Lawyer Says Guantanamo Detainees Tortured

[Pinto]

link (http://truthout.org/docs_03/100903C.shtml)

Lawyer Says Guantanamo Detainees Tortured
By The Associated Press
New York Times

Wednesday 08 October 2003

The U.S. military has tortured terrorist suspects held without charge at the Guantanamo Bay military prison, an Australian lawyer representing some of the suspects claimed Wednesday.

U.S.-based Richard Bourke, who has been working for almost two years on behalf of dozens of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, said American military officials were using old-fashioned torture techniques to force confessions out of prisoners.

The methods "clearly" fell under the definition of torture under international conventions, he told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio in an interview from the United States.

"They are engaging in good old-fashioned torture, as people would have understood it in the Dark Ages," he said.

About 660 prisoners captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere are being held at Guantanamo without charges or access to lawyers -- some since January 2002. The U.S. government rarely comments on activities at the prison which has been dubbed Camp X-ray because of the strict security.

Earlier this year, U.S. officials denied using torture and said detainees are interrogated humanely, allowed to practice their religion and given good medical care.

Families are denied access and can only communicate with detainees through heavily censored mail. Human rights groups and the media have been given only limited and strictly controlled access.

Bourke told ABC radio that his claims are based on reports leaked by U.S. military personnel and from descriptions by some detainees that have been released.

"One of the detainees had described being taken out and tied to a post and having rubber bullets fired at them. They were being made to kneel cruciform in the sun until they collapsed," he said.

Media reports that many detainees have attempted suicide and are suffering mental health problems backed up claims of harsh treatment, he said.

Bourke said governments around the world must stand up to the U.S. government and demand that the United Nations investigate the reports of torture.

Almost all the detainees, from more than 40 countries, are said to be members of al-Qaida terrorist network or the ousted Afghan Taliban regime. They are to be tried by secret military tribunals. The U.S. government says they could be held until it declares an end to its "war on terrorism."

No Judge, Jury or trial. Lets here it for the USA. The beacon for freedom and democracy.

(please note the heavy sarcasm in my voice)

[Desertrat]

""One of the detainees had described being taken out and tied to a post and having rubber bullets fired at them. They were being made to kneel cruciform in the sun until they collapsed," he said."

Yeah, and an ambassador from Mars landed on the lawn of the White House.

Before this doofus was a lawyer, he wrote for the "Star".

'Rat

[mactastic]

Sounds like that "liberal media" is acting up again!:D

How dare they accuse the Bush administration of impropriety? That is the province of liberals for pete's sake.

[patrick0brien]

-Pinto

I won't rule out that torture could have happened there in some small form, but I find it interesting that this lawyer is the one who reported it, and not the Red Cross or U.N. observers.

This makes this story suspect to me.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

Before this doofus was a lawyer, he wrote for the "Star".


where'd you find that?

[mactastic]

I'm skeptical too. But I don't see how anyone can say one way or the other what happens in there. It's locked up pretty tight. The government gets the benefit of the doubt, but must be held accountable for any abuse.

[Pinto]

Thanks to the veil of secrecy surrounding the base, there is no way of proving is disproving these statements.

If the Army has nothing to hide, why are they hiding?

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by Pinto
Thanks to the veil of secrecy surrounding the base, there is no way of proving is disproving these statements.

If the Army has nothing to hide, why are they hiding?

-Pinto

Well, about that, it's an Army base, and one located in "hostile territory".

Which makes it an ideal reason to locate persons like these there.

[skunk]

Originally posted by mactastic
I'm skeptical too. But I don't see how anyone can say one way or the other what happens in there. It's locked up pretty tight. The government gets the benefit of the doubt, but must be held accountable for any abuse.
Why on earth should this government get the benefit of the doubt? This whole detention without trial thing is an affront to the standards your government and the American people theoretically espouse. The US Army is trampling on the human rights of all the detainees in the manner of a "tinpot dictatorship". Stop defending the indefensible. No evidence has been offered to establish the guilt of any of those held, no charges have been brought, a highly questionable definition has been applied which is meaningless in law in order to justify this total travesty of due process.

[Desertrat]

zim, such BS requires a vivid imagination. Sometimes such garbage elicits a wee tad of sarcasm from me. :D

skunk, the great majority of these Gitmo jailbirds were caught with guns, shooting at our guys. What more evidence is needed? They're lucky they weren't DRT, instead of taken prisoner.

'Rat

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Desertrat
skunk, the great majority of these Gitmo jailbirds were caught with guns, shooting at our guys. What more evidence is needed? They're lucky they weren't DRT, instead of taken prisoner.

'Rat

DRT?

If you mean dead, then I would say that most of them would have preferred death to what has happened to them since.

Lucky they're in "Gitmo"? With such luck they should all go out and buy lottery tickets, eh.

Jailbirds or Prisoners of War?

[skunk]

Originally posted by Desertrat
skunk, the great majority of these Gitmo jailbirds were caught with guns, shooting at our guys. What more evidence is needed? They're lucky they weren't DRT, instead of taken prisoner.

'Rat
You know that, do you? Where's the evidence? Certainly none has been offered. Have you seen any testimony? And "your guys" were "enemy combatants" in a foreign country. What's wrong with shooting at them anyway? You cannot seriously defend this process.

[zimv20]

the guardian has this account (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1055628,00.html) of an iraqi-born UK citizen who was interrogated and threatened w/ torture.

[Sayhey]

I have no idea about the validity of this guys claims, but I do have serious questions about the legal status of these men. Take a look at what the Red Cross says on the subject:

A senior Red Cross official has launched a rare attack on the US detention of al-Qaeda and Taleban suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

Christophe Girod told the New York Times it was unacceptable that the 600 detainees should be held for open-ended terms without proper legal process.

His criticism came as a group of American former judges, diplomats and military officers called on the US Supreme Court to examine the legality of holding the foreign nationals for almost two years, without trial, charge or access to lawyers.

Mr Girod said the International Committee of the Red Cross was making the unusually blunt public statement because of a lack of action after previous private contacts with American officials.

"One cannot keep these detainees in this pattern, this situation, indefinitely," he said during a visit to the US naval base where the Taleban and al-Qaeda suspects are being held.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179858.stm)

[Desertrat]

skunk, reporters from all over the world were in Afghanistan. From their reports, Limey as well as Continental and/or US, I believe the reports that the great majority of these characters were taken prisoner by our forces, mostly after firefights.

DRT = Dead Right There.

According to articles in Time Magazine, etc, the prisoners were deloused and given medical treatment as needed for their various pre-existing problems. They were housed more comfortably at first, from what I've read, until they started the efforts to escape and/or assault the guards.

The guards have apparently been pretty much self-controlled as to their own behavior; Westerners, particularly younger men, do not take kindly to being spat upon.

The prisoners are allowed to follow their religion. Their diet is as appropriate to their culture, insofar as is feasible.

I compare the treatment to what my cousins got in Santo Tomas; some friends had in Nazi Stalags, and some friends/acquaintances in the Hanoi Hilton.

All this "evil, bad-nasty U.S." nattering is worth listening to about like heeding the advice of kindergardners...

Don't spit into the wind; don't step on Superman's cape, and don't get the US public POed by such things as 9/11. The Taliban found this out, the hard way.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by skunk
Why on earth should this government get the benefit of the doubt? This whole detention without trial thing is an affront to the standards your government and the American people theoretically espouse. The US Army is trampling on the human rights of all the detainees in the manner of a "tinpot dictatorship". Stop defending the indefensible. No evidence has been offered to establish the guilt of any of those held, no charges have been brought, a highly questionable definition has been applied which is meaningless in law in order to justify this total travesty of due process.

Hey, back off a little. I'm on your side here, but I'm not ready to accuse the US government of torture without proof. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm not saying it did. I'm saying we don't know the details yet. I am concerned, because unlike 'Rat, I have little faith that our young men are able to restrain themselves from roughing up the prisoners, espescially after being spit upon. I think frustration may manifest itself as violence upon a helpless target when the prisoners hate you and your superiors want results. The possibility is definetly there for abuse, but whether there is a systematic program of physical torture to extract information, I can't say. If torture is condoned by high-ranking officials in secret, heads should roll.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

The Taliban found this out, the hard way.


as a citizen, how can i be sure that the personnel held in cuba are members of the taliban?

[Desertrat]

"If torture is condoned by high-ranking officials in secret, heads should roll."

I danged sure agree with that. I just don't believe it's happening.

zim: There was beaucoup TV coverage of the transfer of prisoners from Afghanistan to Gitmo. And, many reports and photos in such as Time magazine. I understand that others who have been arrested by the military or given to our military by other governments as alleged Talibaners have been taken there after the first influx. Beyond that, I'm like anybody else in not knowing...

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
"If torture is condoned by high-ranking officials in secret, heads should roll."

I danged sure agree with that. I just don't believe it's happening.


I don't either. But I am open to evidence of it, if any can be produced.

[skunk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Desertrat
skunk, reporters from all over the world were in Afghanistan. From their reports, Limey as well as Continental and/or US, I believe the reports that the great majority of these characters were taken prisoner by our forces, mostly after firefights.
Since when did evidence of guilt come from television journalism? What do they know? And what is this "majority" and "mostly"? What about the others? Deciding guilt based on evidence in the course of properly constituted proceedings is what due process is. This, on the other hand is a travesty, and brings shame on your country.

According to articles in Time Magazine, etc, the prisoners were deloused and given medical treatment as needed for their various pre-existing problems. They were housed more comfortably at first, from what I've read, until they started the efforts to escape and/or assault the guards. You are relying entirely on hearsay. Besides, it is a POW's duty to attempt to escape. How much more so when they are being held illegally?

The guards have apparently been pretty much self-controlled as to their own behavior; Westerners, particularly younger men, do not take kindly to being spat upon.
More hearsay. And why do you expect them to have anything but contempt for soldiers who are holding them in these coditions?

Don't spit into the wind; don't step on Superman's cape, and don't get the US public POed by such things as 9/11. The Taliban found this out, the hard way.

'Rat
This is very impressive macho posturing. Next you'll be saying "Bring it on" like that fool at the top.
The point remains that the US administration seems to be too afraid to subject these prisoners to due process in order to establish their guilt, if any, and/or sentence. If they are POWs, of course, they are not guilty of anything, and should be released forthwith. I do hope that none are executed, as this would set a truly appalling precedent.

[patrick0brien]

-skunk

Ok, where's your evidence? You've been very vocal about pointing out others arguments based on hearsay, what opposing argument can you present without doing the same?

I doubt you can do so, because if you do present actual, corroboratable evidence, you will probably be guilty of treason.

Those in glass houses...

[skunk]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-skunk

Ok, where's your evidence?
It's not up to me to produce evidence. I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm just saying that without due process and the rule of law it's all just trial by soundbite. This is no way to run a self-respecting democracy. Without proper procedures being followed, treaties being upheld, conventions being adhered to, what makes the US any better than those it is fighting?
Set the standards and live by them.

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-skunk

Ok, where's your evidence? You've been very vocal about pointing out others arguments based on hearsay, what opposing argument can you present without doing the same?

I doubt you can do so, because if you do present actual, corroboratable evidence, you will probably be guilty of treason.

Those in glass houses...

Evidence of what? YOU SHOULD BE PROVIDING THE EVIDENCE! Skunk is stating that these "detentions" are unjust and that no evidence or proof of ANYTHING and no charges have been brought upon them. So before you go asking HIM for proof.. THINK about what he is saying here.. and if anyone here should be coughing up the evidence... id say it should be the US, which they obviously have none of (our we would have heard about it by now.. trust me) ... you obviously dont have any.


edit... sorry skunk.. you beat me to the post

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by skunk
It's not up to me to produce evidence. I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm just saying that without due process and the rule of law it's all just trial by soundbite. This is no way to run a self-respecting democracy. Without proper procedures being followed, treaties being upheld, conventions being adhered to, what makes the US any better than those it is fighting?
Set the standards and live by them.

-skunk

Republicans are very good about sticking to the letter of the law, sometimes abridging the spirit of the law. But it's the letter that is argued and interpreted.

In this case, what is happening in Gitmo, no matter how abhorrent, is perfectly legal - this evidence is freely available to you vwcruisn.

This thread is about wether those law themselves are being stuck to - as out lawyer friend is claiming they are not.

[skunk]

Thanks, veedub :)

[skunk]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-skunk

Republicans are very good about sticking to the letter of the law, sometimes abridging the spirit of the law. But it's the letter that is argues and interpreted.

In this case, what is happening in Gitmo, no matter how abhorrent, is perfectly legal.

Legal according to what? Detention without charge or trial or access to lawyers, mail censored, inhumane conditions, under a definition which has no legal status, in an illegally occupied part of a foreign country (Cuba), in contravention of the Geneva Conventions: what is legal about that?
Sure, if might is right, then it's right, but it sure as hell ain't LEGAL.

[Desertrat]

Has it occurred to anybody to ask why there would be torture? What's the purpose?

If it's to gain information, whatever's gotten via torture is generally useless. To avoid further pain, folks will tell whatever they think the torturer wants to hear. It is well known that the stories will vary with repetitions of the torture, so then you have several stories among which to choose. Unless one just likes to inflict pain, torture is stupid.

Sorry, but I just don't see anywhere in our chain of command that there are that many stupid officers.

From what I read, most of these guys are either bottom-level or low-level of the Taliban. The equivalent of privates or sergeants. There useful knowledge is limited, at best. So, again, why bother with torture?

Again, this is no mystery within our chain of command.

I'd suspect that between the physical hardships of their lives in Afghanistan and their religious beliefs, they'd be more resistant to torture, anyhow, than most western-nation people.

Physical torture has never been part of the US "deal", even in those days before such things as Amnesty International or total news coverage. What would bring about such a major change?

Last, there's no way you can get me to believe that those on duty at Gitmo, after their return to CONUS, won't talk about the goings-on there of whatever sort. I'd bet that some have already rotated back here. Were there evil doings, it would have already been in Hackworth's column.

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

What would bring about such a major change?


i would suspect this administration's feelings of invincibility and track record of ignoring laws and treaties to which it doesn't feel like adhering.

[mactastic]

9/11 has been cited as a reason for several 180degree turns in the thinking coming from Pennsylvania Ave. these days. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that Dubya's attitude toward the mistreatment of people responsible for thousands of deaths in his eyes has changed along with his feelings about nation building because of the terrorist strikes.

And we have no idea where some people are being held, nor what kind of conditions they are in. Is it any better if we let the Egyptians or the Saudis torture someone for us? The US has at least made a pretense of transfering a prisoner to a Saudi jail where it was thought the fear of torture would loosen lips. (Ironically that backfired, the prisoner was ecstatic to be in Saudi hands, and told his American "jailers" who to call to spring him from custody).

I'm all for extraordinary means to deal with foreign terrorist combatants, but we are coming up on two years now with no charges, and only a handful of releases. These people deserve to know their fate, and at the very least, the charges against them. What would the US response be if their soldiers were held incommunicado for 18 months by a foreign power? And would we look at US soldiers as heros for attempting escape, or making life difficult for their captors?

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by skunk
Legal according to what? Detention without charge or trial or access to lawyers, mail censored, inhumane conditions, under a definition which has no legal status, in an illegally occupied part of a foreign country (Cuba), in contravention of the Geneva Conventions: what is legal about that?
Sure, if might is right, then it's right, but it sure as hell ain't LEGAL.

-skunk

International law and the law of the United States agree that only those things deemed illegal are illegal - excluding all others, therefore, things not deemed - are legal by default.

Therefore, due to the fact that the provision for 'enemy combatants' - called as such begause of the lack of state-backing i.e. not really a war in the eyes of law - the administration is playing semantics. But it's perfectly legal, and not a violation of the Geneva Convention - as it is written.

We may not like it - I want these folks to be judged one way or another so I can stop paying for their incarceration as much as the next guy, and until we can petition the U.N. to make provisions like this, we, and the detainees are SOL.

Also remember, these fellows are not U.S. citizens nor on our soil, they have no access (nor deservedly IMHO) to the same rights that US citizens have.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
Also remember, these fellows are not U.S. citizens nor on our soil, they have no access (nor deservedly IMHO) to the same rights that US citizens have.

Ok, I understand the legal implications of what you are saying, but it comes off like US citizens are better than everyone else. Why do we deserve special rights as humans that others don't? Just because we happened to be born in America? Does not every human deserve the right to counsel? Or the right to at least hear the charges against them?

Just what rights do they not deserve anyway? And how would you feel if a US soldier was kept under those circumstances?

Somehow I don't think we are talking about the 600 highest ranking members of alQueada here. What we most likely have are some foot soldiers and some field level commanders. Probably not very useful to us anymore.

I'm all for creative solutions as to how we deal with people trained to exploit our legal system against us, but locking them up forever with no outside access and no charges is not the way to go. Makes us look like the very same bad people we are trying to beat.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ok, I understand the legal implications of what you are saying, but it comes off like US citizens are better than everyone else. Why do we deserve special rights as humans that others don't? Just because we happened to be born in America? Does not every human deserve the right to counsel? Or the right to at least hear the charges against them?

-mactastic

No. They don't.

There is a big difference between the rights granted U.S. Citizens by the constitution, and Basic human Rights as defined by the Geneva Convention and others.

Yes, the Geneva Convention and others had basis on the precedent laid forth by the U.S. constitution, but it's a separate, international, law system.

U.S. Rights, only apply to citizens. Guests like Visa'ed and Permanent residents are also afforded those rights, but only temporarily, and at the discretion of the state.

It had nothing to do with who is "better" than anyone else, it's just the rules.


And how would you feel if a US soldier was kept under those circumstances?

Not at all the same because of the fact that he is a U.S. soldier, and therefore if captured is protected by the Articles of War in the Geneva Convention.

However, if a non-recognized party like a militia that happens to be from the U.S. engaged in war like activity, against Canada, for example (just go with me on this), Canada could do the same with the militia members as the U.S. is doing with the detainees in Gitmo.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-mactastic

No. They don't.

There is a big difference between the rights granted U.S. Citizens by the constitution, and Basic human Rights as defined by the Geneva Convention and others.

Yes, the Geneva Convention and others had basis on the precedent laid forth by the U.S. constitution, but it's a separate, international, law system.

U.S. Rights, only apply to citizens. Guests like Visa'ed and Permanent residents are also afforded those rights, but only temporarily, and at the discretion of the state.

It had nothing to do with who is "better" than anyone else, it's just the rules.

And it sure is super-nice when those rules are in our favor. Like I said, how would you feel about a US soldier held under those conditions?

[patrick0brien]

-mactastic

I missed that on the first pass, see above.

[mactastic]

Ok, but who gets to decide who is in what military? What if those Canadians decide to say that those captured aren't recognized by them as a regular army, and they persist in holding them over our strenuous protests?

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ok, but who gets to decide who is in what military? What if those Canadians decide to say that those captured aren't recognized by them as a regular army, and they persist in holding them over our strenuous protests?

-mactastic

Now you are catching on. The U.S. military certifies you as a state backed entity upon your signing of your enlistment papers - you are property of the U.S. armed services. From that moment on, desertion applies, etc.

You are also state backed.

Militia members are not.

If those militia members are being held in Canada, sure, a stink would be raised, but these militia members would be wholly under the rule of canadian and international law - just as Gitmo.

[mactastic]

I think you missed my point, probably because I didn't write it out clearly. What if our regular troops get caught invading Canada, and the Canadians declare them enemy combatants not regular soldiers? Do you see the underlying conflict of interest there?

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by mactastic
I think you missed my point, probably because I didn't write it out clearly. What if our regular troops get caught invading Canada, and the Canadians declare them enemy combatants not regular soldiers? Do you see the underlying conflict of interest there?

-mactastic

Ah, good point.

Well, you see, they can't - as the U.S. Soldiers are State backed.

Throwing the Act of War stuff aside, I'll get to the point I believe you are asking for.

The U.S. can declare the Taliban and Al Qaeda combatants 'Enemy Combatants' because they were not a recognized state - a sovereign nation. They were persons operating within a country defined by internationally recognized borders, but the government was not recognized as sovereign, by the U.N., or even themselves.

And that is the root of the wiggle room for the Taliban members.

Al Qaeda are far more clear cut as 'Enemy Combatants'.

this is why the international community is uncomfortable with the Gitmo situation, they are basically saying "It's bullsh**, but legal."

[mactastic]

alQaeda may not have been a recognized state, but we were sending money to the Taliban, care of Afghanistan as late as April of '01. Seems like that constitutes recognition to me. Now how do we sort out who is who?

And even alQaeda was state backed, if they were recieving support from the Taliban.

[zimv20]

yep, bush did claim that bin laden and al qaeda were state-backed. that was used as justification for taking out the taliban.

then, once captured, they're not state-backed. hm.

the geneva convention is quite clear about to whom its rules apply. it includes those difficult to categorize. the legality of the enemy combatant status will be argued for years to come. but i think it clearly defies the spirit of the law.

this is the kind of **** that will come back to haunt us.

[mod. edit - How'd that sneak through the filter?]

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by mactastic
alQaeda may not have been a recognized state, but we were sending money to the Taliban, care of Afghanistan as late as April of '01. Seems like that constitutes recognition to me. Now how do we sort out who is who?

And even alQaeda was state backed, if they were recieving support from the Taliban.

-mactastic

Funding and formal recognition are two different things.

Remember, persons living in the colonies of the U.S. were only just that, until the Dutch formally recognized them as a sovereign nation to John Adams in 1779 as the independent United States of America.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by zimv20
yep, bush did claim that bin laden and al qaeda were state-backed. that was used as justification for taking out the taliban.

then, once captured, they're not state-backed. hm.

the geneva convention is quite clear about to whom its rules apply. it includes those difficult to categorize. the legality of the enemy combatant status will be argued for years to come. but i think it clearly defies the spirit of the law.

this is the kind of **** that will come back to haunt us.

-zimv20

Exactly. The"State Backed" argument, was used to justify the invasion (that invasion I support), as it could be applied to the Taliban that they were a pseudo-state - closes thing to it in that country. But they still were not recognized - ergo allowing the current Gitmo.

This does defy the spirit of the law - and that therin lies the rub.

That's it! I'm going to bed. G'night guys.

[ilben77]

Originally posted by Desertrat
zim, such BS requires a vivid imagination. Sometimes such garbage elicits a wee tad of sarcasm from me. :D

skunk, the great majority of these Gitmo jailbirds were caught with guns, shooting at our guys. What more evidence is needed? They're lucky they weren't DRT, instead of taken prisoner.

'Rat

If a foreign force invades your country you fight them and shoot at them, this is called defending your country. That in it self has nothing to do with terrorism. So shooting at US soldiers is not a proof.

[Desertrat]

"So shooting at US soldiers is not a proof."

It's proof enough.

Look: Al Qaida as a trans-national group committed an act of war on 9/11. The Taliban had long and visibly given support to Al Qaida in general and its leadership in particular. The retaliatory effort, then, was directed at both.

Not one darned thing illegal about that. Where is it written that we can only make war on a specific nation? We've never been in a state of warfare with a group like Al Qaida, but we're danged sure in one. And they'll as happily kill you, a civilian, as readily as they'll kill a GI. You're an infidel, and that's reason enough.

You can holler about the Constitution and the need for Congress to declare war, but that went totally out the window with the Gulf War and then the Serbian War. The over-arching excuse at that time was similar to our deal with the UN in Korea, that we were acting with a coalition.

A precedent of sorts for unilateral action was set by LBJ in Vietnam--at least initially--although the terms of the SEATO Treaty brought in other nation's troops. So, "that's the way it is" whether I like it or not.

Anyhow, in terms of law during a time of war, shooting at our guys is all the proof that's needed.

'Rat

[Inu]

Originally posted by Desertrat

Look: Al Qaida as a trans-national group committed an act of war on 9/11. The Taliban had long and visibly given support to Al Qaida in general and its leadership in particular. The retaliatory effort, then, was directed at both.
<snip>
Anyhow, in terms of law during a time of war, shooting at our guys is all the proof that's needed.


Now there. If it was an "Act of War" it would imply the prisoners you take are Prisoners of War, wouldn't it?

Shooting at your Guys makes the shooter your enemy, thats right. Still, you have to agree if you (not you yourself) twist the words around every time if it comes to gitmo, you are going to loose the morale high ground (its debatable if you still have it, btw). Either the US sorts Gitmo out quickly or its going to be a shadow over the next few Decades of US policies. At least thats how it is seen from outside the US.

Personally I dont care if you bring them before civil court (seing them as not PoW) or judging them militarily, or even shoot them all in the neck - just get over with it. The countless days of containment without any decision at all is doing no one any good.

I am sure you dont expect any "valuable Information" from People caught a long time ago... That kind of Information has a very short valuable-time

[Desertrat]

Well, I can easily agree with the latter part of your post, Inu.

I'm just guessing, okay? I don't see any point in some sort of trial and (stipulating guilt) punitive imprisonment. I'd have to wonder, though, if these guys were released back to their homeland(s), whether they would once again take up arms. If it's reasonable to believe they would honor a parole, cut 'em loose. (Gotta admit I'm dubious.)

I dunno. Their usefulness as "cagees" is over. But I'd hate to have somebody believe an oath to an infidel is no oath at all, and have them go back and start over, shooting/bombing/whatever.

'Rat

[Inu]

As far as i know, if someone is released from jail he doesnt have to do an oath on the bible to never break the law again.

I dont think there is a way to make them stop the way they life/think and fight one way or another (besides the shot in the neck - but knowing a bit of the whole martyrdom crap, that would be the worst thing the US could do).

Letting them back into the run-down afghanistan would practically instantly convert them to fighters again, though.

Maybe just giving them back to the Afghans would do the trick. As it happens to be they were enemies of the current regime, werent they? After the Multinational Force put Karzai in place, maybe he should deceide what to do with them (might give him a lever to gain a bit control, because his might is a bit... well... shaky at best=

[mactastic]

While I understand the short-term gains of isolating these people and dealing with them in an extra-judicial fashion, I worry that it will in time blow back on us. Someday we will be faced with American troops held incommunicado in an "undisclosed location". Or a secure island fortress.

Not to dissimiliar to the possibility that some other country may use our "pre-emptive war" strategy against us as well. I see no reason any Arab nation should stay their hand against Israel, (at least not a political reason, militarily is a different matter) nor vice versa. Each is an obvious threat to the other, and in addition Isreal has the war-triggering WMD's. If that was enough for us to take out Saddam, how could we argue against an attack on Israel? While still retaining logic and sanity of course.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Anyhow, in terms of law during a time of war, shooting at our guys is all the proof that's needed.

I would agree with that statement, but I think we diverge from there. So if we captured prisoners "during a time of war" doesn't that make them prisoners of war? I'm confused as to how people seem to be more than happy to apply the term war (ie. war on terror, time of war) when it is beneficial, but as soon as we have to perform our responsibilities as victors and captors during a war many people then say "Well, they aren't really POWs." Sounds like a nifty double standard to me. And one that will bite us in the posterior some day too.

Did we fight a war, or did we go over to Afghanistan for a picnic?

[Desertrat]

The Germans and Italians we captured and brought to the US during WW II were held for the duration. The only outside contact I've heard of for them was the Red Cross. Access to lawyers for them wasn't even an issue. (The five-man huts at Fort Bliss were, in 1944, condemned by the Red Cross against use for POWs. That didn't keep the Army from using those huts for our quarters during Basic Training in 1954.)

Heck, I, repeat I, don't know why not to call these guys POWs. Just because they're POWs doesn't mean they gotta be mistreated or brutalized--or pampered. And, everything credible I've read says they're getting appropriate diet and have freedom to pray to Allah. "Time" showed a photo that somebody went to the trouble to paint an arrow by their quarters, pointed at Mecca.

Overall, there seems to be too much lawyering over semantics, and not enough practicality about dealing with folks who were shooting at us.

Probably the harshest treatment would be to send them back to Afghanistan and turn them over to the new government.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Now if I recall correctly, there were a few things we did during WWII (as opposed to Dubya Dubya II:p ) that we aren't terribly proud of lo these 60 years later. Citing the past as a reason to perpetuate certain behaviors isn't always appropriate. Sometimes it is. Just a thought.

[skunk]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Access to lawyers for them wasn't even an issue.
Well of course it wasn't. PoWs don't NEED lawyers, do they? They haven't committed a crime, nor are they at risk of anything but detention until the specific conflict is over. Of course this fraudulent "War on Terror" can go on for ever, or until you lot wake up and sack this appalling Administration.

[Desertrat]

Now, now, skunk; how long did it take y'all to bring peace and happiness to Ireland?

"PoWs don't NEED lawyers, do they? They haven't committed a crime..."

Well, depends on the prisoner, doesn't it? Remember Milosevic? Or, to back up in time, Eichmann?

"...nor are they at risk of anything but detention until the specific conflict is over."

As far as your "basic shooter", I think most of us here agree that's how it oughta be.

'Rat

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by mactastic
I would agree with that statement, but I think we diverge from there. So if we captured prisoners "during a time of war" doesn't that make them prisoners of war? I'm confused as to how people seem to be more than happy to apply the term war (ie. war on terror, time of war) when it is beneficial, but as soon as we have to perform our responsibilities as victors and captors during a war many people then say "Well, they aren't really POWs." Sounds like a nifty double standard to me. And one that will bite us in the posterior some day too.

Did we fight a war, or did we go over to Afghanistan for a picnic?

-mactastic, desertrat

(sigh) I thought we've been over this.

A POW is a person who is captured in a time of war, while officially sanctioned by the government for which they fight.

State backed, signed life away, ergo covered by the Geneva Convention.

I really would rather not cover this again, so from now on, please refer to the Geneva Convention Articles of War instead of jumping on every misspeak as an opportunity to rehash old conversations.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by skunk
this fraudulent "War on Terror" can go on for ever, or until you lot wake up and sack this appalling Administration.

-skunk

Think what you will of the current administration, but I do respect them for not rolling over and playing dead when 3,000+ civilians are killed due to no fault of their own.

I take extreme issue with your treatment of that day with your words. I lost friends in that.

Let me tell you how it feels when you watch the recap on your television, to see someone jumping from the roof - and you recognize him:

...

I agree that the War on Terror is open ended and as a Project Manager, this is abhorrent. But I can think of fewer more noble causes than attempting to eliminate terror. Sloppy? Yes. Fraudulent? :mad: :mad:

And don't you worry about this administration. They've got no more toes left - and their guns are empty.

[Desertrat]

"A POW is a person who is captured in a time of war, while officially sanctioned by the government for which they fight."

No argument. My point, if I have a point in all this backing and forthing, is that from a practical standpoint the Gitmo detainees might as well be treated as POWs. I don't see them as criminals in the usual civilian usage of that word.

The general day-to-day treatment is pretty much that for a POW.

If there is a real question, seems to me that it's a matter of how long is it in our best interest to hold them. For that, I have no answer. If it's rational to believe that they'd go back to shooting, we're stuck with holding them.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-mactastic, desertrat

(sigh) I thought we've been over this.

A POW is a person who is captured in a time of war, while officially sanctioned by the government for which they fight.

State backed, signed life away, ergo covered by the Geneva Convention.

I really would rather not cover this again, so from now on, please refer to the Geneva Convention Articles of War instead of jumping on every misspeak as an opportunity to rehash old conversations.

Hey, feel free to restrain yourself at any time from jumping in on a conversation you feel has been adequately covered.

I didn't think 'Rat had gotten the thrust of the argument I made with you, and since he brought it up again, I felt it needed a response.

In case you hadn't noticed pretty much EVERYTHING we talk about in here has been hashed over at some point and to some degree. If you only want to talk about stuff thats never been discussed, then only jump in on those threads. Otherwise save your admonishments for someone else.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by mactastic
Hey, feel free to restrain yourself at any time from jumping in on a conversation you feel has been adequately covered.

I didn't think 'Rat had gotten the thrust of the argument I made with you, and since he brought it up again, I felt it needed a response.

In case you hadn't noticed pretty much EVERYTHING we talk about in here has been hashed over at some point and to some degree. If you only want to talk about stuff thats never been discussed, then only jump in on those threads. Otherwise save your admonishments for someone else.

-mactastic

Good point, and thank you.

[skunk]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-skunk
I take extreme issue with your treatment of that day with your words. I lost friends in that.
No reason to take offence: of course the events of 9/11 were dreadful. What I take issue with is how GW & Co have used those events as an excuse to promote their geo-political agenda.
I agree that the War on Terror is open ended and as a Project Manager, this is abhorrent. But I can think of fewer more noble causes than attempting to eliminate terror.
As a Project Manager??? How about as a human being? As for nobility, I simply do not agree that the "elimination of terror" is the cause the Administration is espousing here. I think it is wealth and power.

[Desertrat]

skunk, I read it to mean that open-endedness is anathema to a Project Manager.

:), 'Rat

[Taft]

Originally posted by Desertrat
The Germans and Italians we captured and brought to the US during WW II were held for the duration.

By "the duration" I'm guessing you meant that the US released them after WWII ended and Germany surrendered.

When will the prisoners from the war in Afghanistan be released? Or will they only be released when the "war on terror" is over? Will the war on terror ever be over? Will the prisoners rot in jail for the rest of their lives? If so, will they ever get a fair trial?

These are some troubling questions which no-one in the US government is willing to answer. This is why I don't like the situation.

Taft

[Desertrat]

Taft, I rather doubt that anybody has an answer; I doubt anybody is pleasured by the present situation.

You want to send them back to Afghanistan?

'Rat

[yamabushi]

I believe we released the last prisoners of war after WWII around 1949. That's about four years after the war ended.

The open ended nature of this "war on terror" disturbes me as well. I see terrorism as a method employed by extremely misguided individuals. I would prefer that we wage war against something indentified by a proper noun. That is, a specific organization, nation, or even individual. That way it is possible to have victory or defeat, as well as an eventual end to the war.

Mind you, I have no sympathy for those who have commited acts of terrorism, nor for organiztions that serve as sponsors to their actions.

I think that there needs to be a serious multinational effort to stop all organizations that use terrorism. They can be stopped by isolation, arrest, or by force failing other options. This effort should not be patient and wait however, as action needs to be taken now.

[Desertrat]

Efforts ARE being taken now. Other governments in some variant of miltary effort; a heckuva lot of investigative police work, with arrests; and government/bank cooperation to interdict the flow of funds. It's not "just Iraq" or "just Afghanistan".

Regardless, I don't see any real "end" within at least five and more likely ten years.

And I'm probably an optimist.

'Rat

[yamabushi]

No. Countries are taking efforts primarily where it effects their interests. Coordination is weak at best. The organization of the effort is not a coordinated and unified multinational effort to stop terrorists today.

For example: Israel is the only country making serious efforts to stop Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Martyrs Brigade. In Syria and Palestine there is strong poular support for these groups which are seen as heroic warriors. In Israel they see them as terrorists, which is undeniable. However, when Israel fights back they use force as a first resort. This is due in part to their inability to isolate or arrest all of the members of these groups. If a multinational force arrived the majority could be rounded up in a matter of weeks.

Yes this absolutely violates their sovreignity and their right to rule themselves. However, terrorist organizations cannot be allowed to hide in any nation. That is why a true multinational force is required - the good of the many outweighing the good of the few.

Terrorism is used because an overt attack is not feasible. This is totaly unacceptable. In this case, peaceful democratic methods would have been effective at giving the Palestiniian Authority 98% of what they wanted, but this was unacceptible to their more militant residents. The result is terrorism and local conflict until one or the other side is destroyed.

Unless we intervene.

[Inu]

I have to disagree with you on behalf of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.

The matter would never be settled in weeks. The only way this could be settled in weeks is to wreck the region and kill everyone on both sides.

This is of course unacceptable.

If there would be a way to show the Palestine people there is hope without terrorism, and no one with, and in the same time stop the israeli army (and secret service or whatever organisation is commiting state backed terrorism on their side) from "executing" Leaders for about a year, we can talk about a better situation. Weeks of ceasefire wont help, multinational "help" wouldnt help either (what would they do? stand around making faces while behind them fires a israeli chopper on some mud hut, and a split second later/sooner a suicide bomber pulls the trigger...).

Showing the palestine people hope was a bit blown into the wind as Israel destructed the Airport the EU financed btw. Thats only a sample i currently remember, doesnt mean they destruct foreign built stuff on a regular basis (because there isnt too much of it)

[yamabushi]

The Palestinian people receive more aid through the UN than through neighboring nations. Most of the money for that particular program comes from the US. Yet palestinians were dancing in the streets when the towers of the World Trade Center fell. This shows that popular opinion there is still very much against the US despite efforts to mediate peace talks and gifts to improve living conditions.

It's very sad that these people have been used as pawns in a political and religious struggle. It is equally sad that the violence in the region will not cease. They do have choices, equally bleak. 1.) They can choose to deny any responsibility for the acts of terrorism and thus doom the region to endless violence. 2.) Take responsibility for their own acts of violence but not others and watch any agreements with the Israelis dissolve as other local groups commit acts of terrorism. 3.) They can renounce terrorism and actively arrest members of terrorist groups and be branded collaborators with the Iraelis and US and become victims of terrorism themselves.

The current situation will result in the endless deaths and injuries of people on both sides. To resolve the situation some kind of dramatic change needs to happen.

[Inu]

Originally posted by yamabushi
The Palestinian people receive more aid through the UN than through neighboring nations. Most of the money for that particular program comes from the US. Yet palestinians were dancing in the streets when the towers of the World Trade Center fell. This shows that popular opinion there is still very much against the US despite efforts to mediate peace talks and gifts to improve living conditions.


Hm. Interesting how long such urban myths live. You still belive that? The footage of dancing palestinans was actually quite old as it became fake 9/11 footage.
I thinks someone proofed that somewhere. Damned if i know where, though.

Edit: Typo

[yamabushi]

I saw footage on several networks that appeared to be from a few different sources, and reporters in the area verified the activity. Interviews just after this showed mixed reactions to the event. I trust the media less than most people but I haven't seen any evidence to show that these reports were false. If this did not actually happen and the Palestinians in general were instead as shocked and horrified as the rest of us I would very much like to see such evidence.

[Inu]

While it is a bit difficult to proove no one actually went to the street to dance, ill try to dig up the outlet that reported the dancers to be fake (about 3 days later i guess).

To be honest, there where some people among us who werent shocked about the events of 9/11.

[Inu]

Interestingly, I didnt find that outlet anymore, but rather one that claimed the outlet i tried to find was prooven false. My bad.

Trust it to the Palestinians to make themself look bad i guess. They made me look bad just now :mad:

[yamabushi]

That's okay. It's really difficult to keep straight what is really going on in the world with the media being untrustworthy and various organizations spouting misinformation and propaganda. It is really difficult to know who to believe.

This is true of the claims of torture in Guantanamo as well.
We want to believe that this couldn't happen. But then doubts arise due to unrelated government coverups.