Guantanamo Bay inmates 'tortured', says UN

[Melendwyr]

BBC News Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4710966.stm)

Damn UN. Why do they hate our freedom?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They are freedom hating bigots! :p

[Luke T.]

Feeding a hunger striker through nasal tubes is torture?

[zenith-nadir]

Feeding a hunger striker through nasal tubes is torture?Yes. To the useful idiots force-feeding an unlawful combatant prisoner who is trying to starve himself to death is torture. :rolleyes:

[BPSCG]

Yes. To the useful idiots force-feeding an unlawful combatant prisoner who is trying to starve himself to death is torture. :rolleyes:Probably feeding the poor dear Jimmy Dean's pork sausages (http://jimmydean.com/products.asp?p=1)...

[zakur]

Harmless frat pranks, nothing more.

[Beerina]

Harmless fat franks, nothing more.

[FreeChile]

I have a simple question. Why Guantanamo? Why not detain these individuals in another facility in the mainland? Could it be this?

Meanwhile, the US government has served legal papers to seven members of a US Christian group that held a vigil outside the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The group, Witness Against Torture, held a five-day march to the prison in December. Around 500 prisoners are being held at Guantanamo, most without charge. The seven members each face up to 10 years in prison or a $250,000 dollar fine.

Democracy Now

[Jocko]

I have a simple question. Why Guantanamo? Why not detain these individuals in another facility in the mainland? Could it be this?

Yes, because the US military is terrified of protestors. Actually, that's why Havana is in Cuba, too. No protestors there, either.

[FreeChile]

Yes, because the US military is terrified of protestors.What do you mean by this sarcasm? have I said that?

Actually, that's why Havana is in Cuba, too. No protestors there, either.You chose to reply and yet did not answer the simple question. Why Guantanamo?

[Jocko]

What do you mean by this sarcasm? have I said that?

Well, considering your point was built on papers against a vigil (i.e., protest), I rather seem to think you did at least imply that.

If you meant something different, may I recommend that you not post in rhetorical questions?

[Cylinder]

Why Guantanamo?

To quote the Nuremburg Military Tribunal:

The time has long passed when ‘no quarter’ was the rule on the battlefield...

[Bjorn]

I have a simple question. Why Guantanamo? Why not detain these individuals in another facility in the mainland? Could it be this?From Wikipedia:

The particular legal status of Guantánamo Bay was a factor in the choice of Guantánamo as a detention center. Because sovereignty of Guantánamo Bay ultimately resides with Cuba, the U.S. government argued unsuccessfully that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.(see Cuban American Bar Ass'n, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1995 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995))). In 2004, the Supreme Court rejected this argument in the case Rasul v. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush) brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Constitutional_Rights), with the majority decision and ruled that prisoners in Guantánamo have access to American courts to challenge the legality of their detention, citing the fact that the U.S. has exclusive control over Guantánamo Bay.

[FreeChile]

Well, considering your point was built on papers against a vigil (i.e., protest), I rather seem to think you did at least imply that.

If you meant something different, may I recommend that you not post in rhetorical questions?These are not rhetorical questions. If you don't know the answer, you could simply say so.

Are these prisoners in Guantanamo simply because the government feels the need to place them outside certain jurisdictions? What policy decisions have mandated for these prisons to be in Guantanamo? I am asking if there are any logical reasons for it. Am I the first person asking these questions?

[Jocko]

These are not rhetorical questions. If you don't know the answer, you could simply say so.

Are these prisoners in Guantanamo simply because the government feels the need to place them outside certain jurisdictions? What policy decisions have mandated for these prisons to be in Guantanamo? I am asking if there are any logical reasons for it. Am I the first person asking these questions?

Ah, now that makes a lot more sense. You should open with this kind of directness.

In answer, no, I don't think that's the case. It's more likely that the military wants to keep prisoners away from the US mainland, for obvious reasons.

Do you think that's a plausible reason?

[Bjorn]

Ah, now that makes a lot more sense. You should open with this kind of directness.

In answer, no, I don't think that's the case. It's more likely that the military wants to keep prisoners away from the US mainland, for obvious reasons.

Do you think that's a plausible reason?Let's not forget that the US government argued (but lost in the end) all the way to the US surpreme court that US courts had no jurisdiction in Guantanamo.

[Jocko]

Let's not forget that the US government argued (but lost in the end) all the way to the US surpreme court that US courts had no jurisdiction in Guantanamo.

Yet they continue to use it. Go figure.

[FreeChile]

Jocko, what are these "obvious reasons"? They are not that obvious to me. Bjorn implies a more plausible explanation.

[Mycroft]

On the flip side, this report would also describe the absolute worst that goes on in Gitmo.

1) Forced feeding through nasal tubes.

2) Simultaneous use of several interrogation techniques such as prolonged solitary confinement and exposure to extreme temperatures, noise and light.

[Jocko]

Jocko, what are these "obvious reasons"? They are not that obvious to me. Bjorn implies a more plausible explanation.

The obvious reason is that keeping them away from the people they may be interested in killing is smart approach.

What say you to the fact that in spite of the failure to change jurisdiction that the military still uses Gitmo? Since your apparent favorite reason has been removed from the debate, I mean.

[FreeChile]

Let's not forget that the US government argued (but lost in the end) all the way to the US surpreme court that US courts had no jurisdiction in Guantanamo.Bjorn, is there a thread following that court case on this site or elsewhere?

[Cylinder]

Rasul v. Bush (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-334.ZO.html)

[Luke T.]

Harmless frat pranks, nothing more.

Hunger strikes? Yeah.

[FreeChile]

The obvious reason is that keeping them away from the people they may be interested in killing is smart approach.You're contradicting yourself Jocko. First you tell me that the military is not afraid of protesters, and now you tell me they are afraid. Who are they afraid of in this case, "the people" above or the detainees?

What say you to the fact that in spite of the failure to change jurisdiction that the military still uses Gitmo?What do you think this shows? I don't see how this disproves anything. Also, I said it was more plausible and I am still searching for that logical reason.

Since your apparent favorite reason has been removed from the debate, I mean.You need to be clear here. I don't know what you mean. What is my "apparent favorite reason", the jurisdiction explanation, or the fear of demonstrators explanation you assumed before.

[Jocko]

You're contradicting yourself Jocko. First you tell me that the military is not afraid of protesters, and now you tell me they are afraid. Who are they afraid of in this case, "the people" above or the detainees?

Huh? I think you misunderstand. I said it makes sense to keep those who would kill Americans away from Americans. Whos says anyone's afraid of anything?

What do you think this shows? I don't see how this disproves anything. Also, I said it was more plausible and I am still searching for that logical reason.

It's very simple.

1. Your premise is that the US used Gitmo to avoide jurisdiction issues.
2. The jurisdiction issue was decided AGAINST the US.
3. They continue to use Gitmo, even though they couldn't avoid the jurisdiction issue.
4. Therefore, there must be a different reason, even if it's an additional reason - for the simple fact that your reason no longer applies. QED.


You need to be clear here. I don't know what you mean. What is my "apparent favorite reason", the jurisdiction explanation, or the fear of demonstrators explanation you assumed before.

Your tone seem presumptive of jurisdiction being the only possible reason for using Gitmo. If that's not your "favorite" reason for your opinion on Gitmo, then what is?

[Mark]

Harmless frat pranks, nothing more.

Imprisoning someone indefinitely with no charges brought is a "harmless frat prank?"

Wow.

[zakur]

Imprisoning someone indefinitely with no charges brought is a "harmless frat prank?"

Wow.I was being facetious ("harmless frat pranks" being the excuse used by some on the Right in response to Abu Ghraib torture reports).

[FreeChile]

Rasul v. Bush (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-334.ZO.html)Here are some of the arguments presented by the dessent in this case.

This is an irresponsible overturning of settled law in a matter of extreme importance to our forces currently in the field. I would leave it to Congress to change §2241, and dissent from the Court’s unprecedented holding.

...

Departure from our rule of stare decisis in statutory cases is always extraordinary; it ought to be unthinkable when the departure has a potentially harmful effect upon the Nation’s conduct of a war. The Commander in Chief and his subordinates had every reason to expect that the internment of combatants at Guantanamo Bay would not have the consequence of bringing the cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs.

....

To grant the writ to these prisoners might mean that our army must transport them across the seas for hearing. This would require allocation for shipping space, guarding personnel, billeting and rations. It might also require transportation for whatever witnesses the prisoners desired to call as well as transportation for those necessary to defend legality of the sentence. The writ, since it is held to be a matter of right, would be equally available to enemies during active hostilities as in the present twilight between war and peace. Such trials would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy.

...

It would be difficult to devise more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home. Nor is it unlikely that the result of such enemy litigiousness would be conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to enemies of the United States.”

...

Departure from our rule of stare decisis in statutory cases is always extraordinary; it ought to be unthinkable when the departure has a potentially harmful effect upon the Nation’s conduct of a war. The Commander in Chief and his subordinates had every reason to expect that the internment of combatants at Guantanamo Bay would not have the consequence of bringing the cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs. Congress is in session. If it wished to change federal judges’ habeas jurisdiction from what this Court had previously held that to be, it could have done so. And it could have done so by intelligent revision of the statute,7 instead of by today’s clumsy, countertextual reinterpretation that confers upon wartime prisoners greater habeas rights than domestic detainees. The latter must challenge their present physical confinement in the district of their confinement, see Rumsfeld v. Padilla, ante, whereas under today’s strange holding Guantanamo Bay detainees can petition in any of the 94 federal judicial districts. The fact that extraterritorially located detainees lack the district of detention that the statute requires has been converted from a factor that precludes their ability to bring a petition at all into a factor that frees them to petition wherever they wish–and, as a result, to forum shop. For this Court to create such a monstrous scheme in time of war, and in frustration of our military commanders’ reliance upon clearly stated prior law, is judicial adventurism of the worst sort. I dissent.

[FreeChile]

It's very simple.

1. Your premise is that the US used Gitmo to avoide jurisdiction issues.
2. The jurisdiction issue was decided AGAINST the US.
3. They continue to use Gitmo, even though they couldn't avoid the jurisdiction issue.
4. Therefore, there must be a different reason, even if it's an additional reason - for the simple fact that your reason no longer applies. QED.

Your tone seem presumptive of jurisdiction being the only possible reason for using Gitmo. If that's not your "favorite" reason for your opinion on Gitmo, then what is?
How many times are you going to say that it is simple and obvious?

1. We are contemplating that possibility in leu of arguments presented by the dissent.
2. Rasul v. Bush proves that it was indeed decided against the President. How does this connect to 3?
3. The ruling was not to get out of Gitmo. Also, there is another case related to this (presided by Roberts: the conflict of interest case), which gives some jurisdiction to the military. So the President can still get around the ruling. He simply found another way to skin the cat. In addition to this, it is still less convenient to try cases from Guantanamo than from the mainland.

Is it still very simple, Jacko?

Your tone seem presumptive of jurisdiction being the only possible reason for using Gitmo. If that's not your "favorite" reason for your opinion on Gitmo, then what is?
That's what the case leads me to conclude. Of course, the question of jurisdiction is ultimately about power and control.

[Jocko]

How many times are you going to say that it is simple and obvious?

As many times as it takes for you to see that your conclusion is not borne out by your evidence. Your position is that Gitmo is used to dodge jurisdiction. That has been discounted because the case is closed - there IS no jurisdictional issue. The court has ruled. It's over.

Yet it continues to be the detention center of choice. The obvious conclusion is that it is such because of another reason, since the reason you posit has been proven moot.

1. We are contemplating that possibility in leu of arguments presented by the dissent.
2. Rasul v. Bush proves that it was indeed decided against the President. How does this connect to 3?
3. The ruling was not to get out of Gitmo. Also, there is another case related to this (presided by Roberts: the conflict of interest case), which gives some jurisdiction to the military. So the President can still get around the ruling. He simply found another way to skin the cat. In addition to this, it is still less convenient to try cases from Guantanamo than from the mainland.

Is it still very simple, Jacko?

What are you on about? The ruling was made, it stands. You can contemplate anything you like, but the fact remains that Bush lost the ruling. I never said anything about "getting out" of Gitmo, nor what the trial process for its detainees should be. Those are separate issues.

Tell me, if the idea of Gitmo is to work around jurisdiction, why are the ancillary issues - appeals, getting out, etc. - under review by US courts? Not a very effective jurisdictional dodge, if that's what you still think it is.

That's what the case leads me to conclude. Of course, the question of jurisdiction is ultimately about power and control.

Now you're just moving the goalposts. Either it's subject to court review or it isn't.

[FreeChile]

Yes, because the US military is terrified of protestors.
Huh? I think you misunderstand. I said it makes sense to keep those who would kill Americans away from Americans. Whos says anyone's afraid of anything?
As you can see, Jocko, you used the word “terrified” first. So I am somewhat trying to follow your convention.

In the second quote you present another risk (not to say terrifying factor). So I asked what you meant and you still have not been clear. So I will make it simple for you. Are you talking about?

1. Demonstrations at military sites at home having no effect on the detainee population? I think you said no to this already.
2. Escapes from detention leading to immediate loss of American life? I don’t know if this is what you meant.
3. 2 above as a result of 1 -- meaning demonstrations that could incite riots inside the prisons that may lead to escapes and terrorist attacks.
4. Riots, invasions or escapes independent of demonstrations at facilities that may lead to terrorist attacks.

Please clarify. I think you have already said that 1 and 3 are out. Is this correct? But I'll let you speak for yourself first.

[Jocko]

You've really got to focus your thinking a bit more. Let's take this one bit at a time.

As you can see, Jocko, you used the word “terrified” first. So I am somewhat trying to follow your convention.

That was sarcasm. I should have used a smilie to denote it, but I thought the Havana comment painted an adequately complete picture. Apparently I was wrong.

In the second quote you present another risk (not to say terrifying factor). So I asked what you meant and you still have not been clear. So I will make it simple for you. Are you talking about?

1. Demonstrations at military sites at home having no effect on the detainee population? I think you said no to this already.

No, my sarcasm was directed at the quote you posted that compained about legal action against a vigil. Hence, poking fun at the idea of protestors defining military priorities - an absurd idea.

2. Escapes from detention leading to immediate loss of American life? I don’t know if this is what you meant.

I've said that, clearly and emphatically, twice now. Yes, I find that to be a plausible reason. You have chosen not to contest that.

3. 2 above as a result of 1 -- meaning demonstrations that could incite riots inside the prisons that may lead to escapes and terrorist attacks.

No. This is just you conflating the issues.

4. Riots, invasions or escapes independent of demonstrations at facilities that may lead to terrorist attacks.

Same as #3. You are conflating a sarcastic response with a serious one.

Please clarify. I think you have already said that 1, 2 and 3 are out. Is this correct? But I'll let you speak for yourself first.

Done and done.

[Mark]

I was being facetious ("harmless frat pranks" being the excuse used by some on the Right in response to Abu Ghraib torture reports).

My bad for misunderstanding your comment.

I stand by my response, though, for all those who really do hold that silly "frat prank" view.

[Bjorn]

4. Therefore, there must be a different reason, even if it's an additional reason - for the simple fact that your reason no longer applies. QED.It's obviously an additional reason since the government argued all the way to the surpreme court how important it was that US courts had "no jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay".

[FreeChile]

Originally Posted by Jocko,
As many times as it takes for you to see that your conclusion is not borne out by your evidence. Your position is that Gitmo is used to dodge jurisdiction. That has been discounted because the case is closed - there IS no jurisdictional issue. The court has ruled. It's over.
Your logic there is clearly flawed—Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is part of your problem. Please let me know if you need an illustration.

Yet it continues to be the detention center of choice. The obvious conclusion is that it is such because of another reason, since the reason you posit has been proven moot.
This is still Ad Hominem Tu Quoque even though you seem to be trying to fortify your argument with this “detention center of choice” business. It also implies that detainees should now be in another detention center of choice to be able to maintain my argument. This is why I said “The ruling was not to get out of Gitmo.”
What are you on about? The ruling was made, it stands. You can contemplate anything you like, but the fact remains that Bush lost the ruling. I never said anything about "getting out" of Gitmo, …
Here’s the foundation of your argument: “3. They continue to use Gitmo, even though they couldn't avoid the jurisdiction issue.” Following the same counter-argument I presented above, this implies that for my argument to hold, they would have to get out of Gitmo.
… nor what the trial process for its detainees should be. Those are separate issues.
Part of your argument says that “they couldn't avoid the jurisdiction issue.” This is false, unless you have something else in mind. Hamdan V. Rumsfeld shows that the military has secured some jurisdiction in the form of tribunals.
Tell me, if the idea of Gitmo is to work around jurisdiction, why are the ancillary issues - appeals, getting out, etc. - under review by US courts? Not a very effective jurisdictional dodge, if that's what you still think it is.
You are again making the same flaws. Your objection implies that the military would need to consciously break the law for my arguments to hold.
Now you're just moving the goalposts. Either it's subject to court review or it isn't.
I have no idea what you mean by this.

[Jocko]

FreeChile, you can randomly recombine fallacies till the cows come home but it doesn't change the fact that the military continues to use Gitmo for detentions in spite of the fact that they cannot, have not, will not realize jurisdictional advantage, as you continue to assert without evidence is their objective. When called on it, you conveniently move the goalposts. In your own words:

I said it was more plausible and I am still searching for that logical reason.

Yes, it's clear that you're still searching. However, it's considered good form to arrive at your conclusion after getting your reasons in order, not before. You can call that ad hominem if you like , but a fallacy's a fallacy even if it hurts your feelings to hear it.

If you have anything new to offer, please feel free. If you're going to continue hiding behind backward (yet oddly circular) reasoning, then find someone else's time to waste.

[Jocko]

It's obviously an additional reason since the government argued all the way to the surpreme court how important it was that US courts had "no jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay".

Sorry, didn't I include "additional" in my comments? Oh, wait... I did. So what exactly are you arguing against, apart from my refusal to get hysterical about hypotheticals?

[Bjorn]

Sorry, didn't I include "additional" in my comments? Oh, wait... I did. So what exactly are you arguing against, apart from my refusal to get hysterical about hypotheticals?You wrote:

4. Therefore, there must be a different reason, even if it's an additional reason - for the simple fact that your reason no longer applies.

No big disagreement, except that there is, as far as I can see, no if.

[FreeChile]

Originally posted by Jocko:

FreeChile, you can randomly recombine fallacies till the cows come home but it doesn't change the fact that the military continues to use Gitmo for detentions in spite of the fact that they cannot, have not, will not realize jurisdictional advantage, as you continue to assert without evidence is their objective.What part of the word “plausible” don’t you understand? You yourself have quoted that sentence in your last post: “I said it was more plausible and I am still searching for that logical reason.” At some point in the thread you have felt the need to make it my argument. Even though my initial question went contrary to that. In fact, the jurisdiction possibility was initially presented by Bjorn in the form of a quote. You took the bate and tried to disprove it. You’ve failed in that effort miserably and I’ve called that to your attention.

When called on it, you conveniently move the goalposts.

Now you're just moving the goalposts. Either it's subject to court review or it isn't.I asked you before what you meant by those two sentences and you haven’t clarified it. I don’t even know what “it” is in this sentence.

Yes, it's clear that you're still searching. However, it's considered good form to arrive at your conclusion after getting your reasons in order, not before. You can call that ad hominem if you like, but a fallacy's a fallacy even if it hurts your feelings to hear it. The problem is that you want me to accept ONLY your “obvious reasons.”

The obvious reason is that keeping them away from the people they may be interested in killing is smart approach.
Have you gotten your reasons in order? Where is your evidence for this? I started with a question. Three disjoint possibilities have been presented in this thread in order: avoiding demonstrations, jurisdiction issues, and your obvious reason. Two facts have been presented here: the President has contested jurisdiction, and demonstrators have been legally charged. Who knows, maybe all three are actual reasons. Why is it so difficult for you to think it possible that the President or the military knew they could contest jurisdiction if the legality of detentions came up? Aren’t these people trained and tasked to assess and mitigate risks? I would think the legal ramifications of their actions would be among the first items on their priority list. Also, it’s not as if his views on who has the power is any secret. This is directly from the dissent in the case.

The Commander in Chief and his subordinates had every reason to expect that the internment of combatants at Guantanamo Bay would not have the consequence of bringing the cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs.

THE FOLLOWING IS A DRAMATIZATION by FreeChile.

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, we smoked a lot of them out like we said we would … we have a good number of detainees and …

BUSH, CHENEY: Hey, hey, wait a minute. Do we have any charges against them?

RUMSFELD: I don’t think we need charges Mr. President. They’re enemy combatants and I don’t think it’s a good idea to let them go.

BUSH, CHENEY: When do you think we should let them go?

RUMSFELD: I don’t know Mr. President. Maybe when the mission is complete.

BUSH, CHENEY: Come over and let’s have a talk with Myers to see if this whole thing is legal to begin with.

BUSH, CHENEY: Hey Harriet, this whole thing about these prisoners, is it legal?

MYERS: <talks legalese>

BUSH, CHENEY: <scratch heads> Look it sounds like we could get chewed on this. Can we invoke the Presidential Powers or the Patriot Act or something here? I mean, I’m the Commander in Chief and this is a war, ain’t it?

MYERS: I’m afraid not Mr. President. But if you held these people overseas …

If you have anything new to offer, please feel free. If you're going to continue hiding behind backward (yet oddly circular) reasoning, then find someone else's time to waste.
Can’t hope I haven’t wasted your time since you’ve already gotten this far.

[Dr Adequate]

(2) Simultaneous use of several interrogation techniques such as prolonged solitary confinement and exposure to extreme temperatures, noise and light. Torture Lite: it caught millions of traitors for Stalin, it caught thousands of witches for the Church ... and today, you too can abandon humanity and decency to extract the confession of your choice.

[Melendwyr]

Hey, if Mycroft wants to believe that the use of such techniques against medieval Spanish Jews to force them to change their religions is justified, that's his business and his business only.

[Mycroft]

Hey, if Mycroft wants to believe that the use of such techniques against medieval Spanish Jews to force them to change their religions is justified, that's his business and his business only.

Well, that's a good reason to keep you on ignore.