Gitmo Prisoners Starving Themselves to Death

[BPSCG]

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1566123,00.html)
More than 200 detainees in Guantánamo Bay are in their fifth week of a hunger strike, the Guardian has been told.

Statements from prisoners in the camp which were declassified by the US government on Wednesday reveal that the men are starving themselves in protest at the conditions in the camp and at their alleged maltreatment - including desecration of the Qur'an - by American guards.

The statements, written on August 11, have just been given to the British human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith. They show that prisoners are determined to starve them selves to death. In one, Binyam Mohammed, a former London schoolboy, said: "I do not plan to stop until I either die or we are respected.If they're going to starve themselves to death, I wish they'd hurry up and get on with the job. Problem is, the US military keeps interfering by force-feeding them. Talibans are trying to kill themselves, for once, instead of Americans, and the most dangerous soldiers in the world are keeping them alive. Bravo for life's little ironies.

Idea: Maybe we can send the food they're not eating to New Orleans evacuees? Given a choice between feeding a foreigner who has sworn my death and an American who hasn't - now, there's a tough call.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Given a choice between feeding a foreigner who has sworn my death and an American who hasn't - now, there's a tough call.

How do you know all of those people have "sworn your death?"

I'm not saying they haven't; I really don't know many details about which people are still at Gitmo and how those in charge decided who was who. But if there's convincing evidence, I'd like to see it.

Also, do you believe Americans are inherently better or more worthy of help than "foreigners?" The way you phrase the sentence above is somewhat ambiguous about that.

Jeremy

[Ryokan]

I'd like to believe all humans are of equal worth, and none deserving of death before their time.

Saying that they deserve death, exactly how are you different from them?

[Beerina]

> More than 200 detainees in Guantánamo Bay are in their fifth week of a hunger strike

So much for keeping them separated so they couldn't communicate.

Although letting them think they're "getting away with communicating secretely" while monitoring their chatting would be highly useful, too.


> In one, Binyam Mohammed, a former London schoolboy, said: "I
> do not plan to stop until I either die or we are respected.

Did the former London schoolboy train to murder Westerners? If not, I feel his pain. If so, I wonder why he wants respect...

[Beerina]

Adolph Hitler, a former Austrian schoolboy, said "I do not plan to stop until all Jews are dead."

Sheesh. No biased reporting there or anything. Poor little Adolph.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by toddjh
How do you know all of those people have "sworn your death?"Uh, because they were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers, I guess. If any of them are at Gitmo because they were caught shoplifting at Wal-Mart, I withdraw the OP.
Also, do you believe Americans are inherently better or more worthy of help than "foreigners?" The way you phrase the sentence above is somewhat ambiguous about that.I believe Americans are inherently more worthy of my help (e.g., tax dollars) than foreigners, yes, all other things being equal. I have an obligation to my fellow citizens that I do not have to citizens of other countries. I suspect people in other countries feel the same way, and I don't condemn them for that.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Uh, because they were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers, I guess.

Were they? All of them?

While this blind faith in the whole "if they were caught, they were doing something wrong" rationale is rather touching, it's also rather frightening.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Cleon
Were they? All of them?

While this blind faith in the whole "if they were caught, they were doing something wrong" rationale is rather touching, it's also rather frightening. Any evidence to support the shoplifting-at-Wal-Mart hypothesis?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Any evidence to support the shoplifting-at-Wal-Mart hypothesis?

Your hypothesis, not mine. Don't forget the "wrong place, wrong time" hypothesis, the "might have said something positive about the Taliban at one point" hypothesis, the "mistaken identity" hypothesis, the "minor functionary" hypothesis, the "same or similar name" hypothesis, the "soldiers had a bad day and weren't real concerned with checking" hypothesis, or the "caught hanging with the wrong people" hypothesis. The fact that you don't know for certain that they "were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers" doesn't mean the only alternative is "shoplifting at Wal-Mart."

But keep to your blind faith. By all means. It illustrates something to the rest of us.

That's the funny thing about false dichotomies...They share so much in common with strawmen.

[Skeptic]

I'd like to believe all humans are of equal worth, and none deserving of death before their time.

I dunno. I think mass murderers deserve death earlier than babies, for instance.

Saying that they deserve death, exactly how are you different from them?

In the same way that those who say a murderer deserves death are different than the murderer who killed his victim.

[Darat]

Since as far as I know many of them have not been found guilty of anything (despite quite literally years of detention for some of them) I can understand how they, like many other prisoners in the past, have opted on one the few means of protest that prisoners can use.

I think it is sad and I think this camp is a disgrace for us in the democratic countries that lend support to it.

If we support law and order and more importantly justice then we should be pushing the authorities to remedy the injustice of the camp.

[Manny]

How many German PoWs were taken and detained in Great Britain? Of those, how many were convicted of anything? Of those not convicted, how many were released whilst hotilities were ongoing? For that matter, how many were not involved in active combat at the time of their detention and could be described as "wrong place wrong time" captures?

[Random]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Uh, because they were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers, I guess. If any of them are at Gitmo because they were caught shoplifting at Wal-Mart, I withdraw the OP.
I believe Americans are inherently more worthy of my help (e.g., tax dollars) than foreigners, yes, all other things being equal. I have an obligation to my fellow citizens that I do not have to citizens of other countries. I suspect people in other countries feel the same way, and I don't condemn them for that.
A lot of people are currently moldering in American gulags, sorry, “Super Fun Happy Places�. Some of the ways of getting put into an SFHP include:

1.) Engaging in Terrorism.
2.) Shooting at foreign troops as they invade your country.
3.) Being given to US troops by local warlords who then receive a cash reward.
4.) Driving a cab and picking up a passenger who doesn’t have an ID.
5.) Walking around in the general vicinity of a suicide bombing.
6.) Having a relative who fits into categories 1-5.
7.) Having an acquaintance who fits into categories 1-5.
8.) Having a name similar to someone who fits into categories 1-5
9.) Bad luck.

Not all of the things on this list are really deserving of de facto life imprisonment.

Also, Afghanistan was kind of a mess. Did you know that a civilian who spontaneously takes up arms against an invading army is covered by the Geneva Convention under certain circumstances? For all of Bush’s protestations to the contrary, I am certain that at least some of the people held in the SFHPs around the world are being held in violation of military and international law.

[Darat]

Originally posted by manny
How many German PoWs were taken and detained in Great Britain? Of those, how many were convicted of anything? Of those not convicted, how many were released whilst hotilities were ongoing? For that matter, how many were not involved in active combat at the time of their detention and could be described as "wrong place wrong time" captures?

As far as I am aware the USA has very much maintained and even strenuously argued that these people are not prisoners of war.

(ETA)

Also a lot of what we (the British) did in the WWII I consider to have been with the benefit of hindsight barbaric.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Cleon
Don't forget the "wrong place, wrong time" hypothesis, the "might have said something positive about the Taliban at one point" hypothesis, the "mistaken identity" hypothesis, the "minor functionary" hypothesis, the "same or similar name" hypothesis, the "soldiers had a bad day and weren't real concerned with checking" hypothesis, or the "caught hanging with the wrong people" hypothesis. Okay. Any evidence for any of those hypotheses?

Here's a hypothesis: These guys are playing the public-relations angle like a violin, as just one more front in the war. "Let's gin up some outrage against the evil American oppressors!"

[toddjh]

Originally posted by manny
How many German PoWs were taken and detained in Great Britain? Of those, how many were convicted of anything? Of those not convicted, how many were released whilst hotilities were ongoing? For that matter, how many were not involved in active combat at the time of their detention and could be described as "wrong place wrong time" captures?

So the detainees at Gitmo are prisoners of war, then?

Also, World War II was a declared war with a clear end. As far as I know, no war has been declared now, and the de facto government of Afghanistan is more or less gone, replaced with one which is nominally our ally. How long after Germany surrendered did they keep those POWs?

Jeremy

[Darat]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay. Any evidence for any of those hypotheses?

Here's a hypothesis: These guys are playing the public-relations angle like a violin, as just one more front in the war. "Let's gin up some outrage against the evil American oppressors!"

Unfortunately when they are kept in a prison without being tried then the oppression is real.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Darat
As far as I am aware the USA has very much maintained and even strenuously argued that these people are not prisoners of war.True, but they are detainees of war nonetheless. The POW/non-POW thing is really only relevent in that we retain the right to interrogate these guys and to keep them from conspiring among themselves, whereas with POWs you're only allowed to collect name, rank, serial number and you have to put them all together. That they're not legally POWs doesn't make them less likely to go right back to the battlefield to the extent they're let go before DoD is ready to let them go.

Also a lot of what we (the British) did in the WWII I consider to have been with the benefit of hindsight barbaric. Even keeping prisoners detained during the pendency of the war?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay. Any evidence for any of those hypotheses?

Any evidence for yours? The American justice system has long decided that any error should be made on the side of caution. "I'd rather see ten guilty men go free than one innocent jailed," isn't that the maxim?

Obviously some concessions must be made when dealing with a life-or-death situation, but I don't think we can chuck that principle out the window entirely. If they're so sure these people are murderous terrorists, there must be some evidence to support that, no?

Here's a hypothesis: These guys are playing the public-relations angle like a violin, as just one more front in the war.

Very possible (assuming there's a war--I haven't seen Congress declare one yet). There should still be some evidence either way.

Jeremy

[Manny]

Originally posted by toddjh
Also, World War II was a declared war with a clear end. As far as I know, no war has been declared now, and the de facto government of Afghanistan is more or less gone, replaced with one which is nominally our ally. How long after Germany surrendered did they keep those POWs?
The first repatriations didn't occur until one year after the end of the war. They continued for three years after that, with the last voluntary repatriation (some POWs wanted to stay in Britain) occuring in 1949. We're already doing better than that, and hostilities are still ongoing.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by toddjh
Any evidence for yours? The American justice system has long decided that any error should be made on the side of caution. "I'd rather see ten guilty men go free than one innocent jailed," isn't that the maxim?

Obviously some concessions must be made when dealing with a life-or-death situation, Might those concessions include the possibility of amending your maxim to, "I'd rather see one innocent man suffer than a thousand"?
but I don't think we can chuck that principle out the window entirely. If they're so sure these people are murderous terrorists, there must be some evidence to support that, no?If they were caught carrying guns on the battlefield, I think that's a prima facie case, and at that point, the burden of proof lies with them. Remember, these guys are not subject to the laws of American civil jurisprudence. They are not innocent until proved guilty.

These guys also seem to have enough contact with the outside world - they can talk to reporters, after all - that if a truly strong case could be made for their innocence, one would think it would have been made by now, without the theatrics of a hunger strike.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Might those concessions include the possibility of amending your maxim to, "I'd rather see one innocent man suffer than a thousand"?

Sure, with reasonable evidence that that's the case.

If they were caught carrying guns on the battlefield, I think that's a prima facie case

Agreed. So, were they?

Remember, these guys are not subject to the laws of American civil jurisprudence. They are not innocent until proved guilty.

I'm not disputing that they are not protected by the law. That doesn't mean we should completely disregard the principles behind those laws.

These guys also seem to have enough contact with the outside world - they can talk to reporters, after all - that if a truly strong case could be made for their innocence, one would think it would have been made by now, without the theatrics of a hunger strike.

Likewise, if the government had a truly strong case for their guilt, they could present it to the world and avoid a lot of accusations and loss of credibility.

Jeremy

[Cleon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay. Any evidence for any of those hypotheses?

Let's go back to your claim, that they "were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers."

Any evidence for that? (And the nanny state's say-so doesn't count.)


Here's a hypothesis: These guys are playing the public-relations angle like a violin, as just one more front in the war. "Let's gin up some outrage against the evil American oppressors!"

Any evidence for that hypothesis?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Cleon
Let's go back to your claim, that they "were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers."

Any evidence for that? (And the nanny state's say-so doesn't count.)Pretty neat. You dismiss the only witness to the crime. Can I get you on my jury after I get caught trying to knock over a jewelry store at 3:00 am?

Officer: "I apprehended the perpetrator..."
(Later, in the jury room):
Eleven Jurors: "Well, the cop caught him red-handed."
Cleon: "The nanny-state's say-so doesn't count."

Again, American civil jurisprudence doesn't apply here. The Padilla case had to go to the Supreme Court before it was established that an American citizen trying to commit an act of terrorism on American soil was entitled to American civil jurisprudence (a decision I agree with, it may surprise you to learn). But foreign nationals fighting American soldiers on foreign soil? Please.

Now, let me ask you again if you know of any evidence that these prisoners are indeed innocent.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Pretty neat. You dismiss the only witness to the crime. Can I get you on my jury after I get caught trying to knock over a jewelry store at 3:00 am?

Officer: "I apprehended the perpetrator..."
(Later, in the jury room):
Eleven Jurors: "Well, the cop caught him red-handed."
Cleon: "The nanny-state's say-so doesn't count."

Again, American civil jurisprudence doesn't apply here. The Padilla case had to go to the Supreme Court before it was established that an American citizen trying to commit an act of terrorism on American soil was entitled to American civil jurisprudence (a decision I agree with, it may surprise you to learn). But foreign nationals fighting American soldiers on foreign soil? Please.

Now, let me ask you again if you know of any evidence that these prisoners are indeed innocent.

Of course, in your example, the perpetrator actually gets a trial. Funny how justice is supposed to work.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Pretty neat. You dismiss the only witness to the crime.

Well, I think that's a little unfair. What I don't want is for the only "witness" to be a government spokesman who wasn't even there.

If a detainee was apprehended carrying a weapon on a battlefield, that's fine. I'll take the word of any soldier who was there, pretty much. Just give me a location, a time, and a description of the circumstances. Surely someone has this information?

Now, let me ask you again if you know of any evidence that these prisoners are indeed innocent.

I am less concerned with what's legal than with what's ethical. Regardless of whether American jurisprudence applies, don't you think that it's reasonable to expect the government to have a good reason before imprisoning someone indefinitely? Government claims should be auditable...if for no other reason, then to prevent abuse and corruption. After all the scandals and incompetence throughout the decades, do you really trust the government so much that you don't even care to verify their story?

Jeremy

[Cleon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Pretty neat. You dismiss the only witness to the crime.

:dl:


Can I get you on my jury after I get caught trying to knock over a jewelry store at 3:00 am?


Wait...An actual trial? But if your analogy holds, shouldn't the officer's word be good enough to sentence me to life without parole?


Now, let me ask you again if you know of any evidence that these prisoners are indeed innocent.

I'm still waiting for evidence that they all "were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers." You know...That whole "you make the claim, you back it up" thing.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Uh, because they were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers, I guess.

Everyone detained in Gitmo is there for that reason? You sure about that?

[rikzilla]

And now, the facts:


Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a military tribunal. Every one. As a result of those hearings, more than three dozen Gitmo detainees have been released. The hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as "enemy combatants" is based.


Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration's failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, "the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the 'Article V' hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case."


Treating foreign terrorists like American shoplifters with full access to civilian lawyers, classified intelligence, and all the attendant rights of a normal jury trial is a surefire recipe for another 9/11. That is why the Bush administration fought so hard to erect an alternative tribunal system long established in wartime in the first place.


Link (http://jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin062205.php3)

Personally I'm in favor of less prisoner taking altogether. If a person is seen planting an IED, attempting covert infiltration, or otherwise attacking Coalition forces or innocent civilians, they should be killed as sabateurs, spies, or terrorists. No need to trouble the leftist conscience or the turnkeys at SHFP. Remove them from the gene-pool. Eventually the population at the SHFP will be reduced to the extent that it could be closed and it's proven guilty may finish their respective sentences in other facilities.

The irony of it all is that leftist concerns about human rights @ SHFP's like GITMO have perhaps already worked out to a higher battlefield mortality rate for the enemy? I'd hardly be surprised.

-z

[toddjh]

Originally posted by rikzilla
That is why the Bush administration fought so hard to erect an alternative tribunal system long established in wartime in the first place.

Shouldn't, y'know, a war be declared before the executive branch starts exercising wartime powers?

ETA: Okay, that's too snarky. I just get wary of all the "war" talk. I'm not opposed to fighting terrorism, militarily or otherwise. I'd just like to see our government playing by the rules more often in the process.

Jeremy

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Cleon
I'm still waiting for evidence that they all "were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers." You know...That whole "you make the claim, you back it up" thing. I note you put the word "all" outside the part of my quotation you selected. Nice way to move the goalposts. Slick.

Anyway, here's a cite to back up my hypothesis: http://cfrterrorism.org/responses/detainees_print.html

Now, for the third (or is it fourth? I'm losing track) time, do you you know of any evidence that these prisoners are indeed innocent?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by toddjh
Shouldn't, y'know, a war be declared before the executive branch starts exercising wartime powers?

ETA: Okay, that's too snarky. I just get wary of all the "war" talk when no war has been declared. I'm not opposed to fighting terrorism, militarily or otherwise. I'd just like to see our government playing by the rules more often in the process.

Jeremy

I dunno.... Truman called the war in Korea a "police action" but we didn't send any police! :confused: Every "war" since then seems to still resemble previous war in every way; and yet they have not been formally declared. Apparently formally declared war is an obsolete idea.

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I note you put the word "all" outside the part of my quotation you selected. Nice way to move the goalposts. Slick.

In what way are the goalposts moved? You decided that the prisoners going on hunger strike "were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers." How does the word "all" change that? Do you think some of them weren't, all of a sudden?


Anyway, here's a cite to back up my hypothesis: http://cfrterrorism.org/responses/detainees_print.html


It doesn't really back it up, so much as repeat the same assertions.


Now, for the third (or is it fourth? I'm losing track) time, do you you know of any evidence that these prisoners are indeed innocent?

I honestly don't care how many times it is, because A) I've never claimed they were innocent, YOU claimed they were guilty and are now doing everything possible to avoid providing evidence for said claim, and B) doesn't the concept of having to prove someone's innocence rather than guilt trouble you in the slightest? The fact that you're so earnestly demanding evidence of innocence scares the bejeezus out of me.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I dunno.... Truman called the war in Korea a "police action" but we didn't send any police! :confused: Every "war" since then seems to still resemble previous war in every way; and yet they have not been formally declared. Apparently formally declared war is an obsolete idea.

That's the feeling I get, too. And it may be right -- certainly a "war on terrorism" is a worthy goal (even though many may disagree with our implementation), but it's so vague as to be practically meaningless in conventional terms.

I'd like a set procedure for our government to follow. I worry that the current path does not have enough accountability to the people. And yet, I don't really have any good ideas for how to change things, either.

In other words, this whole post is pretty useless. :)

Jeremy

[Darat]

This one is a complete puzzle to me. I just don’t know how people who believe in justice can not be appalled at what is happening at the camp.

I understand security concerns and I am not advocating the prisoners should be released (and on the whole because of the seriousness of the threat and the security issues I don’t have many problems with how or where they were detained), what I am arguing for is that they should be told the charges they are going to be tried for, enabled to defend themselves in the court and then be fairly judged. If they are all found guilty (whilst I admit I would find that hard to believe) then yes lock them all up for the determined sentence time. If any aren’t found guilty then they should be released.

I think to deprive them of this, especially by one of the nations that can be held up as an example of guaranteeing human rights is terrible.


(Edited for words.)

[Manny]

Originally posted by Darat
what I am arguing for is that they should be told the charges they are going to be tried for, enabled to defend themselves in the court and then be fairly judged. If they are all found guilty (whilst I admit I would find that hard to believe) then yes lock them all up for the determined sentence time. If any aren’t found guilty then they should be released. Then I repeat my question. How many WWII POWs were a) told the charges, b) enabled to defend themselves in the court, c) fairly judged or d) released while hostilities were ongoing?

Darat, no country releases battlefield prisoners unilaterally while hostilities are ongoing. Not a single one. Except for the United States in this war. We're the first. The fact is that these guys, denied POW status, are being treated better than any POWs in history. There's no dysentary at Guantanamo, no cholera, no lice. Not a single Guantanamo detainee has been killed by his captors. They're receiving better medical care than many Americans, including me. They're getting customized (not just religiously-compliant) meals, translators, lawyers, hearings. What more could you possibly reasonably want?

[Darat]

Originally posted by manny
Then I repeat my question. How many WWII POWs were a) told the charges, b) enabled to defend themselves in the court, c) fairly judged or d) released while hostilities were ongoing?


I just don't think this has any relevance to the current situation. If the USA states that these people are POWs then it would have relevance however so far the USA refuses to do that.



Originally posted by manny

Darat, no country releases battlefield prisoners unilaterally while hostilities are ongoing. Not a single one. Except for the United States in this war. We're the first. The fact is that these guys, denied POW status, are being treated better than any POWs in history. There's no dysentary at Guantanamo, no cholera, no lice. Not a single Guantanamo detainee has been killed by his captors. They're receiving better medical care than many Americans, including me. They're getting customized (not just religiously-compliant) meals, translators, lawyers, hearings. What more could you possibly reasonably want?

What I said.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by manny
The fact is that these guys, denied POW status, are being treated better than any POWs in history. There's no dysentary at Guantanamo, no cholera, no lice. Not a single Guantanamo detainee has been killed by his captors. They're receiving better medical care than many Americans, including me. They're getting customized (not just religiously-compliant) meals, translators, lawyers, hearings. What more could you possibly reasonably want? I'm hesitant to get involved in this, but do you mean that the documentary where they put volunteers through what was supposed to be happening to the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, but the "lite" version because it wouldn't have been legal to go the whole hog, and several of the volunteers coudn't take it and dropped out and one of them had to be pulled out by the supervising medic, was entirely fictitious?

The volunteers were some Muslims who wanted to see if it was really that bad, and a group of people who believed that there was nothing bad going on at all and everything going on was entirely ethical. This latter group started off very pro-America and pro the camp, but after the experience all had changed their views completely.

We were told that what was done to these volunteers was the least of what had been documented as going on in the camp, partly by lawyers trying to act for detainees, and partly by official US records. It was very unpleasant indeed, including things that weren't perhaps that bad on the face of it, but turned out to be extremely shameful to the Muslim volunteers - like being stripped naked in public.

This was all a lie?

Rolfe.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Darat
I just don't think this has any relevance to the current situation. If the USA states that these people are POWs then it would have relevance however so far the USA refuses to do that. Have you checked the Geneva Conventions lately? No, we're not going to give these guys access to scientific instruments (hah!) and we're not going to pay them. Some of them have valuable information and we're not going to surrender our right to interrogate them. They set up this situation, not us. Play for an actual government and wear an actual uniform and you get to be a POW, like almost all of the prisoners taken during the initial part of the liberation of Iraq (and like Saddam himself). Don't, and you don't. I have absolutely not even the teensiest qualm about that and I don't think it's relevent to whether a combatant should be released while hostilities are ongoing.

Rolfe, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[KelvinG]

Hmm, some things have been established in this thread:

1) While the prisoners aren't actually POW's, it's perfectly acceptable to compare them to POW's from previous wars when it suits the arguments. When it doesn't suit the argument, they are not POW's, but enemy combatants.

2) Indefinite confinement without charges being laid, or a trial promised is perfectly OK since Gitmo is such a darn nice place to stay. Kinda like the Hilton. These prisonsers should be happy to be there.

3) It's not the job of the government/military to prove these prisoners are guilty, rather it's the job of the prisoners to prove they are innocent. Of course, they don't actually get a trial to do that.

[Manny]

Originally posted by KelvinG
1) While the prisoners aren't actually POW's, it's perfectly acceptable to compare them to POW's from previous wars when it suits the arguments. When it doesn't suit the argument, they are not POW's, but enemy combatants.Partially correct. Both are combatants taken during wartime. POWs have certain rights that illegal combatants do not; but not the other way around.

2) Indefinite confinement without charges being laid, or a trial promised is perfectly OK since Gitmo is such a darn nice place to stay. Kinda like the Hilton. These prisonsers should be happy to be there.************* manny, this comment was rude and offensive. Please desist.. I said it was better than other camps. That's true.

3) It's not the job of the government/military to prove these prisoners are guilty, rather it's the job of the prisoners to prove they are innocent. Of course, they don't actually get a trial to do that. It has never, ever, in the entire history of war, before or after the Geneva Conventions, been the obligation of a warring party to demonstrate the guilt of enemy combatants. Never. Not even once. Like, when Athens fought Sparta? Not then. When are you going to get that through your lying head?

[Darat]

Originally posted by manny
Have you checked the Geneva Conventions lately? No, we're not going to give these guys access to scientific instruments (hah!) and we're not going to pay them.

Fine so you won't treat them as POWs. Therefore any comparisons with other POWs is on very shaky ground.

If they are not POWs, they are citizens of foreign countries who did not break any law in the USA. However I have also said I do not oppose their interment (in general terms) what I object to is the lack of (apparent) justice.

Originally posted by manny

Some of them have valuable information and we're not going to surrender our right to interrogate them.


You cannot know they have valuable information. You may only suspect it. I would also like to understand what information would still be valuable in securing the USA from threat after so much time has passed?

Originally posted by manny

They set up this situation, not us. Play for an actual government and wear an actual uniform and you get to be a POW, like almost all of the prisoners taken during the initial part of the liberation of Iraq (and like Saddam himself). Don't, and you don't. I have absolutely not even the teensiest qualm about that and I don't think it's relevent to whether a combatant should be released while hostilities are ongoing.

...snip...


This just assumes the guilt of everyone in the camp.

What I wish to see is the USA demonstrating that the USA (e.g. "western world") methods of dealing with people are the best because they are inherently just and that they (even if the prisoners don’t) respect the basic rights of human beings.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Darat
Fine so you won't treat them as POWs. Therefore any comparisons with other POWs is on very shaky ground.

If they are not POWs, they are citizens of foreign countries who did not break any law in the USA. However I have also said I do not oppose their interment (in general terms) what I object to is the lack of (apparent) justice.The comparison is not on shaky ground at all; both legitimate POWs and illegal combatants are persons taken on battlefields at time of war. POWs, because they observe the laws of war, have certain rights. Illegal combatants did not observe the laws of war. By what logic should they have more rights? They have fewer. Specifically, we can interrogate them, their families can't send them bombmaking materials, we're not paying them. But that doesn't create a right to be released while hostilities are ongoing.

What I honestly don't get mostly is that you say you don't oppose their internment in general, but you seem to have some objection to their internment in specific. Check rickzilla's post on the prior page again -- they are all getting tribunals, an example of them actually having more rights than POWs. What justice are they lacking that battlefield prisoners have lacked literally since warfare was invented?


You cannot know they have valuable information. You may only suspect it. I would also like to understand what information would still be valuable in securing the USA from threat after so much time has passed?It's true that the value of any information they have diminishes with time; that's why the pace of releases (or attempted releases -- some of these guys are cleared to leave but are afraid to return to their home countries) has also increased with time. But everybody should understand that that's something extra the US is doing that it doesn't have to do and which no country has ever, ever done.

[Manny]

************* manny, this comment was rude and offensive. Please desist.

I'll retract the [rule 8] part. Sorry about that. However, you also removed that I called him a liar. He did lie about my statement and that part stands.

[Darat]

Originally posted by manny
The comparison is not on shaky ground at all; both legitimate POWs and illegal combatants are persons taken on battlefields at time of war. POWs, because they observe the laws of war, have certain rights. Illegal combatants did not observe the laws of war. By what logic should they have more rights? They have fewer. Specifically, we can interrogate them, their families can't send them bombmaking materials, we're not paying them. But that doesn't create a right to be released while hostilities are ongoing.


If POWs and illegal combatants are different the the comparison you keep making between them is shaky. You would need to find comparisons between other illegal combatants held in a prison.

Also again you assume that they are all illegal combatants and all "guilty" of something. Don’t you see that this is just an assumption and the basic injustice of your assumption?

Originally posted by manny


What I honestly don't get mostly is that you say you don't oppose their internment in general, but you seem to have some objection to their internment in specific. Check rickzilla's post on the prior page again -- they are all getting tribunals, an example of them actually having more rights than POWs. What justice are they lacking that battlefield prisoners have lacked literally since warfare was invented?
...snip...



It has taken too long and it is still not being "seen to be done". How many are found guilty and innocent - any access to the records of the trials and so on?

[Manny]

Originally posted by Darat
If POWs and illegal combatants are different the the comparison you keep making between them is shaky. You would need to find comparisons between other illegal combatants held in a prison.Now you're talking! Last time we came across illegal combatants they were captured in late June and executed in August after a military tribunal. Frankly, that''s what should have been done with these guys.

Also again you assume that they are all illegal combatants and all "guilty" of something. Don’t you see that this is just an assumption and the basic injustice of your assumption?No, that's the way war works. Warring parties are entitled to pick up guys you think are trying to kill you and entitled to hold them until hostilities have ceased. There has never, ever been an obligation for the warring party to establish that the guy actually was trying to kill you. Civilian internees were commonly kept during the latter half of WWII when the allies were occupying former Axis towns.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by manny
Rolfe, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry, I didn't give enough detail about what I was referring to. I've looked it up and found this corner of the C4 web site (http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/T/torture/) devoted to the short series of programmes they made about this. The one I was particularly referring to was the reconstruction of conditions at the camp using volunteer prisoners. Unfortunately I don't think there's a great deal of detail available on line.The Guantanamo Guidebook reconstructs the regime at the US's Cuban base. For 48 hours, seven volunteers are subjected to interrogation techniques known to be used in the camp, ranging from harassment and abuse to sensory deprivation – with shocking results.Rolfe.

[Skeptic]

So the detainees at Gitmo are prisoners of war, then?

Nope. The point is that if it is legitimate to detail people fighting against you who do meet the minimal criterion to be considered prisoners of war (like the Germans POW--i.e., wear uniforms, carry weapons openly, and so on), then it is a fortifori also justified to detain people fighting against you who do not meet the minimal crietrion to be considered prisoners of war in such a way. In fact, since they don't meet the minimum POW criterions, POW-like treatment is a matter of grace on the US's part.

Also, WWII was a delcared war with a clear end

So? It was still unlimited detention without trial. Nobody knew in advance if and when the war was going to end.

[Darat]

Originally posted by manny
Now you're talking! Last time we came across illegal combatants they were captured in late June and executed in August after a military tribunal. Frankly, that''s what should have been done with these guys.


Which prison camp was this? How was the illegal status of those combatants established?

Originally posted by manny

No, that's the way war works. Warring parties are entitled to pick up guys you think are trying to kill you and entitled to hold them until hostilities have ceased. There has never, ever been an obligation for the warring party to establish that the guy actually was trying to kill you. Civilian internees were commonly kept during the latter half of WWII when the allies were occupying former Axis towns.

You just confused me again! :) You switch from war, to POWs to illegal combatants, to civilian internees without establishing why they are valid comparisons.

Also even if they were all the same or similar enough for close comparisons to be made it would be an irrelevance to my point. The British army invented concentration camps, but that does not mean I would ever for any reason support their use. I can always look into the past and see times when we did things that today we wouldn’t consider right, what I am concerned with is what is right today, not was right 60 years ago.

And in my opinion this camp is wrong today.

It is a prison full of people that apparently aren’t POWs and haven’t been proven guilty of anything (perhaps just yet) and are denied access to a system that we claim we stand for and in fact proudly claim that we will fight to preserve! I believe the old adage is right, it is in dire times that we truly see what we stand for and what we believe in and I really hope that what the camp is, is not what the vast majority of people believe in.

(Edited for words.)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Darat
Which prison camp was this? How was the illegal status of those combatants established?
Perhaps he was talking of captured German saboteurs: (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm)
On 13 June 1942, 4 agents were landed from U-584 on Amagansett, Long Island, New York; and on 17 June 1942, 4 agents from U-202 were landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, south of Jacksonville, Florida. A subsequent military trial of the 8 captured agents resulted in 6 death sentences, one life imprisonment and one 30-year sentence. On the recommendation of the Justice Department, President Truman granted executive clemency on condition of deportation to the two surviving agents who were deported to the American Zone of Germany in 1948
Compare their treatment to captured uniformed German soldiers, who were given POW status.

On a side note, some German POW's in the US were even given jobs, such as truck drivers, because there were no available US men to take them. The newspapers here used to run stories every time the ex-POW's would have a reunion here in Chicago. They weren't even guarded when they made their trucking runs, and none even attempted to escape. And why would they? Even if successful (and getting back to Germany from Chicago would have been highly unlikely) their "reward" would be having to go back to the front lines. Haven't seen these newspaper stories lately, most of them have probably died off by now.

[hammegk]

RE; Thread Title

Has anyone mentioned, The more, The merrier?