.

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 09:52 PM

I will give you one example of a breakdown in discipline in Gitmo and the results from it. A movie has been made based on it. I was Officer of the Day (OOD) when they medevac'd the victim.

As I mentioned earlier, Cubans occasionally take pot shots at the Marines. In response, the Marines built a gigantic Marine logo in front of the barracks with spotlights on it, daring the Cubans to take a shot at it. They never did.

One night, a few Marines decided to go under the fence, crawl through the minefield and spraypaint "U.S. Marines" on one of the Cuban bunkers.

The Marine on duty in the watchtower at that location informed on them. That is the kind of proper discipline which prevents secrets.

The culpable Marines were punished. In retaliation, they beat the informer severely. They broke his arms and legs, some ribs, and poured antifreeze down his throat. Enter Luke T. and the medevac.

The day after the medevac, a Marine Brigadier General flew in on a fighter jet, got in a car, drove to the Marine HQ, relieved the Commanding Officer, the Executive Officer, and the senior enlisted Marine of their commands, drove back to the jet, and flew away. All in less than an hour. That is another kind of discipline which prevents secrets.

Everybody on base knew about it, and shortly after, the whole world.

The beat up Marine sued the Marine Corps, and a movie was made. The whole thing is anything less than a secret.

The movie gives a totally wrong, Hollywood negative impression of the Marines. But Meathead isn't exactly from the Right.

So even if there is a breakdown in discipline anywhere in the Marine Corps, there are enough good Marines to ensure such things do not go unknown or unpunished.

Kevin_Lowe

12th March 2004, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
[B]Earthborn, it is a shame you have such a negative opinion of the military and so willingly drink the bongwater when a story comes along to confirm your belief.

Explain to me how the Marines can be the bunch of undisciplined trigger-happy, bitch-slapping yahoos you seem to be willing to believe they are, and yet have enough discipline to keep it "Our Little Secret."

Discipline in the military is not entirely the discipline to do what you are told. But that's a huge part of it, as it has to be when you are trying to coordinate an army in war time.

So suppose someone said to Mr Disciplined Teenage Marine, "Information these terrorists have could save innocent American lives. Think of the children. Do whatever you have to do to get that information and then keep your damn mouth shut about it".

If they are so disciplined, is it inconceivable to you that they could believe the statement above and act on it?

Luke T.

12th March 2004, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Discipline in the military is not entirely the discipline to do what you are told. But that's a huge part of it, as it has to be when you are trying to coordinate an army in war time.

So suppose someone said to Mr Disciplined Teenage Marine, "Information these terrorists have could save innocent American lives. Think of the children. Do whatever you have to do to get that information and then keep your damn mouth shut about it".

If they are so disciplined, is it inconceivable to you that they could believe the statement above and act on it?

You are assuming an order was given to beat the prisoners. You believe that? You think that would be kept a secret?

The more I read the story, the more BS flags I see:

A diet of foul water and food up to 10 years out-of-date left inmates malnourished.

Ten years out of date? That must have had to be flown in special!
Where'd they get it?

But Jamal's most shocking disclosure centred on the use of vice girls to torment the most religiously devout detainees.

Prisoners who had never seen an "unveiled" woman before would be forced to watch as the hookers touched their own naked bodies.

Not just one hooker, a whole bevy of them. Boy, things sure have livened up since I left there. :rolleyes:

They must have been flown in special, too.

Peter Jenkins

12th March 2004, 11:57 PM

The first I heard about these prisoners being released was (IIRC) wednesday night. There was a item, on the evening news, in which they interviewed Max Clifford. For anyone who doesnt recognise the name, Max Clifford is a proffesional PR man. [Celebrities caught having gay sex, Footballers caught dogging, and people with a story to sell - they all go to Max for damage limitation or revenue maximisation] One comment that he made was 'the first Guantanamo detainee to tell their story is going to make a hell of a lot of money'.
And, no doubt, this guy HAS made a large amount of money from the story. The gorier and more extreme the story, the better it will sell.
Whether it's true or not, I really don't have much sympathy with the guy.
Then again, the US can only blame themselves for any negative publicity. frankly, comments like -
"We don't abuse people who are in our care. I think we have discharged all of our obligations under the Geneva Convention to treat people in our custody, our detainees, in a very humanitarian way." -
are just laughable. These people are not treated as criminal prisoners, they haven't been charged with any offence and have not even been given the status of PoW's - which would allow them access to their rights under the Geneva Convention.
Peter

The Fool

13th March 2004, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Our military is the most open military in the world. We can't make a move without umpteen human rights organizations and news reporters riding herd with us.
I'd like to find out more first hand information about Our Australian citizens the US army are holding without Trial or charge, can you tell me which human rights organisation have observers with these prisoners so I can ask them for a copy of thier report on the prisoners condition? That would settle this once and for all....except for one small problem.

The Fool

13th March 2004, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Ten years out of date? That must have had to be flown in special!
Where'd they get it?

Lol...ten years counts as fresh rations...I once ate a bar of 14year old chocolate from a ration pack....hmmmmmmm, yummy. A bit brittle and covered with a chalky white powder but quite nice anyway....

Regnad Kcin

13th March 2004, 04:21 AM

Luke:

Thank you for your informative and interesting picture of the situation.

May I ask, sincerely, what do you suppose is the oversight in place there? Who are (forgive the overused expression) policing the police?

I would rather we, the U.S., err on the side of open and complete disclosure so as to prevent even the suspicion of impropriety.

Mr Manifesto

13th March 2004, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
I will give you one example of a breakdown in discipline in Gitmo and the results from it. A movie has been made based on it. I was Officer of the Day (OOD) when they medevac'd the victim.

As I mentioned earlier, Cubans occasionally take pot shots at the Marines. In response, the Marines built a gigantic Marine logo in front of the barracks with spotlights on it, daring the Cubans to take a shot at it. They never did.

One night, a few Marines decided to go under the fence, crawl through the minefield and spraypaint "U.S. Marines" on one of the Cuban bunkers.

The Marine on duty in the watchtower at that location informed on them. That is the kind of proper discipline which prevents secrets.

The culpable Marines were punished. In retaliation, they beat the informer severely. They broke his arms and legs, some ribs, and poured antifreeze down his throat. Enter Luke T. and the medevac.

The day after the medevac, a Marine Brigadier General flew in on a fighter jet, got in a car, drove to the Marine HQ, relieved the Commanding Officer, the Executive Officer, and the senior enlisted Marine of their commands, drove back to the jet, and flew away. All in less than an hour. That is another kind of discipline which prevents secrets.

Everybody on base knew about it, and shortly after, the whole world.

The beat up Marine sued the Marine Corps, and a movie was made. The whole thing is anything less than a secret.

The movie gives a totally wrong, Hollywood negative impression of the Marines. But Meathead isn't exactly from the Right.

So even if there is a breakdown in discipline anywhere in the Marine Corps, there are enough good Marines to ensure such things do not go unknown or unpunished.

That's a nice story. Do marines interrogate the prisoners at Gitmo?

Clancie

13th March 2004, 06:44 AM

Luke T,

In my opinion, any time prisoners are being intentionally deprived of basic civil liberties (and, in this case, intentionally NOT protected by the Geneva Conventions either--so I don't know what Powell is talking about in the quote above)....the default position is to assume they are being mistreated.

That may seem harsh, but it's only fair. If the government wants people to believe that prisoners who've been placed off American soil for the sole reason that they WON'T have the rights of prisoners in the U.S.....and who have NOT been classified as POW's just so that they WON'T have the protection of the Geneva Conventions....then the burden of proof is on our government to show (verified by independent sources) that DESPITE the way it looks, the prisoners are, in fact, being well treated.

Mr Manifesto

13th March 2004, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Luke T,

In my opinion, any time prisoners are being intentionally deprived of basic civil liberties (and, in this case, intentionally NOT protected by the Geneva Conventions either--so I don't know what Powell is talking about in the quote above)....the default position is to assume they are being mistreated.

That may seem harsh, but it's only fair. If the government wants people to believe that prisoners who've been placed off American soil for the sole reason that they WON'T have the rights of prisoners in the U.S.....and who have NOT been classified as POW's just so that they WON'T have the protection of the Geneva Conventions....then the burden of proof is on our government to show (verified by independent sources) that DESPITE the way it looks, the prisoners are, in fact, being well treated.

Indeed. It's a bit rich to violate all kinds of international conventions, treaties and agreements, then to turn around and say there isn't any proof anything untoward is going on.

Skeptic

13th March 2004, 07:39 AM

Not 'might' but 'will' according to the best of psychological science. Put people in an extreme situation and they will collectively behave in a certain way.

You have just NO IDEA what army life is like, do you, earthborn?

As Luke, myself, and many others on this board could tell you, a LOT of Army training, discipline, drilling and is concerned pecisely to prevent the behavior you describe from occuring, even in extreme situations.

Unlike the college students in your study, or the SS guards in history, soldiers in a democratic nation's army get it drilled into them--again and AGAIN and AGAIN--that there some things you just don't do, especially to prisoners, and are very severe in reaction if someone violates those rules, until this becomes second nature.

Your example is meaningless because it is a case when untrained college students with no background were just given the rule of guards. But real prison guards usually don't act this way. Why? Because (like Marines or other soldiers) they have it drilled into them in training, again and again and AGAIN, that this simply is not done, until such behavior becomes pychologically almost unthinkable, and in consequence rare.

It is most definitely NOT "inevitable" behavior for them, any more than it is "inevitable" for marines. If anything, it's precisely the opposite.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you gave 30 college students an M-16 rifle, game them a short lecture on why it's important not to lose it, and set them to walk around with it on campus. Within a week, most of them would probably lose the weapon on a bus, in their girlfriend's apartment, or wherever. Then the professor could write a long paper how it is "inevitable human behavior" to lose one's rifle.

Shocking, isn't it?

But show me a marine who loses his rifle, and I'll show you a dead marine. It is something that a marine simply DOES NOT DO. The civiliain equivalent is, more or less, going out to work while forgetting to put on your pants and underwear (only less likely).

In Stanford it happened in a few days. What in Camp X-Ray is so different from Stanford University in 1971 that could have prevented such a thing from happening for several years? What?

In Stanford, they are college students. In cap X-Ray, they are marines.

And, as Robert Frost says, "and that made all the difference".

To put things very simply, your idea of what is "inevitable" for a marine based on what is "inevitable" for a college student shows nothing but your ignorance of what army life is all about, and what being a soldier is all about. But, of course, this doesn't stop you from making accusations.

Luke T.

13th March 2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

That's a nice story. Do marines interrogate the prisoners at Gitmo?

Only those who are trained in interrogation interview the prisoners.

This is very simple. If torture were happening, there is no way it could be kept secret.

Does anyone here honestly believe the hookers part of the story?

13th March 2004, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Luke T,

In my opinion, any time prisoners are being intentionally deprived of basic civil liberties snip the default position is to assume they are being mistreated.

.

I would like to hear of a case where a prisoner is not intentionally deprived of basic civil liberties. Can you think of one?

The idea

13th March 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Explain to me how the Marines can be the bunch of undisciplined trigger-happy, bitch-slapping yahoos you seem to be willing to believe they are, and yet have enough discipline to keep it "Our Little Secret."

This seems to be a crucial point. Did the Stanford Prison Experiment indicate that the guards kept their misbehavior secret from all outsiders?

Tmy

13th March 2004, 10:39 AM

There maybe 5000 people at GITMO but how many have access to the X ray guys. The military is huge yet they still manage to keep all sorts of defense and tech secrets. Is it such a stretch to think that there were abuses and no one "ratted". Happens all the time in police depts.

varwoche

13th March 2004, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Grammatron
Why is it when Nie Trink Wasser posts crap like this everyone labels him an extremist and a loon but when someone from an equally extreme left makes a post with similar type of crap it's something we should consider and there's "obviously" truth in it?
I don't give the story credit.

But... The US indeed tortures prisoners, by tacit admission, under the cover of a technical charade. It's well documented that captives are parceled out to thugs in Jordan & Egypt for old fashioned "coersion":

WA Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A37943-2002Dec25&notFound=true)

Clancie

13th March 2004, 10:56 AM

Posted by Ed

I would like to hear of a case where a prisoner is not intentionally deprived of basic civil liberties. Can you think of one?
Ed,

Certainly. Due process is one. Civil liberties under American law prevent people from being held indefintely without any charges filed against them.

The right to legal counsel is another.

Prisoners are in Cuba rather than the US for the purpose of NOT having to give them due process or legal counsel.

Likewise, they are not classfied as POW's so that the US does not have to protect their rights as defined in the Geneva Conventions, either.

Take away these civil liberties and you have a government that can just "snatch anyone off the street (in other countries, no less) and throwi them in prison for as long as you want."

Which is exactly what the Bush admin is doing.

Cleopatra

13th March 2004, 11:02 AM

First of all I will PM Mercutio to have a look at this thread since the Stanford Prison Experiment was mentioned.

Only last year I read an interview of Zimbardo in a Greek paper in which he stated that it was a lousy experiment. Also, he was very critical towards this German movie Earthborn mentions "Das Experiment" that had very little to do with the experiment.

Regarding the claims this man makes. I don't know if you are aware of the procedures Amnesty International follows in order to investigate a claim for torture. Well, it's very severe and unpleasant for the individual who claims that has been tortured but it must be that way. During this procedure many claims are proven problematic because there is a distinction between coercion and torture.

While I was reading the article of the paper I have to confess that I was thinking that I don't understand why some people expect prisoners' camps to be like holidays resorts. I am not suggesting that Guantanamo doesn't have its problems but give me a break ok?

Some months ago Atlantic Monthly had a series of articles dedicated in the morality of tortures and coercion.

My point is that it's easy to support vague ideas about freedom etc but politicals ideas have some values when they are related to reality.

Read this article/interview. (http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-09-11.htm)(bold face mine)

Interviews

The Truth About Torture

Mark Bowden, the author of "The Dark Art of Interrogation," on why the practice of coercion is a necessary evil

.....

The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world," George Orwell wrote in 1984. It "varies from individual to individual. It may be burial alive, or death by fire, or by drowning, or by impalement, or fifty other deaths. There are cases where it is some quite trivial thing, not even fatal." In Orwell's dystopia, Room 101 represented torture's destruction of the human soul. And to the extent that the public thinks about torture today, it thinks of physical pain and psychological anguish like that described in 1984.

But in "The Dark Art of Interrogation" (October Atlantic), Mark Bowden argues that the public's understanding of torture is too simplistic. While the "civilized world" has condemned all forms of torture, Bowden explains that there are different kinds of torture—and different kinds of people who are subjected to it. There is a vast difference, Bowden writes, between using cattle prods to wring false confessions out of Chinese prisoners and using sleep deprivation and rough handling to get life-saving information from captured terrorists. In fact, the word "torture" does not even apply when interrogators employ only moderate physical and psychological pressure, Bowden argues; he and others prefer the term "coercion."

[...]

Bowden also describes the forms of coercion the United States is likely employing against captured terrorists: cramped quarters, isolation, sleep deprivation, infrequent meals, and rough handling. But most of all, the article presents Bowden's struggle to understand torture—when it might be appropriate and the implications of employing it. While Bowden concedes that opposition to all forms of torture is an admirable belief, he argues that "few moral imperatives make such sense on a large scale but break down so dramatically in the particular." Is it morally right to protect a terrorist from torture if "we pay for his silence in blood"? How can the United States extract information from captured terrorists while maintaining individual rights? How can the nation permit torture in certain cases without letting it become a "shortcut for a lazy or incompetent investigator"?

Mercutio

13th March 2004, 12:40 PM

Interesting thread. I will restrict my comments to what I know about the social psych literature; I do not pretend to have any knowledge of the actual camp.

Zimbardo's experiment is one of the most famous (or infamous) in social psychology, but even Zimbardo recognises that it is a poorly designed experiment. Sure, we can see what happens when the roles of guard and prisoner are allowed to develop in the absence of instruction...but what are the causal elements in the situation? There was no independent variable in Zimbardo's experiment! He can say nothing about what it is that caused the extraordinary results.

IMHO, the best "conclusion" to be drawn from the Stanford Prison Experiment is that we need not look to the personalities or character of the prisoners to explain their behavior. If "normal" college students could act this way, we need not claim that it is something about the "criminal mind" (or for that matter, the "guard mind"). But of course, the lack of manipulation of any variables means that even this conclusion is tentative.

I have had two students (that I know of) who have served time (one, weekend time, the other, 10 years maximum security), and both of them argued that the Stanford Experiment seemed valid to them. Their experience, they claimed, was almost exactly that of the college "prisoners"; they were very moved by the film, and by the discussion afterward (invariably, one or several students will make the claim that the experiment was completely bogus, that it was so far removed from the real thing as to be ludicrous. My hard-timer's reply to this silenced the class...:D )

So...does the Zimbardo experiment apply to the current situation? I don't know; I do think there are other papers that might come closer, including perhaps Janice T. Gibson and Mika Haritos-Fatouros, The Education of a Torturer. Zimbardo's situation was very real, but his lousy experimental design makes it impossible for us to see whether anything that caused his results to occur is present in Gitmo.

Cleopatra

13th March 2004, 12:46 PM

Wow! You are aware of the studies of Mika Fatouros on prisoners and tortures???? Now I am impressed!

Mycroft

13th March 2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
Why is it that people believe that every other country except theirs does bad things.

I don't know. Why do people believe that in one country does something then any country will do it?

Mycroft

13th March 2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

I can guarantee everyone one fact, there are tooooooo many people involved in this for the truth not to come out and it seems to me that some people had better start considering how they are going to rationalise thier support for the things that are done there.

Things such as...?

epepke

13th March 2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
Why is it that people believe that every other country except theirs does bad things.

I had to hijack this from Mycroft's thread because I couldn't find the original; I hope the attributions are right.

I know the US does bad things. Hell, they've done really bad things to me, mostly when I was at Pine View, a federally-funded 4-12 program for "The Gifted" with a big CIA presence. But that's another story.

But we're talking about a government that apparently had nobody who could figure out that "Operation Infinite Justice" would be offensive to Muslims. Apparently there was nobody who could say to Bush, "Hey, maybe you should avoid the word 'crusade.'"

Or so it is said, so long as it makes the US seem Bad™ Hell, I know mistakes can happen.

But now we're presented with something that seems more like a Marilyn French fantasy than anything else. I know more about Islam than the average Joe. I've read the Qu'ran, albeit in translation, and the first time I had to write a report on Isalam was in eighth grade. Even I would be hard pressed to come up with "smearing menstrual blood on a prisoner's face" as a way to humiliate him. Besides, you're only unclean until the next day anyway.

The world is a weird place, and it could be true, but it just doesn't seem plausible.

Skeptic

13th March 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Things such as...?

Well, according to "The Fool" and "Mr. Manifesto", Cuban women used as prostitutes in return for a green card as they munch on their ten-year-old food.

And if you don't believe that, you are an evil right-winger hiding the truth, "The Fool" wouldn't love you anymore, and "Mr. Manifesto" will erase your name from that of those who will be saved after the coming socialist world revolution.

Or something.

13th March 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Ed,

The most basic civil liberty is liberty. When someone is locked up they lose that and a lot more.

The Fool

13th March 2004, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Well, according to "The Fool" and "Mr. Manifesto", Cuban women used as prostitutes in return for a green card as they munch on their ten-year-old food.

And if you don't believe that, you are an evil right-winger hiding the truth, "The Fool" wouldn't love you anymore, and "Mr. Manifesto" will erase your name from that of those who will be saved after the coming socialist world revolution.

Or something.
Lol..."skeptic" you just can't stop yourself can you? I know that as soon as the US Deny something you accept that as proof but to suggest that I automatically accept the prostitute story is to transfer your level of gullibility onto me.. I don't mind you being gullible but please, don't assume that everyone else is too....

I wont bother telling you my position again because you are just going to dream up another strawman anyway.

When the US is finished with this gulag and all the people held there without charge or trial have eventually either been executed, released or a prison term length announced then, in time, the truth of what happened there will come out.... As I have said, the US army could end all speculation about the treatment by allowing observers from Human rights organisations but they must have thier reasons for not allowing that...what are those reasons again?

The Fool

13th March 2004, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Things such as...?
Secret things.... Things that Mycroft and the fool are not allowed to know about. Things that politicians don't give a rats arse about as long as they don't come out until after an election. Things that always come out in the end. Things that you probably will still refuse to see even when they are paraded in front of you... Things like running a gulag.

Of course, all this could be laid to rest tomorrow with the introduction of observers from human rights organisations....Tell me again...Whats the reason thats not happening?

subgenius

13th March 2004, 10:49 PM

We would never want to guard the guardians.

crackmonkey

13th March 2004, 11:35 PM

The Red Cross checked out Camp X Ray in early '02. I believe a few other organizations have been there as well.
Problem solved?
Or maybe... maybe the Red Cross is in on the conspiracy....
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/2497002.htm

iain

14th March 2004, 12:07 AM

More of the ex-inmates have been interviewed by the Observer. Story here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1169147,00.html)

Among other disclosures, the three men revealed:

· How early in their ordeal they survived a massacre perpetrated by Afghanistan's Northern Alliance troops who herded hundreds of prisoners into lorry containers and locked them in, so that people started to suffocate. Iqbal described how only 20 of 300 prisoners in each container lived, and then only because someone made holes in its side with a machine gun - an action which killed yet more prisoners;

· The existence of a secret super-maximum security facility outside the main part of Guantanamo's Camp Delta known as Camp Echo, where prisoners are held in tiny cells in solitary confinement 24-hours a day, with a military police officer permanently stationed outside each cell door. The handful of inmates of Camp Echo include two of the four remaining British detainees, Moazzem Begg and Feroz Abbasi, and the Australian, David Hicks;

· That they endured three months of solitary confinement in Camp Delta's isolation block last summer after they were wrongly identified by the Americans as having been pictured in a video tape of a meeting in Afghanistan between Osama bin Laden and the leader of the 11 September hijackers Mohamed Atta. Ignoring their protests that they were in Britain at the time, the Americans interrogated them so relentlessly that eventually all three falsely confessed. They were finally saved - at least on this occasion - by MI5, which came up with documentary evidence to show they had not left the UK;

· That their first interrogations by British investigators - from both MI5 and the SAS - took place in December 2001 and January 2002 when they were still being held at a detention camp in Afghanistan. Guns were held to their heads during their questioning in Afghanistan by American soldiers, and physical abuse and beatings were rife. At this point, after weeks of near starvation as prisoners of the Northern Alliance, all three men were close to death.

The Fool

14th March 2004, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The Red Cross checked out Camp X Ray in early '02. I believe a few other organizations have been there as well.
Problem solved?
Or maybe... maybe the Red Cross is in on the conspiracy....
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/2497002.htm

problem solved?

from your link..

In keeping with longstanding Red Cross policy, no reports will be made public on the findings of the four-member team, which includes a doctor, a linguist and two senior ICRC officials.

Rather, Gordon-Bates said from regional headquarters in Washington, D.C., the team will articulate any concerns directly to base commanders and then later send a confidential report to the ''detaining authority,'' meaning the United States.

what do you think?
do you bother reading your own links?

Now you can go back to branding anyone who does not automatically salute any story issued by the US as a conspiracy theorist...its what you are good at.

Mr Manifesto

14th March 2004, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by epepke

But now we're presented with something that seems more like a Marilyn French fantasy than anything else. I know more about Islam than the average Joe. I've read the Qu'ran, albeit in translation, and the first time I had to write a report on Isalam was in eighth grade. Even I would be hard pressed to come up with "smearing menstrual blood on a prisoner's face" as a way to humiliate him. Besides, you're only unclean until the next day anyway.

The world is a weird place, and it could be true, but it just doesn't seem plausible.

Don't make me use the rolleyes icon. Are you seriously suggesting that only Muslims would find menstrual blood smeared on their face offensive?

Ziggurat

14th March 2004, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Don't make me use the rolleyes icon. Are you seriously suggesting that only Muslims would find menstrual blood smeared on their face offensive?

There's a difference between finding something offensive and considering it a horrific form of torture. For example, I find your denials of genocide under Stalin to be terribly offensive, but I don't consider it torture. So yeah, I'd have to say that this mensrual blood thing is pretty much a fantasy fetish on the part of the accuser. You've shown yourself to be a credophile for just about any anti-american rhetoric or acusation out there, so quite frankly the fact that you think it could be true, or even if you were convinced it was true, matters not at all to me.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

14th March 2004, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
My Hell in Camp X-Ray (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14042696_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-MY-HELL-IN-CAMP-X-RAY-name_page.html)

I bring this up because I haven't seen the subject brought up in this forum since the release of X-Ray British prisoners. Previously, when I brought up the subject of torture at X-Ray, the argument that came up was, 'why haven't the ex-inmates complained about it?' They're complaining now.

to what end? to release these man to the British and be open to criticsm? Does not make sense. The claims are extra-ordinary.

What doesn't help the U.S. is the perception that prisoners continue to be held without access to council, and that the U.S. (outside of Gitmo) has been accused of sending supected terrorists to allied regimes in the Mid-East to extract information from prisoners via torture.

In Canada, an inquiry (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/28/arar_inquiry040128) is still ongoing regarding the Arar case.

Clancie

14th March 2004, 09:08 AM

Posted by Ed

The most basic civil liberty is liberty. When someone is locked up they lose that and a lot more.
Ed,

Due process.

The right of the accused to legal representation.

The right to a speedy trial.

"Innocent until proven guilty."

These are legal civil liberty principles we value as Americans, regardless of our political affiliation. The rule of law, not men, is what separates us from totalitarian countries that can so easily, like your example, "lock 'em up and throw away the key."

The disturbing thing with Gitmo is that the Bush admin has discarded these basic principles we value, including their sneakiness in housing the prisoners off of U.S. soil so that the accused (not convicted) -won't- be able to even qualify for these basic rights we say we value as Americans.

Any way you look at it, the treatment of these "detainees" that we basically abducted and incarcerated (without charges or convictions) is just morally and ethically and legally....wrong.

iain

14th March 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
to what end? to release these man to the British and be open to criticsm? Does not make sense. The claims are extra-ordinary.I haven't noticed the Bush administration being especially concerned about international criticism in the past. Has something changed without me being told?

The claims are only extraordinary because they don't fit the way we expect the Americans to behave; but we've been told time and again that the old ways don't work and things have to change. I'm not sure why it should be extraordinary that if some rules are thrown out, others are too.

Now four of the five British ex-detainees (none of whom have ever been charged with any crime) have started giving their stories; I wonder how many first-hand testimonies we'll need.

crackmonkey

14th March 2004, 10:20 AM

Fool - your name suits you. Yes the teams' findings weren't made public, but the IRC has continued to monitor Guantanamo, and has made its concerns public and quite clear. It's quite satisfied with the physical conditions of the prison.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5QRC5V?OpenDocument

Clancie

14th March 2004, 11:33 AM

Posted by crackmonkey

It is quite satisfied with the physical conditions of the prison.
Crackmonkey,

Did you -read- the IRC's comments that you linked to? They express quite a number of concerns. Among others...

The ICRC's main concern today is that the US authorities have placed the internees in Guantanamo beyond the law. This means that, after more than eighteen months of captivity, the internees still have no idea about their fate, and no means of recourse through any legal mechanism.

....(We have) observed a worrying deterioration in the psychological health of a large number of them. This has prompted the ICRC to ask the US authorities to institute a due legal process in accordance with the judicial guarantees stipulated by international humanitarian law....

....The ICRC has also asked the US authorities to implement significant changes at Guantanamo Bay.

The ICRC does not consider Guantanamo an appropriate place to detain juveniles. It is especially concerned about the fact that they are held away from their families and it worries about the possible psychological impact this experience could have at such an important stage in their development.
A number of recommendations have been partly implemented, but the ICRC feels that significant changes need to be made....serious divergences of opinion (with US authorities) persist on a number of crucial issues. International Red Cross re: Guantanamo (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5QRC5V?OpenDocument)

crackmonkey

14th March 2004, 01:22 PM

Yes. As I said, they expressed their concerns, none of which involve torture (unless you consider psychological pressure to be torture).
It doesn't mean that they endorse the arrangement in Guantanamo, it merely means that they don't agree with the ex-prisoner's tale.
Is it surprising that a militant Islamist would lie in an effort to embarrass the US?

iain

14th March 2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Yes. As I said, they expressed their concerns, none of which involve torture (unless you consider psychological pressure to be torture).
It doesn't mean that they endorse the arrangement in Guantanamo, it merely means that they don't agree with the ex-prisoner's tale.
Is it surprising that a militant Islamist would lie in an effort to embarrass the US? It suggests that the ICRC did not know about the things the ex-prisoners (note the plural - not just one person) are reporting. There are a number of possible reasons for this, one of which is that the ex-prisoners are lying.

Do you have evidence that these people are militant Islamists? The reports I've seen seem to suggest otherwise.

The Fool

14th March 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Fool - your name suits you. Yes the teams' findings weren't made public, but the IRC has continued to monitor Guantanamo, and has made its concerns public and quite clear. It's quite satisfied with the physical conditions of the prison.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5QRC5V?OpenDocument
I'm not sure if you are doing this deliberately but yet again you don't seem to read your own links.

The Irc makes its findings public?
From your own link.

"Wherever the ICRC visits places of detention, its findings and observations about the conditions and treatment for detainees are discussed confidentially with the authorities in charge. Guantanamo Bay is no exception.

Confidentiality is an important working tool for the ICRC in order to preserve the exclusively humanitarian nature of its work. The ICRC is concerned that any information it divulges about its findings could easily be exploited for political gain. Moreover, the policy of confidentiality ensures that the ICRC obtains and, importantly, maintains, access to tens of thousands of detainees around the world."

Exactly the same Crackers...no public report....sorry, try again

The Irc are happy with the place?
From your own link.

"The ICRC's main concern today is that the US authorities have placed the internees in Guantanamo beyond the law."

and

"Through its visits, the ICRC has been uniquely placed to witness the impact this uncertainty has had on the internees. It has observed a worrying deterioration in the psychological health of a large number of them. This has prompted the ICRC to ask the US authorities to institute a due legal process in accordance with the judicial guarantees stipulated by international humanitarian law. This process should formalize and clarify the fate of each and every individual in Guantanamo and put an end to the seemingly open-ended system of internment that currently exists. The ICRC has also asked the US authorities to implement significant changes at Guantanamo Bay."

and

"The ICRC's dialogue with the US on the conditions of internment and the treatment of internees remains frank and open. Nonetheless, serious divergences of opinion persist on a number of crucial issues."

The fact that you could read that link (if you did read it) and conclude that the IRC are "satisfied" is a tribute to your ability to parrot the propaganda you are issued with...

You think my name suits me?? Lol, want to borrow it for a while?

demon

14th March 2004, 04:31 PM

Colin Powell said it was “not in the American tradition to treat people in that manner.”
The mind boggles. He must have thought he was back in the UN and had to start lying again.

To say it is “not in the American tradition to treat people in that manner”, is ********, utter and complete crap, because when people have their rights removed, are powerless prisoners and are viewed as chattel, you will always, always find people who take advantage of that weakness and the powerless individuals will invariably be mistreated and violated.

That was part of the tradition in peasant villages during serfdom, that was the tradition during slavery, that is the ongoing tradition in the Guantanamo prison camps - and that is why we have the Geneva Convention, why serfdom and slavery were abolished, why we have human rights watch dogs and why human rights activists attempt to reach the dispossessed and stand in solidarity with them, write protest letters on opinion boards, to newspapers and to governments.

Colin Powell is a liar, he is not being honest with himself and probably finds it hard to look himself in the eyes in the mirror every morning, and he is not being honest with us when he says that (his) prisoners have not been beaten up.

Elind

14th March 2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
My Hell in Camp X-Ray (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14042696_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-MY-HELL-IN-CAMP-X-RAY-name_page.html)

I bring this up because I haven't seen the subject brought up in this forum since the release of X-Ray British prisoners. Previously, when I brought up the subject of torture at X-Ray, the argument that came up was, 'why haven't the ex-inmates complained about it?' They're complaining now.

The Afghans who were released earlier seem to have kind of enjoyed the experience, compared to daily life in Afghanistan, but these "British" characters can say anything they want and it gets in print.

Is there any reason at all why they should be believed by anyone except other Taliban supporters?

Elind

14th March 2004, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by demon
Colin Powell said it was “not in the American tradition to treat people in that manner.”
The mind boggles. He must have thought he was back in the UN and had to start lying again.

To say it is “not in the American tradition to treat people in that manner”, is ********, utter and complete crap, because when people have their rights removed, are powerless prisoners and are viewed as chattel, you will always, always find people who take advantage of that weakness and the powerless individuals will invariably be mistreated and violated.

So, in other words, you see no difference between the Taliban and other fake muslims who worship death more than life (their words), and Americans?

You sound like one of those who worship that same degenerate god with promises of 72 hookers if you kill enough people on your way out.

Tony

14th March 2004, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Elind

You sound like one of those who worship that same degenerate god with promises of 72 hookers if you kill enough people on your way out.

He is.

demon

14th March 2004, 07:18 PM

Elind:
"So, in other words, you see no difference between the Taliban and other fake muslims who worship death more than life (their words), and Americans?

You sound like one of those who worship that same degenerate god with promises of 72 hookers if you kill enough people on your way out."

That`s a silly non sequitir.

Tony:
"He is"

That`s just a silly non anything.

crackmonkey

14th March 2004, 07:45 PM

Ah, Fool... perhaps you should read my last post. It would be helpful if you read what others write before you respond to them... your moniker suits you far better than it ever could me, apparently....

Elind

14th March 2004, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by demon
Elind:
"So, in other words, you see no difference between the Taliban and other fake muslims who worship death more than life (their words), and Americans?

You sound like one of those who worship that same degenerate god with promises of 72 hookers if you kill enough people on your way out."

That`s a silly non sequitir.

Tony:
"He is"

That`s just a silly non anything.

The best you can do is "silly"? Those as--- were in Afghanistan learn to kill someone, if they could get so lucky. The only reason they were released is because they were the stupidest of the stupid and not worth the food they cost; but there will always be some like you who admire those traits and believe anything that comes from them.

demon

14th March 2004, 08:40 PM

"Those as--- were in Afghanistan learn to kill someone, if they could get so lucky. The only reason they were released is because they were the stupidest of the stupid and not worth the food they cost; but there will always be some like you who admire those traits and believe anything that comes from them"

More silly ad hominem nonsense.
Have you got one shred of evidence for what you say? One shred? Thought not.
I`d hate to be the unlucky guy who ever has you on the jury with that attitude.

crackmonkey

14th March 2004, 08:47 PM

And if you sympathize with the Taliban, I'd love to be among the jurors deicding your fate.

varwoche

14th March 2004, 08:54 PM

To repeat... regardless how true/untrue the dubious report being discussed...

The USA for all practical purposes DOES TORTURE PRISONERS -- by tacit admission.

It's well documented that uncooperative captives are handed over to thugs in Jordan & Egypt. Whatever one may think from morality standpoint, it's a joke that the charade is so blythely accepted.

wa post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A37943-2002Dec25&notFound=true)

Elind

14th March 2004, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by demon
"Those as--- were in Afghanistan learn to kill someone, if they could get so lucky. The only reason they were released is because they were the stupidest of the stupid and not worth the food they cost; but there will always be some like you who admire those traits and believe anything that comes from them"

More silly ad hominem nonsense.
Have you got one shred of evidence for what you say? One shred? Thought not.
I`d hate to be the unlucky guy who ever has you on the jury with that attitude.

Yes I do and yes you would.

demon

14th March 2004, 09:02 PM

"And if you sympathize with the Taliban, I'd love to be among the jurors deicding your fate."

And if my aunt had nuts she`d be my uncle.
Jeeze, is this what passes for debate with you idiots? Non sequitirs? Ad hominems? Strawmen?
You excrete a heap of venom masquerading as some sort moral high ground...an average response I suppose. Well done.

The Fool

14th March 2004, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Ah, Fool... perhaps you should read my last post. It would be helpful if you read what others write before you respond to them... your moniker suits you far better than it ever could me, apparently....
I did read it and pointed out all its errors....what point are you trying to make? Besides the fact that you think you can tell what they say in a secret report...cool trick.

demon

14th March 2004, 09:18 PM

Elind:
"Yes I do"

I take it you mean you have evidence? Let`s have it then.
First lets remember what you said.

Elind:
"Those as--- were in Afghanistan learn to kill someone, if they could get so lucky."

Can`t wait for the evidence you have on this one...you should have informed Rumsfeld or someone, don`t you think they would have been interested? Don`t say you were witholding evidence you rascal...where`s Ashcroft when you need him?

Elind:
"The only reason they were released is because they were the stupidest of the stupid and not worth the food they cost"

Ah I see....they do some sort of IQ test on the prisoners and if they are stupid they set them free because they cost too much to feed irrespective of what they know or might have done? They might have been learning how to kill allied soldiers but because they are stupid they get released? That`s the criteria used is it?
My, this evidence is going to be good...can I steal it and sell it to a newspaper?

While you are at it, you might like to source this claim:
"The Afghans who were released earlier seem to have kind of enjoyed the experience, compared to daily life in Afghanistan".

Go for it.

Clancie

14th March 2004, 09:19 PM

Posted by crackmonkey

And if you sympathize with the Taliban, I'd love to be among the jurors deicding your fate.
crackmonkey,

If you have a chance, watch "Rambo III" some time. Stallone gives a long speech in it praising the Taliban, the brave and noble freedom fighters and friends of America.

Its a movie, true, but it's also a reminder that some of the very fighters that our troops are now killing in Afghanistan, we were probably praising during the Reagan years for their bravery in standing up to the Russians.

demon

14th March 2004, 09:23 PM

Clancie:
"crackmonkey,

If you have a chance, watch "Rambo 3". Stallone gives a long speech in it praising the Taliban, the brave and noble "freedom fighters".

Just a reminder that some of the very fighters that our troops are now killing in Afghanistan, we were probably praising during the Reagan years for their bravery in standing up to the Russians."

What you trying to do? Confuse the poor lad? LOL

Peter Jenkins

14th March 2004, 10:54 PM

Elind & crackmonkey, When you've finished insulting people with silly ad hominems, can you please tell us if you believe it is OK to keep American prisoners beyond the law, without access to the same human rights that you would extend to - for example - a person accused of being a serial killing paedophile in Texas.
I would also be very interested if you could tell us what the people held at Guantanamo are charged with - with references if you please.
Peter

crackmonkey

15th March 2004, 12:01 AM

Clancie - I saw it years ago. Awful movie in every respect. Rambo, however, didn;t praise the Taliban. There WAS no Taliban at the time, merely a bunch of mujaheddin fighting for a number of warlords. Some of these mujaheddin coalesced into the Taliban (with a great deal of Pakistani ISI help), some became the anti-Taliban resistance.
Fool... read the article again, then reread my post. It may help if you go quite slowly...

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Fool - your name suits you. Yes the teams' findings weren't made public, but the IRC has continued to monitor Guantanamo, and has made its concerns public and quite clear. It's quite satisfied with the physical conditions of the prison.

The initial report from the IRC wasn't to be shared publically. It wasn't. The Red Cross, however, was quite forthcoming about reservations it had about the camp... as you posted quite happily in your comment. They didn't (and I never asserted to the contrary, as you seemed to think) support the idea of the camp, but the objections they raised had nothing to do with mistreatment or poor conditions. This stands in stark contrast to the prisoner's tale.
I'll be happy to help if you have any further problems...

The Fool

15th March 2004, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
It's quite satisfied with the physical conditions of the prison.

I'm really not trying to suggest you made this up but I've read a lot about this place and a lot published by the red cross, Doubtless I may have missed it, can you show me where they say this?

The initial report from the IRC wasn't to be shared publically. It wasn't. The Red Cross, however, was quite forthcoming about reservations it had about the camp... as you posted quite happily in your comment. They didn't (and I never asserted to the contrary, as you seemed to think) support the idea of the camp, but the objections they raised had nothing to do with mistreatment or poor conditions.

A cage for an innocent person is not mistreatment? A cage for an innocent person is not poor conditions? Even Under American (and Australian) rule of law, Innocent people, if charged, can be detained for a limited time...Whats the charges in these cases? whats the time limit on thier detention?

This stands in stark contrast to the prisoner's tale.

The Prisoners claim they are Physically abused, you claim nothing like that has happened, the red cross says no comment... There is a long time to go before nobody cares anymore...Maybe a couple of generations. Plenty of time for the truth to come out.. My own guess would be that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes (your story and the current prisoners claims) still plenty of room for plenty to be ashamed about eh?

I'll be happy to help if you have any further problems...

Honestly, I think your attitude towards this place is part of the problem, with enough people of similar attitudes these sort of places are made possible. Guantanamo is a place of revenge, pure and simple

After 9/11 Americans, understandably, wanted to see images of an enemy in chains...kneeling at the feet of a marine. Thats what Guantanamo is all about.

shuize

15th March 2004, 03:46 AM

I think revenge would have meant a bullet in the back of the head ... which is still better than they would have received at the hands of the Northern Alliance.

The Fool

15th March 2004, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by shuize
I think revenge would have meant a bullet in the back of the head ... which is still better than they would have received at the hands of the Northern Alliance.

you think so?

Could that have been broadcast to the American public? Would they have wanted to see that? I don't think americans are like that....People chained and on thier knees in a cage in front of a US soldier is probably enough. And don't get me wrong, I think its a very understandable thing...but its been done now.

Continuing on with this business is just counter productive. Isn't what is being done at guantanamo something that democracies are supposed to fight wars to prevent?

Anyway, we've already provided the northern alliance with plenty of chances for get squares. Nobody cares how many people they kill, how when or why........Its thier turn to be the goodies for a while ...

Elind

15th March 2004, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by demon
"And if you sympathize with the Taliban, I'd love to be among the jurors deicding your fate."

And if my aunt had nuts she`d be my uncle.
Jeeze, is this what passes for debate with you idiots? Non sequitirs? Ad hominems? Strawmen?
You excrete a heap of venom masquerading as some sort moral high ground...an average response I suppose. Well done.

Listen to yourself sometime.

epepke

15th March 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Don't make me use the rolleyes icon. Are you seriously suggesting that only Muslims would find menstrual blood smeared on their face offensive?

Well, I don't know about you, but I've had menstrual blood on various parts of me, including my face. It's just part and parcel of being a male heterosexual.

If, after I was locked up for a year or more in solitary, and my "tormentors" got a Cuban prostitute to donate some menstrual blood to smear on my face, I'd think it kind of weird and a bit kinky, but hell, it's more than you can get in a strip club.

I certainly wouldn't use it as an example of horriffic torture in a news interview. At worst, I'd save it up for a story.

Come on. Are you just so interested in looking for something to be incensed about that you can't see that this, for anybody but extremely orthodox Muslims and Jews, this would truly be a Carl Hiaasen moment?

epepke

15th March 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Elind
The Afghans who were released earlier seem to have kind of enjoyed the experience, compared to daily life in Afghanistan, but these "British" characters can say anything they want and it gets in print.

Ah, that explains it. They should have spanked the Britsh at Camp X-Ray. Then they would have been happy.

Elind

15th March 2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by epepke

Ah, that explains it. They should have spanked the Britsh at Camp X-Ray. Then they would have been happy.

:dl:

demon

15th March 2004, 10:24 AM

Elind

15th March 2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by demon
Elind:

While you are at it, you might like to source this claim:
"The Afghans who were released earlier seem to have kind of enjoyed the experience, compared to daily life in Afghanistan".

Go for it.

I`d sooner listen to your evidence...still looking forward to it.

I don't think I'll bother with the bulk of your questions. I get that eerie feeling of debate with a creationist when it comes to singing the praises, or otherwise, of any human who can welcome the type of philosophies promoted by the Taliban (and similar ilk), particularly when they have had the benefit of acceptance into a civil society and culture like yours.

However the above question is simpler. Several news sources chased down the few Afghans released to their homeland. I think the latest was your Guardian newspaper not long ago, and they are cetrainly no friend of the USA. What they said was that they were well treated, learned a lot, and hoped they could visit the USA. Obviously this was because they were the most defensless of all and eventually not seen as a real threat, but by your logic they should therefore have been the worst abused.

demon

15th March 2004, 04:31 PM

Elind:
"I don't think I'll bother with the bulk of your questions. I get that eerie feeling of debate with a creationist when it comes to singing the praises, or otherwise, of any human who can welcome the type of philosophies promoted by the Taliban (and similar ilk), particularly when they have had the benefit of acceptance into a civil society and culture like yours."

LOL...another one bites the dust. So you are a ********ter who makes statements he can`t back up.
Noted.

You just made another too...any evidence I welcome the "philosophies promoted by the Taliban (and similar ilk)?"

I note you are of the Ziggurat school of myth making, lying and smearing in an effort to defend your assertions when called on it. He, just like you couldn`t be "bothered" to back up his ******** either.

Elind

15th March 2004, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by demon
Elind:
"I don't think I'll bother with the bulk of your questions. I get that eerie feeling of debate with a creationist when it comes to singing the praises, or otherwise, of any human who can welcome the type of philosophies promoted by the Taliban (and similar ilk), particularly when they have had the benefit of acceptance into a civil society and culture like yours."

LOL...another one bites the dust. So you are a ********ter who makes statements he can`t back up.
Noted.

You just made another too...any evidence I welcome the "philosophies promoted by the Taliban (and similar ilk)?"

I note you are of the Ziggurat school of myth making, lying and smearing in an effort to defend your assertions when called on it. He, just like you couldn`t be "bothered" to back up his ******** either.

What can I say but, :v: :13:

iain

16th March 2004, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Elind

What can I say but, :v: :13: Well, posting some sort of evidence to back up your claims is sort of traditional in these cases; but what the hell.

Elind

16th March 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by iain
Well, posting some sort of evidence to back up your claims is sort of traditional in these cases; but what the hell.

Iain, your choice of buddies is not commendable here, but the person you refer to did receive "evidence" on what I considered the major part of that now terminated exchange, to followup if he had wanted to. He chose to ignore it in the message that you so quickly jumped at to add your comments.

I do not refuse to debate, but I do not wish to engage in the juvenile insult competitions that a few board participants here seem unable to stop themselves from doing.

I come and go, but I have been a visitor here since the start of this forum, and it's always the same. Come back after some months and make a post, that appears to be new, and there is guaranteed to be a few insults within minutes, usually from the same small group.

Come back 6 months later and they are gone, or sometimes disguised.

So it goes.

Have a nice day

rikzilla

16th March 2004, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Elind

Iain, your choice of buddies is not commendable here, but the person you refer to did receive "evidence" on what I considered the major part of that now terminated exchange, to followup if he had wanted to. He chose to ignore it in the message that you so quickly jumped at to add your comments.

I do not refuse to debate, but I do not wish to engage in the juvenile insult competitions that a few board participants here seem unable to stop themselves from doing.

I come and go, but I have been a visitor here since the start of this forum, and it's always the same. Come back after some months and make a post, that appears to be new, and there is guaranteed to be a few insults within minutes, usually from the same small group.

Come back 6 months later and they are gone, or sometimes disguised.

So it goes.

Have a nice day

Ah Elind,

If you've been around as long as you claim, you should have known better to engage in debate with the dingbat demon.

Since he is overjoyed at the success his brother Arab jihadists had in Madrid, he's already looking forward to the explosions in London....gleefully anticipating the same reaction from the British people. Please take this opportunity to join me in sincere hope that demon is seated next to the bomb he is so looking forward to....or even better, someone he loves....if there exists such a person outside the confines of his own diseased cranium.

-z

Allah is a flea bitten dog.

demon

16th March 2004, 02:16 PM

"Ah Elind,

If you've been around as long as you claim, you should have known better to engage in debate with the dingbat demon.

Since he is overjoyed at the success his brother Arab jihadists had in Madrid, he's already looking forward to the explosions in London....gleefully anticipating the same reaction from the British people. Please take this opportunity to join me in sincere hope that demon is seated next to the bomb he is so looking forward to....or even better, someone he loves....if there exists such a person outside the confines of his own diseased cranium.

-z

Allah is a flea bitten dog."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah Zilla,
Been sniffing your latest delivery of soiled Ann Coulter underwear? You must have a very understanding wife.

Mr Manifesto

16th March 2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Well, I don't know about you, but I've had menstrual blood on various parts of me, including my face. It's just part and parcel of being a male heterosexual.

If, after I was locked up for a year or more in solitary, and my "tormentors" got a Cuban prostitute to donate some menstrual blood to smear on my face, I'd think it kind of weird and a bit kinky, but hell, it's more than you can get in a strip club.

I certainly wouldn't use it as an example of horriffic torture in a news interview. At worst, I'd save it up for a story.

Come on. Are you just so interested in looking for something to be incensed about that you can't see that this, for anybody but extremely orthodox Muslims and Jews, this would truly be a Carl Hiaasen moment?

Do you think that your predilection for menstrual blood is shared commonly by others?

Elind

16th March 2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Ah Elind,

If you've been around as long as you claim, you should have known better to engage in debate with the dingbat demon.

Since he is overjoyed at the success his brother Arab jihadists had in Madrid, he's already looking forward to the explosions in London....gleefully anticipating the same reaction from the British people. Please take this opportunity to join me in sincere hope that demon is seated next to the bomb he is so looking forward to....or even better, someone he loves....if there exists such a person outside the confines of his own diseased cranium.

-z

Allah is a flea bitten dog.

Yes I should have known better, and I'll be happy to join in your hopes, for what that's worth.

Cheers

16th March 2004, 04:54 PM

It would seem that there are varying reports from people freed from the concentration camp at Gitmo.

The one this guy is telling seems rather contradictory to the others, yes?

epepke

16th March 2004, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Do you think that your predilection for menstrual blood is shared commonly by others?

My predilection? I know it's likely that there are a few members on this forum who have never gotten laid. Are you saying you're one of them?

demon

16th March 2004, 05:11 PM

Elind:
"Yes I should have known better..."

Should have known better than to what? Debate? Don`t kid yourself you *******. You threw a lot of claims out there, when you were asked to back them up you started to squeal like a stuck pig. That`s not debate by any stretch of the imagination. No wonder zilla finds an affinity with you...he has a penchant for idiots.

On that evidence you have...the crickets are still chirping.

Earthborn

16th March 2004, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by jj
It would seem that there are varying reports from people freed from the concentration camp at Gitmo.

The one this guy is telling seems rather contradictory to the others, yes?According to The Telegraph (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/08/wguan08.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/08/ixportal.html), the kids who had a good time at Guantanamo were in a different camp:Camp Delta, which superseded the temporary Camp X-Ray, and Camp Iguana, a lower-security detention facility for juveniles, were established as part of President George W Bush's "war on terror".Emphasis mine.

According to The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1163435,00.html) they had no contact with other prisoners:The boys never spoke to Guantanamo's other prisonersA few weeks ago I saw a documentary about how American prisoners of War were treated by the Japanese in Birma in World War 2. I saw with my own eyes a Japanese government film of how the Americans were having fun and basically were just on vacation, just like those happy boys in Guantanamo. I am sure you would believe that too if you saw it...

Mr Manifesto

16th March 2004, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by epepke

My predilection? I know it's likely that there are a few members on this forum who have never gotten laid. Are you saying you're one of them?

Let me get this straight- if you don't like menstrual blood smeared over you, you haven't been laid? Is that what you're saying?

I think you're backing a losing horse. If you started a poll, "do you like having menstrual blood being smeared over you by a hooker?", you'll find more "no's" than "yes's". Quit while you're behind.

Elind

16th March 2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
According to The Telegraph (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/08/wguan08.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/08/ixportal.html), the kids who had a good time at Guantanamo were in a different camp:Emphasis mine.

According to The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1163435,00.html) they had no contact with other prisoners:A few weeks ago I saw a documentary about how American prisoners of War were treated by the Japanese in Birma in World War 2. I saw with my own eyes a Japanese government film of how the Americans were having fun and basically were just on vacation, just like those happy boys in Guantanamo. I am sure you would believe that too if you saw it...

I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you simply suggesting that these "positive" releasees were a deliberate plant, but that the British ones were the real Mcoy, and a royal screwup at that?

We could also debate whether or not NASA is doctoring all the information from Mars just to keep information on Aliens from the public.

In either case we are starting with a desired premise and casting doubt on anything that doesn't fit it, while supporting everything that does.

From everything I've read about the British detainees (not that they see much British in themselves) they were what they are alleged to be by the US. Pitiful fanatics with a degenerate philosophy that they call religion; but not worth feeding forever so now they're on the British dole, no doubt.

Mr Manifesto

16th March 2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Elind

I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you simply suggesting that these "positive" releasees were a deliberate plant, but that the British ones were the real Mcoy, and a royal screwup at that?

We could also debate whether or not NASA is doctoring all the information from Mars just to keep information on Aliens from the public.

In either case we are starting with a desired premise and casting doubt on anything that doesn't fit it, while supporting everything that does.

From everything I've read about the British detainees (not that they see much British in themselves) they were what they are alleged to be by the US. Pitiful fanatics with a degenerate philosophy that they call religion; but not worth feeding forever so now they're on the British dole, no doubt.

Earthborn is saying that, because one group of prisoners were in a different camp to the other, one group of prisoners had a different experience to the other. The rest of your post is all so much strawman and racism du jour.

Elind

16th March 2004, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Earthborn is saying that, because one group of prisoners were in a different camp to the other, one group of prisoners had a different experience to the other. The rest of your post is all so much strawman and racism du jour.

I see said the blind man...There was no torture allowed in one section of the camp(s), but only in the other. Wow, I just didn't see that obvious explanation for any discrepancy and I'm sure Eartborn will appreciate you speaking for her and pointing that out.

Racism? I'm sure that you know the definition, and so do I so why you would try to appear ignorant is not obvious to me.

Contemptible philosophies and religions (self defined) deserve contempt. If I told you I worshipped turds, yours perhaps, would you be totally PC and say you respect my right to think so?

Hmmm. Perhaps you would.

WildCat

16th March 2004, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Let me get this straight- if you don't like menstrual blood smeared over you, you haven't been laid? Is that what you're saying?

I think you're backing a losing horse.
No, no, no. If you haven't been laid you get behind a donkey (http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,8986843%255E401,00.html), not a horse. ;)

Earthborn

16th March 2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Elind
I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you simply suggesting that these "positive" releasees were a deliberate plant, but that the British ones were the real Mcoy, and a royal screwup at that?I think that is a possibility we can't exclude right now, and seems not unlikely.

What we do know is that the fact that people in one camp had a good time in no way disproves that people in another camp were treated worse.We could also debate whether or not NASA is doctoring all the information from Mars just to keep information on Aliens from the public.Since you think the two are comparable in likeliness, I am sure you can provide an example from history were a government agency provably did cover up proof of alien life.In either case we are starting with a desired premise and casting doubt on anything that doesn't fit it, while supporting everything that does.I'm not starting with a desired premise, I'm starting with the assumption that history can repeat itself and from the outside it looks very much like it does.From everything I've read about the British detainees (not that they see much British in themselves) they were what they are alleged to be by the US. Pitiful fanatics with a degenerate philosophy that they call religion; but not worth feeding forever so now they're on the British dole, no doubt.Of course they weren't detained for being pitiful fanatics with a 'degenerate philosophy'. They were detained because they were suspected of being the most dangerous terrorists. If people had to locked up for being 'pitiful fanatics', may I make a few suggestions?There was no torture allowed in one section of the camp(s), but only in the other.Is it so unlikely? It has happened before (much worse in fact).Racism?Racism is unfortunately used as a synonym for every intolerance of other people, nowadays. In this case the word 'anti-Islamism' seems more fitting.Contemptible philosophies and religions (self defined) deserve contempt.Circular reasoning.If I told you I worshipped turds, yours perhaps, would you be totally PC and say you respect my right to think so?Coprotheism is a religion is I haven't considered yet. Perhaps you should tell us more about your philosophy before we can make a judgement on it. :p

Giz

17th March 2004, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
I think that is a possibility we can't exclude right now, and seems not unlikely.

- You think that 2 years ago, the US deliberately kidnapped extra afghan kids (knowing they were innocent) who were held incommunicado (but in luxury) for 2 years as a deliberate ploy to distract media attention - 2 years down the line - from the other prisoners who may also be intelligent. As someone who generally supports the US I'd just like to say that I wish the defenders of the free world really were that devious. I kinda doubt it though.

What we do know is that the fact that people in one camp had a good time in no way disproves that people in another camp were treated worse.
- It means there's not proof one way or another. It does however make the point that it's not 100% that any "guards" will become sadistic monsters and abuse their position of power.

.I'm not starting with a desired premise, I'm starting with the assumption that history can repeat itself
- By cherry picking! Why don't you just take a couple of WW2 concentration camps and use the guards behaviour there as ammo? After all, you obviously dont expect US Marines to exhibit higher standards than the worst kind of thugs - do you?:(

and from the outside it looks very much like it does.
- How? We have no info (well except for the human rights inspectors who went in and thought it was OK, but we can ignore them i guess;) )

Of course they weren't detained for being pitiful fanatics with a 'degenerate philosophy'. They were detained because they were suspected of being the most dangerous terrorists.
- The two are not neccesarily exclusive (which Al-Q members don't count as pitiful fanatics?).

If people had to locked up for being 'pitiful fanatics', may I make a few suggestions?
- Presumably there was probable cause. Fanatics going to the Hajj in Saudi Arabia wouldn't get arrested, fanatics going to join a jihad in Afghanistan would.

Is it so unlikely? It has happened before (much worse in fact).Racism is unfortunately used as a synonym for every intolerance of other people, nowadays. In this case the word 'anti-Islamism' seems more fitting.
- Perhaps anti-ExtremeIslamism, thats the kind that is having the effect?

Circular reasoning.
- I respect that, you being quite an expert:p

Coprotheism is a religion is I haven't considered yet. Perhaps you should tell us more about your philosophy before we can make a judgement on it. :p
- Wouldn't pass the sniff test.

The Don

17th March 2004, 05:37 AM

Is it impossible to believe that the conditions in Camp Iguana were significantly different from those in Camp Xray ? For example, the conditions in an open prison such as Layhill are very different from a high security prison such as Belmarsh.

It seems from all accounts (and in common with most captive hold regimes) that the Americans also rewarded detainees who co-operated. Is it so amazing that someone who co-operated (like these kids) was treated much better than someone who did not ?

Are radical theists (who have not been charged, never mind convicted of anything) to be denied their rights once they have been returned to their home country ? I think that this is unfair.

Earthborn

17th March 2004, 06:18 AM

Giz, you might want to learn how to use the QUOTE tags, because your reaction is a bit hard to read as it is.You think that 2 years ago, the US deliberately kidnapped extra afghan kids (knowing they were innocent) who were held incommunicado (but in luxury) for 2 years as a deliberate ploy to distract media attention - 2 years down the line - from the other prisoners who may also be intelligent. As someone who generally supports the US I'd just like to say that I wish the defenders of the free world really were that devious. I kinda doubt it though.You make it sound like Americans are stupider than the Japanese in WW2. I would think that if the Japanese can think of such a thing, Americans can too.

Why would you want them to be that devious, anyway?It means there's not proof one way or another. It does however make the point that it's not 100% that any "guards" will become sadistic monsters and abuse their position of power.I have not accused anyone of becoming sadistic monsters. But that some of them have abused their position of power is not unlikely, I think.By cherry picking! Why don't you just take a couple of WW2 concentration camps and use the guards behaviour there as ammo?I am sure that for guards of concentration camps much the same mechanism applies, but I do not think the American guards at Guantanamo have resorted to quite as horrible deeds.After all, you obviously dont expect US Marines to exhibit higher standards than the worst kind of thugs - do you?:(Actually I do. And if what the freed prisoners say they have experienced is the worst that happens there, those US marines have an amazing restraint.How? We have no info (well except for the human rights inspectors who went in and thought it was OK, but we can ignore them i guess;) )There were no human rights inspectors, only the Red Cross that didn't even give an open report to the rest of the world. They did not think it was OK and they made their report 2 years ago.The two are not neccesarily exclusive (which Al-Q members don't count as pitiful fanatics?).Of course are the two not mutually exclusive. In fact most dangerous terrorists are pitiful (whatever that means in this context) fanatics. The point is that not all 'pitiful fanatics' are necessarily dangerous terrorists. Guantanamo was meant for dangerous terrorists, not for 'pitiful fanatics'.Presumably there was probable cause. Fanatics going to the Hajj in Saudi Arabia wouldn't get arrested, fanatics going to join a jihad in Afghanistan would.Makes one wonder why these people are freed. If there was no probable cause than they wouldn't need to have been arrested, and if there is probable cause you wouldn't want to set them free.Perhaps anti-ExtremeIslamismFair enough.I respect that, you being quite an expert:pCan you give an example where I used circular reasoning?Wouldn't pass the sniff test.Touché! :)

Tmy

17th March 2004, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by The Don
Is it impossible to believe that the conditions in Camp Iguana were significantly different from those in Camp Xray ? For example, the conditions in an open prison such as Layhill are very different from a high security prison such as Belmarsh.

It seems from all accounts (and in common with most captive hold regimes) that the Americans also rewarded detainees who co-operated. Is it so amazing that someone who co-operated (like these kids) was treated much better than someone who did not ?

Are radical theists (who have not been charged, never mind convicted of anything) to be denied their rights once they have been returned to their home country ? I think that this is unfair.

How can you co-operate if you have done nothing? All you can do is profess your innocence, which in tern will be seen as defiance leading to worse treatment.

The story at the start of this thread is about a guy who did nothing. SO the "these terrorists diserve what they get" line isnt relevant.

The Don

17th March 2004, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

How can you co-operate if you have done nothing? All you can do is profess your innocence, which in tern will be seen as defiance leading to worse treatment.

The story at the start of this thread is about a guy who did nothing. SO the "these terrorists diserve what they get" line isnt relevant.
I'm sorry, my point was misconsrtued. The conversation appeared to be going down the line of "those guys couldn't have been treated badly becuase these guys weren't". I want ed to highlight how detention regimes can be radically different based upon where you were being held and how those holding you perceive you co-operating.

If I gave the impression that I in any way supported the detention without trial on an indefinite basis of suspects or the subsequent maltreatment of those suspects then I'm sorry, that was never my intention.

crackmonkey

17th March 2004, 08:24 AM

While mistreatment is always a possibility, the specifics of the released prisoner's allegations sound pretty unlikely...
The IRC examined the camp, talked to the inmates, and subsequently publicly complained about aspects of the camp. Torture wasn't one of the issues they raised.
Other prisoners have been released and said that their treatment was good.
While not proving that the ex-prisoner's tale was fiction, the evidence weighs against it.

Mr Manifesto

17th March 2004, 08:32 AM

Afghans allege Guantanamo mistreatment (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1067297.htm)

Twenty-three Afghan men freed from Guantanamo Bay have accused the US of mistreating them during the two years they have been kept behind bars.

They're all making it up.

Mycroft

17th March 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Afghans allege Guantanamo mistreatment (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1067297.htm)
They're all making it up.

Making what up? That article didn't give any details beyond just being held for two and a half years.

Mr Manifesto

17th March 2004, 08:59 AM

Freed Afghans condemn Cuba prison (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3515502.stm)

"They did everything to us, they tortured our bodies, they tortured our minds, they tortured our ideas and our religion," said Mohammed Khan.

The American inspectors behaved very badly - they were mentally torturing us," said Mohammed Khan.

Many of the prisoners denied they were connected to the Taleban or al-Qaeda
"I'm very happy at being released but even recalling the past two-and-a-half years that I spent there is very painful for me.

"They are all innocent people just like me - if I was a Taleban and al-Qaeda why did they release me? The others still in jail are just like me," he said.

"We don't know what our crime was," said another former prisoner, Lall Gul. "They just arrested us and took us to Guantanamo prison."

More lies.

Skeptic

17th March 2004, 09:02 AM

I'm sorry, my point was misconsrtued. The conversation appeared to be going down the line of "those guys couldn't have been treated badly becuase these guys weren't". I want ed to highlight how detention regimes can be radically different based upon where you were being held and how those holding you perceive you co-operating.

Yes, of course it's POSSIBLE that one group was mistreated and the other was not. But since the two groups were held by the same people (US armed forces) following the same rules, it certainly makes it LESS LIKELY. In these circumstances, it the claiminat's burden to prove that one camp was radically different in treatment from the other. And "I was smeared with menstral blood!" somehow doesn't sound too reliable, for reasons declared above...

Mr Manifesto

17th March 2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Yes, of course it's POSSIBLE that one group was mistreated and the other was not. But since the two groups were held by the same people (US armed forces) following the same rules, it certainly makes it LESS LIKELY. In these circumstances, it the claiminat's burden to prove that one camp was radically different in treatment from the other. And "I was smeared with menstral blood!" somehow doesn't sound too reliable, for reasons declared above...

Oops, shouldn't have mentioned lying as often as I did. Look who's dropped in.

Skeptic

17th March 2004, 09:10 AM

"They did everything to us, they tortured our bodies, they tortured our minds, they tortured our ideas and our religion," said Mohammed Khan.

I can see how one can "torture" a body, and even a mind, but how do you "torture" a religion? How do you "torture" an idea? Were they forced to read works by atheists, or promotheus' press "Why I am not a Muslim"?

Apparently this guy found out that if he says the word "torture", everybody snaps to attention. Unfortunately, he used it a BIT too freely in this case, rather undermining the claim by his hyperbole.

When it comes to what he is actually claiming the Americans did that was "torture", it boils down to what the opening paragraph of the article says: the Americans stand accused of... "not respecting their religion and of routinely taunting them."

Well, that's not nice, but "torture"? Not really. Calling taunting and disrespecting religion "torture" doesn't make is so.

Tony

17th March 2004, 09:11 AM

Several accused US forces in Guantanamo Bay of not respecting their religion and of routinely taunting them.

Boo hoo, someone made fun of your backwardness, cry me a fukkin river.

"They did everything to us, they tortured our bodies, they tortured our minds, they tortured our ideas and our religion," said Mohammed Khan.

They tortured their bodies? I'm sure these guys can provide evidence of that. Bruises, cuts, scars, general injuries?

I’m all for torturing backwards ideas and stupid religions, nothing wrong with that.

apoger

17th March 2004, 09:18 AM

I just read through this whole thread, and it's nothing but speculation after speculation.

Marines are disciplined, however that isn't evidence that they maintained dicipline in this case.

Gossip gets around on military bases, however this isn't evidence that secrets are impossible.

An ex-prisoner offers allegations of odd mistreatments. However the word of one disgruntled prisoner is hardly compelling evidence.

Do guards sometimes abuse prisoners? Of course. However that doesn't mean they must have in this case.

An accusation has been made. It will be investigated. If not then you have someting to complain about. If the investigation turns up evidence of impropriety then we no longer have speculation, we have facts. At that point responsible parties can be held accountable.

Until we have the facts, all we have is wild and pointless speculation. Argument that it MUST have happened, or CAN'T have happened, is premature and ridiculous.

The only valuable thing I see here is a demonstation of how fast people can become credulous when the topic touches something they care about passionately.

rikzilla

17th March 2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Freed Afghans condemn Cuba prison (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3515502.stm)

More lies.

In other news, Daniel Pearl remains silent on his treatment at the hands of Islamofacists. :nope:

-z

Mycroft

17th March 2004, 09:23 AM

"They did everything to us, they tortured our bodies, they tortured our minds, they tortured our ideas and our religion," said Mohammed Khan.

Torture on the body can be proved medically. I look forward to seeing the evidence. Torture of the mind and religion is pretty subjective, I suppose you could say that just being held for two years qualifies for that.

With long beards normally favoured by conservative Muslims, they said they felt bitterness towards the US. They spoke of the humiliations of captivity at Guantanamo, and of the wrenching separation from home.

Hmmm. Humiliation of captivity and the wrenching separation from home. It sounds as though the “abuse” they’re talking about is being locked up, but it doesn’t go beyond that.

The American inspectors behaved very badly - they were mentally torturing us," said Mohammed Khan.

Mental torture…like the mental torture of being locked up for two years?

Tony

17th March 2004, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Mental torture…like the mental torture of being locked up for two years?

To a muslim, mental torture is seeing a woman be anything other than a sheet wearing sex slave.

Mycroft

17th March 2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Tony
To a muslim, mental torture is seeing a woman be anything other than a sheet wearing sex slave.

Well, I don't want to paint all Muslims with the same brush, but the point is still valid that such terms as "mental torture" are highly subjective and meaningless without specific examples. I consider it to be mental torture when my wife wants to talk about Oprah or Dr. Phil, but so far nobody is willing to give me any press coverage for my anguish.

Lurker

17th March 2004, 10:00 AM

I'm with apoger on this one. We need more evidence. I agree with Earthborn that there is a certain history to deal with here.

The guard/prisoner experiments were terrible in my opinion. What did the "guards" have to lose by behaving poorly? What do soldiers have to lose? Their jobs, their livelihoods, theri ability to provide for their families. Luke is correct that there is a certain amount of oversight in the military.

Also, the hookers in Guantanamo really requires a lot of logistics to get them there. I don't see that happening.

All that being said, I imagine there is some truth to the charges that they have been mistreated. A closed system incarcerating some of America's worst enemies (puportedly) when guards may have known people killed in 9-11 all add up to a bad situation.

Lurker

RandFan

17th March 2004, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by apoger
I just read through this whole thread, and it's nothing but speculation after speculation.

Marines are disciplined, however that isn't evidence that they maintained dicipline in this case.

Gossip gets around on military bases, however this isn't evidence that secrets are impossible.

An ex-prisoner offers allegations of odd mistreatments. However the word of one disgruntled prisoner is hardly compelling evidence.

Do guards sometimes abuse prisoners? Of course. However that doesn't mean they must have in this case.

An accusation has been made. It will be investigated. If not then you have someting to complain about. If the investigation turns up evidence of impropriety then we no longer have speculation, we have facts. At that point responsible parties can be held accountable.

Until we have the facts, all we have is wild and pointless speculation. Argument that it MUST have happened, or CAN'T have happened, is premature and ridiculous.

The only valuable thing I see here is a demonstation of how fast people can become credulous when the topic touches something they care about passionately. A light shines in an other wise dreary world.

--Willy Wonka.

Thank you apoger.

Tony

17th March 2004, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Well, I don't want to paint all Muslims with the same brush...

Neither do I, but you have to allow for some gratuitous religion bashing. :D

epepke

17th March 2004, 11:52 AM

quote:
With long beards normally favoured by conservative Muslims, they said they felt bitterness towards the US. They spoke of the humiliations of captivity at Guantanamo, and of the wrenching separation from home.

Apparently, their torture didn't involve giving them a shave.

Mr Manifesto

17th March 2004, 12:03 PM

Guantanamo captive 'worked with CIA' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3514442.stm)

'80% innocent'

Asked how many of the inmates were real terrorists, Mr Khadr said: "Eighty per cent were innocent.

"Ten per cent were 'stubborns', who should be there and should be kept there forever, and 10% are people that might do something if they got out."

Mr Khadr also described how it felt to be an inmate in Guantanamo.

"You know that you cannot go anywhere and you are totally under the control of the person that's interrogating you.

"Everything is in his hands. You can be the most co-operative person. But call him a "stupid American," or something that is personal, and he would write back to the Defense Ministry that this person isn't co-operating. They will keep you there for two or three years."

Mr Khadr said the interrogators themselves had told him this.

:sigh: Call that justice?

Tony

17th March 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

:sigh: Call that justice?

Can you provide evidence that the prisoners at Gitmo were brought there to be brought to justice?

Mr Manifesto

17th March 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Can you provide evidence that the prisoners at Gitmo were brought there to be brought to justice?

What are the pending military trials for? Something to fill up the off-ratings season?

Earthborn

17th March 2004, 12:48 PM

I kind of agree with apoger, but I still have a few comments.Gossip gets around on military bases, however this isn't evidence that secrets are impossible.This assumes that the 'secrets' are secrets at all. According to Luke T. if these things happened, someone must have leaked. Interestingly, there are been people who claimed that some have:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s962767.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s962052.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F29C8006-3058-44DB-8705-B06417F9838F.htm
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_826939.html
Bourke said his claims were based on reports leaked by US military personnel and from descriptions by some detainees that had been released.An ex-prisoner offers allegations of odd mistreatments. However the word of one disgruntled prisoner is hardly compelling evidence.Of course not. But he's not the only one, there are many others.Do guards sometimes abuse prisoners? Of course. However that doesn't mean they must have in this case.True, but that says nothing about how likely it is whether they have been or not. Ask yourself this: in the wake of September 11, suppose you had to guard the people strongly suspected of being responsible for it. How much self-control would you have in dealing with them?An accusation has been made. It will be investigated. If not then you have someting to complain about.That's the problem, isn't it? No independent human rights organization is allowed to do such an investigation. And if it isn't done by an organization oher than the US military itself, few people are going to take it seriously and there are going to be a whole lot of people around the world who will think the US just wants to sweep it under the rug.If the investigation turns up evidence of impropriety then we no longer have speculation, we have facts. At that point responsible parties can be held accountable.Who's going to hold them responsible? If we assume such things have happened, it seems reasonable that people high up know about it. What are they doing about it?Until we have the facts, all we have is wild and pointless speculation.I disagree. It may be speculation, but they're also questions that we must ask ourselves. There is nothing pointless about it. If we simply sit and wait until there is irrefutable proof it may never come. But if we, but more importantly those who can influence political decisions in the US, demand openness and independent investigation, the evidence may come to light.

That brings me to something I noticed: the people who don't believe there could be anything bad going on seem also to be the people who don't think independent investigation is necessary. I don't understand this. These are serious accusations being made here. Why wouldn't you want to dispell them? And suppose they are true, wouldn't you want to know for sure?

Dancing David

17th March 2004, 02:02 PM

I agree with the sentiment that it can be clered up by letting the red cross in.

Our soldiers are not stupid, they know enough to get a tampon from someone and use it to offend a muslim. Our soldiers are not stupid.

I think our government did admit to playing music loudly for days upon end with no respite. Depriving people of sleep is a classic of torture. If you played Brittaney Spears at me for days at 120 db I would claim torture.

If you don't allo islam the chance to wash before prayyers they will consider that unfair.

Rememeber when seven americans came home from Iran, did we doubt everything that they said?

Skeptic

17th March 2004, 02:08 PM

:sigh: Call that justice?

When even the RELEASED INMATES agree that 20% of the detainees should be kept there forever? When even the RELEASED INMATES acknowledge that the justification for the improsionment--fear of terror--is not unreasonable in itself, merely saying that they are not part of the terror network?

Yup, I'd say that is, if not justice, at least justified action on the US part.

For those who think the US is building a "gulag", can you really see someone coming out of, say, a nazi concentration camp or a soviet gulag and saying: "well, I have to admit, 20% of the inmates really deserved to be there--it's just that I, personally, didn't do anything..."

Mr Manifesto

17th March 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Septic the Amazing Lying C*cksucker

When even the RELEASED INMATES agree that 20% of the detainees should be kept there forever? When even the RELEASED INMATES acknowledge that the justification for the improsionment--fear of terror--is not unreasonable in itself, merely saying that they are not part of the terror network?

Yup, I'd say that is, if not justice, at least justified action on the US part.

For those who think the US is building a "gulag", can you really see someone coming out of, say, a nazi concentration camp or a soviet gulag and saying: "well, I have to admit, 20% of the inmates really deserved to be there--it's just that I, personally, didn't do anything..."

20% isn't exactly a big number. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for me to believe that there are those who feel that 20% of prisoners in the Laogai camps in China 'deserve' to be there- even current inmates.

And, no, it isn't justice for reasons that have been gone over by many in this forum dozens of times. But I wouldn't expect a cretin with all the honor of a mongrel dog like you to understand that.

Skeptic

17th March 2004, 02:27 PM

20% isn't exactly a big number. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for me to believe that there are those who feel that 20% of prisoners in the Laogai camps in China 'deserve' to be there- even current inmates.

YOU won't consider that a strench, but then again, you think China is a great revolution of the socialist people, don't you? Most people are quite likely to consider it a strerch, though.

Mr Manifesto

17th March 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Septic the Amazing Lying C*cksucker

YOU won't consider that a strench, but then again, you think China is a great revolution of the socialist people, don't you?

Just like you think knocking over civilians' homes from the safety of an armoured bulldozer is the height of fair play.

Skeptic

17th March 2004, 02:29 PM

I wouldn't expect a cretin with all the honor of a mongrel dog like you to understand that.

This lovely quote won't stop "Mr. Manifesto" from hypocritically claiming it is unfair that people use ad hominem attacks against him.

epepke

17th March 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Let me get this straight- if you don't like menstrual blood smeared over you, you haven't been laid? Is that what you're saying?

This is pretty good! In just a few postings, you've gone from the notion of torture to the notion of not liking something.

Mr Manifesto

17th March 2004, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by epepke

This is pretty good! In just a few postings, you've gone from the notion of torture to the notion of not liking something.

Why don't you try starting a poll on whether people would consider a hooker smearing menstrual blood on their face, in the context of imprisonment, torture, and see what response you get?

Mr Manifesto

17th March 2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Septic the Amazing Lying C*cksucker

This lovely quote won't stop "Mr. Manifesto" from hypocritically claiming it is unfair that people use ad hominem attacks against him.

In your case, it isn't an ad hominem attack.

Earthborn

17th March 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
In your case, it isn't an ad hominem attack.Yes, it is. According to Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit (http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html)Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.Whether the arguer is what you say he is makes no difference, and neither does it make a difference whether he deserves to be called such a thing.

And your use of this fallacy makes me think that you have something against mongrel dogs, or else you would not have made such a comparison.

Mycroft

17th March 2004, 09:06 PM

Hey, what happened to the menstrul blood thread?

The Fool

18th March 2004, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
Hey, what happened to the menstrul blood thread?
Sometimes when all seems to be confusion Mycroft cuts through the thread like a laser beam of reason to get us back on target ;)

Giz

18th March 2004, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
Hey, what happened to the menstrul blood thread?

Maybe we can pick it up again next month?

demon

18th March 2004, 05:49 AM

Careful there Giz, last time I made a remark about monthly cycles I was jumped for being sexist...even though in that context I wasn`t aware of the "sexist" connection.
In this case you can`t plead that....be prepared to be set upon by our resident harpy(ies).

Cleopatra

18th March 2004, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by demon
Careful there Giz, last time I made a remark about monthly cycles I was jumped for being sexist...even though in that context I wasn`t aware of the "sexist" connection.
In this case you can`t plead that....be prepared to be set upon by our resident harpy(ies). Since the remark above brought to your memory this incident it means that your comment back then that was about the moon cycles was about menstruation indeed. Do you call me a Harpy now?Awwww how nice of you demon, thank you, thank you. :)

Luke T.

18th March 2004, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
I kind of agree with apoger, but I still have a few comments.This assumes that the 'secrets' are secrets at all. According to Luke T. if these things happened, someone must have leaked. Interestingly, there are been people who claimed that some have:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s962767.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s962052.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F29C8006-3058-44DB-8705-B06417F9838F.htm
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_826939.html

Fun with quotes. From the first link:

PETER BURNS: That's one of the interesting features about this. When you talk about Guantanamo, we’ve not received any scientific or empirical or provable evidence. We haven't even at this point, as far as I'm aware, and maybe the Secretariat has, but it hasn't come as far as me, we've received nothing.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

1st May 2004, 10:48 AM

bump,

I find it interesting that though I have not seen compelling evidence to suggest the claims of x-ray inmates (related to human rights abuses) are true, it may be significant due to the alleged human rights in Iraq's prison abuses brought into public scrutiny. Add to that the alleged delplorable behaviour of some coaltion soldies and/or unregulated mercanary interogators, this may suffice as evidence (though weak, and not necessarily relevant) that could support allegations at camp X'ray, or at least give credence to the possiblity of abuse.

Mr Manifesto

13th May 2004, 04:42 PM

Pentagon Admits Iraq Methods Violated Geneva Rules (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040513/ts_nm/iraq_abuse_dc)

Of interest:

Sen. Jack Reed asked Pace if a foreign nation held a U.S. Marine in a cell, naked with a bag over his head, squatting with his arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would that be a good interrogation technique or a Geneva Convention violation.

"I would describe is as a violation, sir," replied Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"As I read Gen. Sanchez's guidance, precisely that behavior could have been employed in Iraq," said Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat.

Reed later asked Wolfowitz a similar question. Wolfowitz initially tried to sidestep it, but eventually replied, "What you've described to me sounds, to me, like a violation of the Geneva Convention."

A former U.S. intelligence official said that in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, support within the government across the political spectrum emerged for "extreme pressure" as a means for interrogation of terrorism suspects.

The former official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said this was true despite widespread acknowledgment in the intelligence community that such measures were not an effective or reliable means of gaining accurate information.

He said that first-hand experience had taught veteran intelligence officers that the use or threat of extreme measures made suspects so scared that they would testify to almost anything they thought the interrogators wanted to hear.

"If they thought you wanted to hear Martians were behind an attack, the suspects would try to sell you that," he said.

This last quote seems to refute those who say that the Americans wouldn't use torture because it's ineffective.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

25th May 2004, 06:23 AM

Former MP stationioned at Guantanamo Bay allegeshe was given an orange detainee jumpsuit to wear and turned over to four soldiers. Baker said the soldiers beat and choked him, stopping when they saw he was wearing parts of an army uniform.
(http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040524/w052456.html)

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

16th June 2004, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Former MP stationioned at Guantanamo Bay alleges

he was given an orange detainee jumpsuit to wear and turned over to four soldiers. Baker said the soldiers beat and choked him, stopping when they saw he was wearing parts of an army uniform.
(http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040524/w052456.html)

follow up to

soldier's allegations of abuse (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3812713.stm)

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

18th June 2004, 02:06 PM

This continued detention of people in Guantanamo Bay is doing fundamental harm to the image of America overseas, and in fact, in my opinion, ... is likely to increase terrorism by sending more people to the extreme edges -Terry Waite, former hostage

RSLancastr

18th June 2004, 04:29 PM

People who posted much earlier in this thread that American soldiers would never do the things described by the ex Gitmo detainees - do you still think that, given the photos from Abu Graib (sp?) we've all been subected to over recent weeks?

Or do you find the detainee's accounts more credible now?

Mr Manifesto

18th June 2004, 05:21 PM

I'm cross-posting this in SC, since Luke T won't be reading it until 1 July, if then.

Mr Manifesto

18th June 2004, 05:26 PM

SC topic here (http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=9184#9184).

demon

19th June 2004, 01:44 AM

Elind:
"The only reason they were released is because they were the stupidest of the stupid and not worth the food they cost"

"The Afghans who were released earlier seem to have kind of enjoyed the experience, compared to daily life in Afghanistan".

Crickets chirping...if you ever get back here Elind, don`t hesitate to give me a call...

edited to add.....you racist prick

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

14th July 2004, 08:39 AM

A former Green Beret turned

Bounty Hunter (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040719-662772,00.html) sets up own Prison in Afghanistan

Grammatron

14th July 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
A former Green Beret turned

Bounty Hunter (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040719-662772,00.html) sets up own Prison in Afghanistan

How does that relate to this thread?

Elind

14th July 2004, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by demon
Elind:
"The only reason they were released is because they were the stupidest of the stupid and not worth the food they cost"

"The Afghans who were released earlier seem to have kind of enjoyed the experience, compared to daily life in Afghanistan".

Crickets chirping...if you ever get back here Elind, don`t hesitate to give me a call...

edited to add.....you racist prick

I thought this had died, but I see that demon had his usual flair with words, which I do believe this forum has asked him to avoid.

I have contempt for anyone stupid enough to fight for, or otherwise defend, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. What that has to do with racism I have no idea, and probably people like demon don't either; it's just excess gas pressure with them.

Elind

14th July 2004, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
People who posted much earlier in this thread that American soldiers would never do the things described by the ex Gitmo detainees - do you still think that, given the photos from Abu Graib (sp?) we've all been subected to over recent weeks?

Or do you find the detainee's accounts more credible now?

No, they would be expected to make such claims, with some exceptions, because that is all they have left to fight with. We know that our police have done much worse from time to time, to US citizens, so it's hardly strange, although still disappointing, that some soldiers will lose control during war. The point is that this behaviour had nothing to do with interrogation, yet there is nothing wrong with making the experience unpleasant, and that does not have to mean "torture" in the medieval sense.

Mr Manifesto

4th August 2004, 12:11 PM

Claims that Australian inmates had the shinola beaten out of them (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200408/s1169169.htm)

a_unique_person

4th August 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
No, no... this was an American hooker, apparently flown from the mainland to taunt the prisoners. At the behest of the Extreme Reaction Squad, of course.
Any reaction to this fable other than incredulity deserves scorn...

Yes, well, the passage of time, and now your response of incredulity might seem a little lame.

demon

8th August 2004, 04:51 PM

The Oregonian Saturday, August 07, 2004

Ordered to just walk away

MIKE FRANCIS

BAGHDAD -- The national guardsman peering through the long-range scope of his rifle was startled by what he saw unfolding in the walled compound below.

From his post several stories above ground level, he watched as men in plainclothes beat blindfolded and bound prisoners in the enclosed grounds of the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

He immediately radioed for help. Soon after, a team of Oregon Army National Guard soldiers swept into the yard and found dozens of Iraqi detainees who said they had been beaten, starved and deprived of water for three days.

In a nearby building, the soldiers counted dozens more prisoners and what appeared to be torture devices -- metal rods, rubber hoses, electrical wires and bottles of chemicals. Many of the Iraqis, including one identified as a 14-year-old boy, had fresh welts and bruises across their back and legs.

The soldiers disarmed the Iraqi jailers, moved the prisoners into the shade, released their handcuffs and administered first aid. Lt. Col. Daniel Hendrickson of Albany, Ore., the highest ranking American at the scene, radioed for instructions.

But in a move that frustrated and infuriated the guardsmen, Hendrickson's superior officers told him to return the prisoners to their abusers and immediately withdraw. It was June 29 -- Iraq's first official day as a sovereign country since the U.S.-led invasion.

The incident, the first known case of human rights abuses in newly sovereign Iraq, is at the heart of the American dilemma here.

In handing over power, U.S. officials gave Iraqis authority to run their own institutions -- even if they made mistakes. But officials understand that the United States will be held responsible when the new Iraqi authorities stumble.

"Iraqis want us to respect their sovereignty, but the problem is we will be blamed for leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse," said Michael Rubin, a former adviser to the interim Iraqi government who is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "We did not generally put good people in."

An Oregon guardsman who witnessed the day's events, Capt. Jarrell Southall, provided The Oregonian with a written account of the incident. Other guardsmen interviewed in Iraq corroborated Southall's account on the condition that their names not be used.

The U.S. Embassy in Iraq confirmed the incident occurred and disclosed for the first time that the United States raised questions about the June 29 "brutality" with Iraq's interior minister.

The embassy declined to say what response was received in the meeting between the minister and James Jeffrey, the second-ranking U.S. diplomat in Iraq, saying it would be "inappropriate" to discuss "details of those diplomatic and confidential conversations."
...

continues at:

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/oregonian/iraq/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1091880082213032.xml

Bjorn

8th August 2004, 07:58 PM

The incident, the first known case of human rights abuses in newly sovereign Iraq, is at the heart of the American dilemma here.Yes, I guess so.

Unless they were just doing some interrogations on behalf of our guys. :(

banquetbear

5th February 2005, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by Grammatron
Ok I figured out the link. I don't know if what he says is true or not but I find it highly questionable. I'm not done reading the entire article but this line popped up as being the most questionable

Aside from being quite disgusting, I have hard time believing that would happened.

...the sad, and scary thing is, as time goes on, more and more of the allegations turn out to be true...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/ap/20050127/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_sex_vs_faith

The interrogator left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist told her to tell the detainee that she was menstruating, touch him, then make sure to turn off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.

Strict interpretation of Islamic law forbids physical contact with women other than a man's wife or family, and with any menstruating women, who are considered unclean.

"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," says the draft, stamped "Secret."

The interrogator used ink from a red pen to fool the detainee, Saar writes.

"She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee," he says. "As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred.

"She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward" â€” so fiercely that he broke loose from one ankle shackle.

...sorry to bump the thread, but it seemed more appropriate to post it in here, considering the skepticism the original story got...so not a hooker, but a "contractor." And not blood, but ink from a pen. But an entirely plausible situation considering how "out of control" the soldiers and contractors behaved in Iraq-and apparently at Guantanamo and Afghanistan as well...

Elind

5th February 2005, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by banquetbear
...the sad, and scary thing is, as time goes on, more and more of the allegations turn out to be true...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/ap/20050127/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_sex_vs_faith

...sorry to bump the thread, but it seemed more appropriate to post it in here, considering the skepticism the original story got...so not a hooker, but a "contractor." And not blood, but ink from a pen. But an entirely plausible situation considering how "out of control" the soldiers and contractors behaved in Iraq-and apparently at Guantanamo and Afghanistan as well...

Just a moment here. I hope no one expects interrogation to be a pleasant process for everyone, but this is not pulling out nails with pliers, it is simply exploiting a psychological weakness in the enemy.

Next you are going to say that exploiting your enemy's weaknesses is unethical!