Freed Briton tells of beatings

[numediaman]

We'll see if we hear more about this over the next few days, so it will go quietly away. The Daily Mirror is a British tabloid -- so I can not attest to their standards. Any Brits here that want to comment?

from The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1167732,00.html

Freed Briton tells of beatings
Guantánamo Bay returnees say police questions were 'charade'

Tania Branigan and Rosie Cowan
Friday March 12, 2004

One of the Britons freed from Guantánamo Bay spoke for the first time last night of the full horror of his ordeal.

Jamal al-Harith told how US soldiers brought in prostitutes to the camp, and paraded them naked in front of the many devout Muslims. The 37-year-old also claimed he was kicked, punched and assaulted with batons . . .


from the original Daily Mirror story:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14042696_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-MY%2DHELL%2DIN%2DCAMP%2DX%2DRAY-name_page.html

MY HELL IN CAMP X-RAY
Their "cells" were wire cages with concrete floors and open to the elements - giving no privacy or protection from the rats, snakes and scorpions loose around the American base.

He claims punishment beatings were handed out by guards known as the Extreme Reaction Force. They waded into inmates in full riot-gear, raining blows on them.

Prisoners faced psychological torture and mind-games in attempts to make them confess to acts they had never committed. Even petty breaches of rules brought severe punishment . . .

[wordmunger]

This all seems rather tame, given what these folks were being held for. The Atlantic had a great article (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/bowden.htm) a while back discussing what all goes into interrogation. Pretty intense stuff.

It's a shame that some apparently innocent people were held, but on the global scale of things, perhaps it's more surprising that there aren't more incidences of this.

[toontra]

This all seems rather tame, given what these folks were being held for.

Apparently they were being held for absolutely no reason whatsoever. If they had committed any crime at all, especially a terrorist act, they would have been re-arrested and charged when entering the UK. So now we know for a fact that these five men were innocent, why should we have any confidence that any of the others still detained are "bad men"?

Once you renounce judicial process and the most basic of human rights, as the US have done in Camps X-Ray & Delta, you return to the jungle.

[zimv20]

It's a shame that some apparently innocent people were held

how positively mild. imagine that was your mom being beaten w/ batons in those camps. it would be a shame, huh?

[wordmunger]

Apparently they were being held for absolutely no reason whatsoever. If they had committed any crime at all, especially a terrorist act, they would have been re-arrested and charged when entering the UK. So now we know for a fact that these five men were innocent, why should we have any confidence that any of the others still detained are "bad men"?

Once you renounce judicial process and the most basic of human rights, as the US have done in Camps X-Ray & Delta, you return to the jungle.

They were captured on a battlefield and were treated according to the Geneva Conventions for prisoners of war, even though they were not soldiers for a sovereign state. They themselves, in conducting a war in this fashion, were in violation of the Geneva Conventions. They had no "rights" according to any international agreement. They were not U.S. citizens, so they were not subject to U.S. law. In fact, they were engaged in combat against the U.S. They were released because they were determined to be no longer a danger to the U.S.

[wordmunger]

how positively mild. imagine that was your mom being beaten w/ batons in those camps. it would be a shame, huh?
Imagine the U.S. had taken no prisoners in Afghanistan and the terrorists regrouped and murdered *your* mother. *That* would be a true shame.

[zimv20]

It's a shame that some apparently innocent people were held
They were captured on a battlefield and were treated according to the Geneva Conventions for prisoners of war, even though they were not soldiers for a sovereign state. They themselves, in conducting a war in this fashion, were in violation of the Geneva Conventions. They had no "rights" according to any international agreement. They were not U.S. citizens, so they were not subject to U.S. law. In fact, they were engaged in combat against the U.S.

a little contradictory, wouldn't you say?

[wordmunger]

a little contradictory, wouldn't you say?
No, I suspect that if they were U.S. citizens they would have been tried and convicted. That's why I said "apparently" innocent. The U.S. released them into British custody, and Britain decided not to prosecute them.

[zimv20]

No, I suspect that if they were U.S. citizens they would have been tried and convicted. That's why I said "apparently" innocent. The U.S. released them into British custody, and Britain decided not to prosecute them.

just to make sure i understand:
- the US justice system would prosecute regardless of guilt or innocence
- the British justices system would free them regardless of guilt or innocence

sure saves time -- and lots of HARD THINKING -- when dispensing w/ due process, eh?

[zimv20]

Imagine the U.S. had taken no prisoners in Afghanistan and the terrorists regrouped and murdered *your* mother. *That* would be a true shame.

is that what you think my position really is? am i allowed some middle ground?

how about -- arrest those suspected, try them, punish those guilty, release those who are innocent. try to refrain from random beatings in the process and maybe give them access to lawyers.

you know, "justice"

[toontra]

They were captured on a battlefield and were treated according to the Geneva Conventions for prisoners of war, even though they were not soldiers for a sovereign state. They themselves, in conducting a war in this fashion, were in violation of the Geneva Conventions. They had no "rights" according to any international agreement. They were not U.S. citizens, so they were not subject to U.S. law. In fact, they were engaged in combat against the U.S. They were released because they were determined to be no longer a danger to the U.S.

How do you know any of the above is true? You are taking GB's word for this, aren't you?

That is what happens when the facts cannot be challenged by judicial proccess. It seems likely that all the released men were not combatants, were not captured on the battlefield and were guilty of, well, nothing at all.

[wordmunger]

how about -- arrest those suspected, try them, punish those guilty, release those who are innocent. try to refrain from random beatings in the process and maybe give them access to lawyers.


What is "innocent"? What is "guilty"? They were fighting in an illegal war against the U.S. Wouldn't they be "guilty" by any definition? However, there are other things to consider--international pressures, how integral they were to the Taliban/Al Qaeda, how dangerous they are now.

I think the problem here is the open-endedness of the situation. The "war" on terror is going to last years, if not decades. Legally, we can hold POWs until the conflict is over. Then, traditionally, they are released. But what if the war never ends? The sensible thing is to release them when they are determined not to be dangerous.

[zimv20]

What is "innocent"? What is "guilty"? They were fighting in an illegal war against the U.S. Wouldn't they be "guilty" by any definition?

i'm sorry -- are you at all familiar w/ the judicial system? they were accused of fighting. doesn't mean they were. so who are we gonna trust to make that determination? an independent judicial system or the accusers themselves?

[numediaman]

Sorry for the sloppy topic head, I guess I must have hit "Apple V" twice -- damn Macs. ;)

As for this Brit, the story makes it clear that he was not fighting an illegal war -- in fact, he was not fighting any war. Yet he was held for two years incommunicato. Two years!

By the way, "illegal war"? You mean like the war in Iraq?

[wordmunger]

i'm sorry -- are you at all familiar w/ the judicial system? they were accused of fighting. doesn't mean they were. so who are we gonna trust to make that determination? an independent judicial system or the accusers themselves?

Whose judicial system? By the Geneva convention, they are entitled to a military tribunal. Except this case falls outside the Geneva convention. Even a military tribunal is nothing like a "judicial system"--it's more like an inquisition.

[wordmunger]

Sorry for the sloppy topic head, I guess I must have hit "Apple V" twice -- damn Macs. ;)

As for this Brit, the story makes it clear that he was not fighting an illegal war -- in fact, he was not fighting any war. Yet he was held for two years incommunicato. Two years!

By the way, "illegal war"? You mean like the war in Iraq?

Bush was an idiot for starting the war in Iraq. This doesn't mean U.S. actions in Afghanistan were unjustified.

I'm sure every prisoner at Guantanamo can make up a story like this guy fed to the tabloids. Yes, supposing it's true, it's a tragedy. But things don't look good for him, given where he was picked up. If his story was true it was indeed unjust, but on the other hand he should feel lucky to be alive, driving in a truck through a war zone.

[zimv20]

Except this case falls outside the Geneva convention.

no, the geneva convention was ignored. w/in the GC, there's a clause that roughly states that all situations not other described w/in the GC still qualify for GC protection.

the detainees were denied communication w/ their families. they were denied legal counsel. they were put on public display. they were humiliated and beaten. they were denied visits by the Red Cross. these are all illegal under the GC.

[skunk]

They were fighting in an illegal war against the U.S.
A: These men were specifically NOT caught on the battlefield. B: Absolutely no evidence has been presented to substantiate ANY of these allegations. C: The taleban (to whom we do not know if they had any connection) were NOT fighting an "illegal war". They were the duly constituted sovereign government of Afghanistan under attack by an invading force using high-altitude saturation bombing indiscriminately, and causing the deaths of thousands of innocent Afghani citizens.
Legally, we can hold POWs until the conflict is over. Then, traditionally, they are released. But what if the war never ends? The sensible thing is to release them when they are determined not to be dangerous.
A: You are refusing to classify them as PoWs, holding them in a legal vacuum in a "no man's land" of your own invention expressly to avoid due process. B: You have replaced the Taleban with another highly dubious, corrupt and vicious puppet government, so your "war" is over as far as Afghanistan is concerned. C: You need to declare a war: this "war on terror" is not a real war, it's a propaganda-driven pretext for seizing control of the remaining oil supplies. Look out Venezuela.

[zimv20]

What is "innocent"? What is "guilty"? They were fighting in an illegal war against the U.S. Wouldn't they be "guilty" by any definition?

dude -- you write textbooks?!?

[numediaman]

A: You are refusing to classify them as PoWs, holding them in a legal vacuum in a "no man's land" of your own invention expressly to avoid due process. B: You have replaced the Taleban with another highly dubious, corrupt and vicious puppet government, so your "war" is over as far as Afghanistan is concerned. C: You need to declare a war: this "war on terror" is not a real war, it's a propaganda-driven pretext for seizing control of the remaining oil supplies. Look out Venezuela.

While I very much agree with your viewpoint, please do me the favor of not using "you". While I realize that it is "my" government committing these crimes, I think you understand that not everybody here agrees with the actions of the government. Just as I would say that not everyone in England agree with the actions of that government, right? Thanks.

[skunk]

While I very much agree with your viewpoint, please do me the favor of not using "you". While I realize that it is "my" government committing these crimes, I think you understand that not everybody here agrees with the actions of the government. Just as I would say that not everyone in England agree with the actions of that government, right? Thanks.

My sincere apologies. I did not mean to tar you all with the same b(r)ush... :)

[numediaman]

No problem.

But you really should be out on the town this late at night in England, instead of on a Mac board!! (I'm only here because in my PB is a new Wynton Marsalis CD blasting at me.)

EDIT: by the way, what is the English press saying about the bombing in Spain? It really makes a difference whether it was ETA or Al-Queda. One is purely domestic, the other reflects Spains participation in the war in Iraq. The Spanish ambassador was on TV tonight sticking to the ETA claim. But it turns out he has an agenda -- he was kidnapped by ETA back in the 70's.

[wordmunger]

dude -- you write textbooks?!?

Indeed I do.

Someone who disagrees with you can't write textbooks?

[wordmunger]

the detainees were denied communication w/ their families.
this is not true.

they were denied legal counsel.
Show me where the Geneva Convention provides for this.

they were put on public display.
No they were not. They voluntarily told their story to the tabloids.

they were humiliated and beaten.
So they claim. If this was punishment for misbehavior, it is acceptable under the G.C.
they were denied visits by the Red Cross.
No they were not (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5QRC5V?OpenDocument)

[wordmunger]

]You need to declare a war: this "war on terror" is not a real war, it's a propaganda-driven pretext for seizing control of the remaining oil supplies. Look out Venezuela.

Let's not conflate the war in Iraq with the war on terror. Do you seriously suppose that the U.S. was in Afghanistan because of oil? There is no oil in Afghanistan. The U.S. responded to the most vicious attack on American civilians in history. As I've said before, Bush made a huge mistake in attacking Iraq. This doesn't mean that actions taken in Afghanistan to deter terrorism were not justified.

[mactastic]

Do you seriously suppose that the U.S. was in Afghanistan because of oil? There is no oil in Afghanistan.

You know, there's a large oil pipeline going to be built through Afghanistan. And guess who's going to be doing it?

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm)

Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the "lead company" among those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic meters of Turkmen gas to market annually. Afghanistan plans to build a road linking Turkmenistan with Pakistan parallel to the pipeline, to supply nearby villages with gas, and also to pump Afghan gas for export, Mr Razim said.

Funny how the only real success story you hear about, outside of Kabul, is the progress they are making on this road, which I believe Bush insisted get done to the point where they were laying asphalt on ungraded earth just to get it done on time, then had to go back and actually build the road.

Now i'm not saying oil is the reason we went into Afghanistan, even though we were funding the Taliban as late as the March before 9/11. But every place we go, US companies seem to be 'taking the lead role' in oil projects. It's not good for our image.

[zimv20]

Indeed I do.

Someone who disagrees with you can't write textbooks?

of course not.

someone who is as confused and as naïve as you shouldn't be.

[wordmunger]

A: These men were specifically NOT caught on the battlefield. If what they claim is true, that may be the case. On the other hand, technically all of Afghanistan was a battlefield. If the U.S. hadn't captured terrorists there when they had the chance, wouldn't this be an even more significant problem?

B: Absolutely no evidence has been presented to substantiate ANY of these allegations.
None is required. They captured prisoners in a war zone.

C: The taleban (to whom we do not know if they had any connection) were NOT fighting an "illegal war". They were the duly constituted sovereign government of Afghanistan under attack by an invading force using high-altitude saturation bombing indiscriminately, and causing the deaths of thousands of innocent Afghani citizens.
Only three governments ever recognized the Taleban. The United Nations did not. Saturation bombing was definitively NOT used. The "thousands" characterization has been disputed. Civilian deaths, though regrettable, were incurred in a cause that not only removed the state-assisted terrorists, but also assisted in overthrowing a repressive regime, responsible for many more deaths.

A: You are refusing to classify them as PoWs, holding them in a legal vacuum in a "no man's land" of your own invention expressly to avoid due process.
When they are not involved in a legal war, they cannot be classified as POWs. Yet the U.S. has consistently treated them as POWs.

B: You have replaced the Taleban with another highly dubious, corrupt and vicious puppet government, so your "war" is over as far as Afghanistan is concerned.
The "war" is over when the threat against the U.S. has been removed. Given that the leader of Al Qaeda has not yet been captured, there is no doubt that the war continues.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by wordmunger
It's a shame that some apparently innocent people were held, but on the global scale of things, perhaps it's more surprising that there aren't more incidences of this.
So are you saying that, by and large, it's okay to hold innocent people incommunicado without access to council, beat/torture them, and then release them two years later without so much as a "have a nice day"? The entire reason we have a justice system is to prevent **** like this from happening.
They were captured on a battlefield and were treated according to the Geneva Conventions for prisoners of war, even though they were not soldiers for a sovereign state. They themselves, in conducting a war in this fashion, were in violation of the Geneva Conventions. They had no "rights" according to any international agreement. They were not U.S. citizens, so they were not subject to U.S. law. In fact, they were engaged in combat against the U.S. They were released because they were determined to be no longer a danger to the U.S.
First, I don't think the Geneva Convention allows torture, unless I'm misinformed. Second, if they were not soldiers of a sovereign state, then did we have grounds to attack a sovereign state? And third, even assuming they had no rights (now there's a dangerous thought on any level) we should still treat them as prisoners within the bounds of our own legal system. Why? Because otherwise we look like the hypocrits we claim not to be.
I think the problem here is the open-endedness of the situation. The "war" on terror is going to last years, if not decades.
The "war" on terror will make about as much difference as the "war" on drugs. Which should scare everyone when they realize how many rights we've lost and how much money we've spent fighting the "war" on drugs. The "war" on terror is nothing more than a political hack job in order to create an bigger than life "enemy" for Bush to attack.
There is no oil in Afghanistan.
No, but there's a big-ass pipeline we've been trying to build through it, and owning the local government has certainly helped in getting it built. link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1626889.stm)

[wordmunger]

of course not.

someone who is as confused and as naïve as you shouldn't be.

Do you know the subject of the textbooks? Assuming I'm completely wrong about this case, it has nothing to do with my work in textbooks.

[zimv20]

this is not true.
the purpose of allowing detainees to communicate w/ their families is so that the families would know where their loved ones were. for how many months was the identity of the detainees withheld? i believe i'm correct in saying there are still unidentified detainees.



Show me where the Geneva Convention provides for this.
Chapter III - PENAL AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS
Section III - Judicial proceedings

Article 99 (in part)

No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.


No they were not. They voluntarily told their story to the tabloids.
what about the images splashed onto US TV screens? remember them? men in orange jumpsuits, blindfolded, made to kneel?



So they claim. If this was punishment for misbehavior, it is acceptable under the G.C.
are you satisfied w/ not believing them, or perhaps in investigation is in order?



No they were not (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5QRC5V?OpenDocument)
the red cross was eventually allowed access. from your own article:

In mid-August 2003 the ICRC began a new visit to internees held at the US-run detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The work has been continuing since the internees began arriving there in January 2002.


now have a look at this:

Article 103

Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months. (emphasis mine)

it took longer than 7 months to get them in.

feel free to incorporate my research into your textbooks.

edit: link (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

[zimv20]

When they are not involved in a legal war, they cannot be classified as POWs. Yet the U.S. has consistently treated them as POWs.

that's crap. i've enumerated multiple violations of the geneva convention, which outlines protections for POWs. get yer facts straight.

[wordmunger]

So are you saying that, by and large, it's okay to hold innocent people incommunicado without access to council, beat/torture them, and then release them two years later without so much as a "have a nice day"? The entire reason we have a justice system is to prevent **** like this from happening.

Then you are not aware of the standard practices of warfare. This is how it is done.


First, I don't think the Geneva Convention allows torture, unless I'm misinformed.
It allows for punishment of misbehavior in prisoners of war, as it should.



Second, if they were not soldiers of a sovereign state, then did we have grounds to attack a sovereign state?
We have grounds to respond to attacks on our state, whether they come from a sovereign state or an illegal usurper.

And third, even assuming they had no rights (now there's a dangerous thought on any level) we should still treat them as prisoners within the bounds of our own legal system. Why? Because otherwise we look like the hypocrits we claim not to be.
Now at least you're making a somewhat reasonable point. From an "image" perspective, it's important to treat these prisoners well. But on the other hand, it would be irresponsible to release terrorists because of some notion of "due process" that doesn't apply to non-citizens engaged in combat against the U.S.

The "war" on terror will make about as much difference as the "war" on drugs. Which should scare everyone when they realize how many rights we've lost and how much money we've spent fighting the "war" on drugs. The "war" on terror is nothing more than a political hack job in order to create an bigger than life "enemy" for Bush to attack.
I hope you're wrong about this. Let's try to remember not to confuse actions in Afghanistan with actions in Iraq. Remember, Al Qaeda was headquartered in Afghanistan, was a sworn enemy of the U.S., and had conducted the most lethal attack on civilians in U.S. history. Iraq, by contrast, was a dubious threat.

No, but there's a big-ass pipeline we've been trying to build through it, and owning the local government has certainly helped in getting it built.
God, I hope we didn't go to war in Afghanistan just to build a pipeline. Remember? September 11? Osama Bin Laden? Would we honestly have gone to war there just to build a damned pipeline? If they had just been peaceful peasant farmers, minding their own business? They were harboring, training, and exporting terrorists, remember?

[wordmunger]

the purpose of allowing detainees to communicate w/ their families is so that the families would know where their loved ones were. for how many months was the identity of the detainees withheld? i believe i'm correct in saying there are still unidentified detainees.
The Britons who were released were allowed contact with their families. I don't know about the others.


Chapter III - PENAL AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS
Section III - Judicial proceedings

Article 99 (in part)

No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.

They were not convicted. They were released. The others continue to be held because they continue to be a threat to the U.S. This is allowed under the G.C.

what about the images splashed onto US TV screens? remember them? men in orange jumpsuits, blindfolded, made to kneel?

This was shown to demonstrate that the prisoners were being treated well. They were not humiliated, and their identities were not revealed.


are you satisfied w/ not believing them, or perhaps in investigation is in order?

Sure. Investigate away. Just don't assert that evil was done by the U.S. without evidence.


the red cross was eventually allowed access. from your own article:
That says a "new" visit. They had been allowed access before.

now have a look at this:

Article 103

Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months. (emphasis mine)

it took longer than 7 months to get them in.

feel free to incorporate my research into your textbooks.

edit: link (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)
This is all about when prisoners are awaiting trial. The standard practice in war is *not* to try prisoners, but to hold them until the war is over. That's the way it's done. Then when the war is over, the prisoners are released or tried. That's how it happens. That's what happened in World War II, for example. After the war, most prisoners were released, and the leaders were tried. That's how it works. It's not like the regular justice system, because of the numbers involved, and the fact that the nations involved are devoting resources to conducting the war, not "due process."

That said, the U.S. has some tough decisions ahead. They can't hold these prisoners indefinitely. But certainly a couple years is justified. Many wars last much longer than that.

[zimv20]

The Britons who were released were allowed contact with their families. I don't know about the others.
several countries, the UK and australia included, early on complained that though they knew some of their citizens were being held, they neither knew who or had access to them. you can't pretend the US has been open about these detainees.



Sure. Investigate away. Just don't assert that evil was done by the U.S. without evidence.

current evidence is the eyewitness evidence. sorry i don't have more for you -- i've never been to cuba. the point is: it's difficult to trust a closed gov't. the abuse allegations support that.



This is all about when prisoners are awaiting trial. The standard practice in war is *not* to try prisoners, but to hold them until the war is over.
your correct about the awaiting trial part. i'll add that, from day one, the administration made clear it wanted to try the detainees under a military tribunal, for taking up arms against the US. i can't recall the bush administration proclaiming their innocence as simple POWs and saying they're simply to be held to avoid repatriation.

even now, test cases are being made (jose padilla is one) by the justice department to suspend habeus corpus so the detainees can all be tried w/o being under the auspices of the US judicial system.

whereas you may feel these people deserve it, i feel that any constitutional end-runs are dangerous for the US society as a whole. if you think only guilty people get punished, you are indeed naïve.

[pseudobrit]

of course not.

someone who is as confused and as naïve as you shouldn't be.

That was a bit out of line, but I hope they're math texts and not history.

These acts are not the acts of a peaceful democratic republic. They are the acts of a hegemonic tyrranical fascist state.

[Thanatoast]

Then you are not aware of the standard practices of warfare. This is how it is done.
So in order to "win" the war on terror we have to violate our own principles of justice? Does that really qualify as a win?
It allows for punishment of misbehavior in prisoners of war, as it should.
Beatings for "minor infractions" seems like asking for trouble. Holding an innocent person, subjecting them to what would probably be considered cruel and unusual punishment if they only had access to council and the justice system does not seem to me to engender good feelings towards us. It only justifies what our enemies say about us, that we are unprincipled hypocrits.
We have grounds to respond to attacks on our state, whether they come from a sovereign state or an illegal usurper.
Right, so if the attack came from a private citizen of Saudi Arabia based out of Afghanistan, does that give us the right to topple the government of Afghanistan, keeping in mind the precedent it sets?
Now at least you're making a somewhat reasonable point. From an "image" perspective, it's important to treat these prisoners well. But on the other hand, it would be irresponsible to release terrorists because of some notion of "due process" that doesn't apply to non-citizens engaged in combat against the U.S.
Not only from an image perspective, but from a self-honest practice what you preach perspective as well. I'm upset that I've been overruled by our less-than-esteemed leader, but I believe due process applies to everyone, regardless of circumstances, otherwise what's the point of having it?
I hope you're wrong about this. Let's try to remember not to confuse actions in Afghanistan with actions in Iraq. Remember, Al Qaeda was headquartered in Afghanistan, was a sworn enemy of the U.S., and had conducted the most lethal attack on civilians in U.S. history. Iraq, by contrast, was a dubious threat.
The "war on terror" is never ending. Bush has put us on a course that it will be very difficult, if not impossible for us to turn from. Do you think it is even remotely possible to win a "war on terror"? Especially when our methods not only alienate our allies, but give credence to the charges levelled on us by the terrorists themselves?
God, I hope we didn't go to war in Afghanistan just to build a pipeline. Remember? September 11? Osama Bin Laden? Would we honestly have gone to war there just to build a damned pipeline? If they had just been peaceful peasant farmers, minding their own business? They were harboring, training, and exporting terrorists, remember?
I hope not either, but I'm not optimistic. It makes just as much sense as Bush's "crusade" against terrorists, and probably even more if you're a cynic. Which I am rapidly becoming. Of the twenty-six million people who live in Afghanistan, how many exactly do you think were harboring and training terrorists? Enough to bring down their government and plunge them into a choas from which they have still not emerged?

[Sayhey]

Originally Posted by Thanatoast
So are you saying that, by and large, it's okay to hold innocent people incommunicado without access to council, beat/torture them, and then release them two years later without so much as a "have a nice day"? The entire reason we have a justice system is to prevent **** like this from happening.
Then you are not aware of the standard practices of warfare. This is how it is done.

First, I don't think the Geneva Convention allows torture, unless I'm misinformed.

It allows for punishment of misbehavior in prisoners of war, as it should.

wordmunger,

these two replies to Thanatoast's statement maybe the scariest ideas I've seen posted in these forums in my time here. You seem to dismiss the idea of torture by our government as just another response to the tragedy of 9/11. Torture is never acceptable as method of "punishment" or as a "standard practice" in warfare. If these charges are true, the memory of those who died on 9/11 are dishonored by such practices. Not to mention of all those who have fought over the last 200 plus years for a way of life that is supposed to stand for something different. If you mean something other than an endorsement of such a practice by your statements, then I would advise you to be more careful in your post.

I would hope that our government would fight for the rights we helped formulate in the Geneva Convention, not contravene them. I would also hope that if you are going to make statements about the Convention you would actually read it. Among other things it states,

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

meaning we do not have the right to determine without such a process that the prisoners at Guantanamo are not POWs. Clearly, the prisoners of the Taleban are POWs and the members of al Qaeda must have a tribunal’s determination of their status. And it further states that,

Article 25

Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.

If the allegations concerning Prisoners being held in wire cages are true it is a clear violation of the Convention. Furthermore, the idea that Prisoners can be routinely subjected to beatings or any kind of mental or physical torture is so out of bounds from the content of the Geneva Convention as to be laughable if it wasn't such a serious subject.

Article 87
...Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishments, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden....

If these allegations are true, then those who chose to violate our solemn treaty commitments should face justice. Our nation is better than this, and we cannot allow the zealots in the White House to undermine this nation any more than we can foreign terrorists.

Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

[wwworry]

The bottom line, wordmunger, is that innocent people were held in prison for two years and, perhaps, beaten. It is wrong. Defend the war on Afghanistan all you want, I supported it too sort-of. But you do not have to defend every little bit of what happened there. Obviously a lot of gross mistakes on our part have taken place. Sixteen children were killed in 2 days by our troops, for God's sake.

The proper thing to do would be to call for reform of the parts that are not working and support the parts that are working.

Personally, I think if we had the Iraq troops in Afghanistan it would be a lot less messy there. Maybe we would have caught Ossama by now. If the money we spent on Iraq was used in Afghanistan then Afghanistan could have been the "shinning example of US led democratic reform". Instead, 2 countries are in chaos and no Ossama in custody. If you spread yourself too thin nothing gets done.

[Ugg]

Let's not conflate the war in Iraq with the war on terror. Do you seriously suppose that the U.S. was in Afghanistan because of oil? There is no oil in Afghanistan. The U.S. responded to the most vicious attack on American civilians in history. As I've said before, Bush made a huge mistake in attacking Iraq. This doesn't mean that actions taken in Afghanistan to deter terrorism were not justified.

Although there is no oil in Afgh., it lies on the route of a proposed pipeline being built by US companies.

Also, it is well-documented that some of the detainees in Guantanamo were "sold" to the US by Afghani warlords yet the US chose to keep them under lock and key for over two years... hmmm, where is the justice in that

[Sayhey]

The bottom line, wordmunger, is that innocent people were held in prison for two years and, perhaps, beaten. It is wrong. Defend the war on Afghanistan all you want, I supported it too sort-of. But you do not have to defend every little bit of what happened there. Obviously a lot of gross mistakes on our part have taken place. Sixteen children were killed in 2 days by our troops, for God's sake.

The proper thing to do would be to call for reform of the parts that are not working and support the parts that are working.

Personally, I think if we had the Iraq troops in Afghanistan it would be a lot less messy there. Maybe we would have caught Ossama by now. If the money we spent on Iraq was used in Afghanistan then Afghanistan could have been the "shinning example of US led democratic reform". Instead, 2 countries are in chaos and no Ossama in custody. If you spread yourself too thin nothing gets done.

Well said, wwworry. I, too, believe the war against the Taleban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan was not only justified but necessary. I think most of the world supported this effort. That is part of the great shame of the Iraqi invasion, that we threw away the near unanimous support of the world in the fight against terrorism in order to settle scores with Saddam. But regarding the war in Afghanistan, it does not follow, as you so rightly point out, that if you supported the war that one must support the way prisoners are treated in Guantanamo. They are two very different subjects.

[G5orbust]

These Geneva Convention examples are all correct, but the clear violation of them and other international treaties by the US government is not surprising nor unprecidented. Remember, the US withdrew from the NNPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), though it goes around crying when another country (think, Iraq) tries to further itself militarily by the addition of an atomic arsenal.

I believe Afgahnistan was a legitimate operation. The Unite States identified clearly an regime that supported/harbored the very terrorist groups that caused this mess in the first place. Thus we went in, did our business and left the Afgahnis, after some generic political and financial support, to their own devices - essentially we helped secure the country until they elected someone in free election. People seem pretty content in Afgahnistan. In my opinon: an overall success. Iraq, on the other hand, was a travesty - the Middle Eastern Vietnam. First, our entire plans to invade them were based on forged/faulty intelligence. Then we go into there and "save" the Iraqi people, who were glad to see Saadam go but are, on the other hand, just as mad that the United States is meddling in their business. Every day more US soldiers die in an operation no one wants to be part of. I think its time to take a step back and let the Iraqi's take over from here; if they fail, they fail but it seems pretty apparent that they dont want the US there.

Unfortunately, we're fighting an unconventional 'war' on terrorism and thus the government believes that unconventional warfare is grounds to violate basic human rights. I think its about time the United States stopped acting like a hypocritical child and actually become the rolemodel is proclaims itself to be.

[wordmunger]

Hi everyone. I'm back for more--had to do some things yesterday.

The responses to my arguments seem to boil down to three things:

1. The manner in which the U.S. conducted the war in Afghanistan violates its own standards of justice.

2. The Geneva Conventions were violated.

3. The prisoners were tortured and torture is *always* wrong.

So, here are my responses

1. Now, as I've said before, the notion of "justice" doesn't really apply in a war. You see someone wearing an enemy uniform, you shoot them. Where's the justice? Now, wait--they're not wearing uniforms, you say? Well, then you shoot anyone who appears to be a threat. Where's the justice? But this is only common sense in prosecuting a war. "Justice" can only come into play later, after the war is over. It's a matter of survival, not justice.

That said, it's obviously clear that the prisoners represented only a small threat while at Guantanamo. Nonetheless, there have been instances of prisoners attempting to transmit sensitive information through translators, which we saw on the news. What if some of this information was used to direct another attack? Or to help Bin Laden elude authorities? It may seem far-fetched, but there is no doubt that some prisoners succeeded in doing some of this, so the notion that they were no threat at all is a little naive--something that I've been called more than once in this thread. When you’re faced with a threat, you can legitimately respond with whatever force is necessary to remove that threat. That’s not justice, it’s common sense in a war.

2. I think my eyes have been opened a little bit here. I was unaware of the G.C. provision against corporal punishment. However, I’m still a little unclear, looking over this provision, whether it applies in the case we’re considering. Obviously you can use physical force to restrain prisoners who may be dangerous. So does the “beating” count as “restraint” or “punishment”? And we still don’t know if these prisoners were telling the truth.

It does seem clear that they were not billeted in the same manner as the nearby soldiers. The nearby soldiers lived in apartments and houses. The prisoners were given adequate housing for a warm climate, and they were provided with medical care, but I do agree that roofs and some protection from vermin would have been better. It appears to be a violation.

On the other hand, housing terrorists and criminals in an apartment complex would be irresponsible, because it would be impossible to provide adequate security. What if these prisoners had escaped or killed some of the guards?

3. The question of torture comes down to a question of definition. Assuming all the allegations in the British tabloid were true, the closest thing to “torture” appears to be the parading of naked women and the beatings. To me, this doesn’t qualify as torture. When I think of torture I’m thinking of the rack, or bamboo under the fingernails, or other excruciating ordeals. “Beating with sticks” doesn’t cut it. How is this supposed to elicit such fear in captives that they will break down and tell their darkest secrets? Obviously the Britons were in good health when they were released, so whatever “beatings” they endured couldn’t have been particularly severe. It just doesn’t cut it, in my book. The naked women, I suppose, might have constituted some kind of psychological torture. And it’s weird, really weird. Somehow, it still doesn’t seem like real torture, though.

Let’s suppose, however, that we all agreed hitting people with sticks and showing them naked women was the worst imaginable sort of torture. If a terrorist had information about future attacks, wouldn’t you beat them with sticks, even show the dreaded naked women, if there was some reason to believe this would help avert a future attack? We know that some of the information from Guantanamo internees helped locate Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, so the interrogators must have been doing something right.


My original point was only this--supposing we believe everything the Britons told the tabloids (and I think we would be naive to do so)--it’s actually a rather moderate response to the worst terrorist attack in American history. Even supposing these prisoners were completely innocent, I think given the scale of the American attempt to capture Al Qaeda terrorists, it’s surprising that we haven’t seen more of this. In an operation this large, mistakes are going to be made. Remarkably few have been--especially when we contrast it to the enormous mistake the U.S. made in Iraq.

That said, the U.S. needs to develop a plan for handling these internees. They can’t be kept in limbo forever. Some sort of trial or tribunal should be instituted, and executed in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions.

[wwworry]

The problem is that if the US does not hold itself to the highest standards in treating these prisoners maybe a guy that goes in innocent comes out a committed terrorist. Think about if you were mistakenly identified as a terrorist by a foreign government then held captive for two years and beaten. What if your family was shot up by mistake by some foreign soldiers? You'd be pissed, right?

There are moral as well as practical reasons to act in the most honorable way possible.

[wordmunger]

The problem is that if the US does not hold itself to the highest standards in treating these prisoners maybe a guy that goes in innocent comes out a committed terrorist. Think about if you were mistakenly identified as a terrorist by a foreign government then held captive for two years and beaten. What if your family was shot up by mistake by some foreign soldiers? You'd be pissed, right?

There are moral as well as practical reasons to act in the most honorable way possible.

You're right. If the guy was innocent, his treatment was bad, and it was wrong, and it could have bad results. If he was guilty (and presumably his captors believed him to be), then the question becomes much different. The U.S. is not adding to the number of terrorists, but diminishing them.

If he was innocent, then this was a mistake. There's no doubt about it. My main argument was that it wasn't a particularly bad mistake, given the scale of the war.

[zimv20]

1. Now, as I've said before, the notion of "justice" doesn't really apply in a war.

you give examples of battlefield behavior, but we're talking about POWs.


So does the “beating” count as “restraint” or “punishment”? And we still don’t know if these prisoners were telling the truth.

yes, we don't know if they're telling the truth. but their version is different from the official version, so i feel an investigation is warranted. and, yes, beatings are verboten under the GC.



On the other hand, housing terrorists and criminals in an apartment complex would be irresponsible, because it would be impossible to provide adequate security.

on what basis can you possibly say that? you think a building designed to hold captives and guarded by Marines cannot be adequately secured?



3. The question of torture comes down to a question of definition.

from the GC:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.


i submit that being beaten w/ sticks would qualify as "unpleasant".




If a terrorist had information about future attacks, wouldn’t you beat them with sticks, even show the dreaded naked women, if there was some reason to believe this would help avert a future attack?

not if we expect our soldiers to be afforded protection under the GC. do you think the GC is a bunch of crap, or that it can be suspended when things are "really important"? what is so hard to understand about this?


Even supposing these prisoners were completely innocent, I think given the scale of the American attempt to capture Al Qaeda terrorists, it’s surprising that we haven’t seen more of this.
is that because it doesn't exist, or because everything's being done in secret?

[G5orbust]

3. The question of torture comes down to a question of definition.

No... it doesnt. Torture is torture. End of story.

[wwworry]

So we all agree one should not torture innocent people and that the US should get off their ass and figure out who is a terrorist and who is not in G. Cuba.

I think wordmunger is pointing out that if someone really was a terrorist maybe it's not so bad to figure out what the next target is using mild forms of "torture". Other people are pointing out that it's traditionally been a bad idea to torture people because we do not want to be the kind of country that allows torture and, being a democracy, we have to do things the hard way even if it is inconvienient. But wordmuger might point out that people could die if we do not get the information. But should someone be beaten for two years when we know this admninistration is not too concerned about truth and innocence?

I think something we could all agree on is that it is really important in this situation to find out who is guilty or innocent. Then if they are guilty this argument could proceed in a clearer way.

[toontra]

I think something we could all agree on is that it is really important in this situation to find out who is guilty or innocent. Then if they are guilty this argument could proceed in a clearer way.

Exactly. Look, they had 2.5 years to "interview" these people. If there was any evidence that they were guilty of any terrorist-related activity then they would, and should, have been charged and tried. No problem there.

But where were the checks and procedures to identify innocent captives and ensure they were released? And why the hell did this take 2.5 years? This is the kind of c**p that happens if you try and bypass judicial process and human rights laws.

As has been said already, if these guys were guilty of anything whatsoever they would have been re-arrested when entering the UK, as MI5 & 6 were privy to all the evidence collected at Guantanamo Bay (indeed they were part of the interrogating team).

And why should we have any faith that those still detained are any more "guilty" than those released?

[zimv20]

munger -

i find it interesting that you simultaneously rationalize beatings/interrogation and express doubt that it happened.

[wordmunger]

munger -

i find it interesting that you simultaneously rationalize beatings/interrogation and express doubt that it happened.

I don't express doubt that interrogations happened. In fact, I'm fairly certain that mild and even strong forms of coersion were used. I simply think it would be naive to entirely trust the released prisoner's version of the story.

[skunk]

I think something we could all agree on is that it is really important in this situation to find out who is guilty or innocent. Then if they are guilty this argument could proceed in a clearer way.

Yes, but guilty of what? They haven't even been charged.If they are "guilty", that presupposes that they are NOT PoWs. If this is so, they need due process through the courts. If they ARE PoWs, they have to be released and repatriated without charge now that the "war" in Afghanistan is over. Which it must be, by definition, now that power has been "handed over" to a "civilian" "government". You can't have it both ways.

[skunk]

I simply think it would be naive to entirely trust the released prisoner's version of the story.

Not half as naïve as it would be to trust the jailer's version.

[numediaman]

Yes, but guilty of what? They haven't even been charged.If they are "guilty", that presupposes that they are NOT PoWs. If this is so, they need due process through the courts. If they ARE PoWs, they have to be released and repatriated without charge now that the "war" in Afghanistan is over. Which it must be, by definition, now that power has been "handed over" to a "civilian" "government". You can't have it both ways.

While I agree with you, you have to understand Bush's position: the war against terrorism is not over, and may never be over -- therefore, we can hold these people forever. In a perpetual war situation, the administration is free to act in anyway it wants. The only cost is international support -- which doesn't interest them anyway.

Do you really think they would have changed plans had the British decided not to support the war? No, they would have gladly called the Brits names the way they did (and still do) to the French. (Check out the thread here that was closed down recently. Its full of anti-French talk. Too bad it turns out that the French were absolutely right.)

[skunk]

While I agree with you, you have to understand Bush's position: the war against terrorism is not over, and may never be over -- therefore, we can hold these people forever.

No, no, no. You cannot have a "war against terrorism". Who would you declare it to? Wars are between nations.

[zimv20]

I don't express doubt that interrogations happened.

i miswrote. i meant torture, not interrogation.

[zimv20]

No, no, no. You cannot have a "war against terrorism". Who would you declare it to? Wars are between nations.
which is what i think is the underlying rationalization for ignoring large parts of the geneva convention. "it doesn't apply in this case"

[Ugg]

While I agree with you, you have to understand Bush's position: the war against terrorism is not over, and may never be over -- therefore, we can hold these people forever. In a perpetual war situation, the administration is free to act in anyway it wants. The only cost is international support -- which doesn't interest them anyway.

Do you really think they would have changed plans had the British decided not to support the war? No, they would have gladly called the Brits names the way they did (and still do) to the French. (Check out the thread here that was closed down recently. Its full of anti-French talk. Too bad it turns out that the French were absolutely right.)

Terror has been a part of human existence since time immemorial. Wars by definition cannot be waged indefinitely. They must have a beginning and an end and it is presumptuous to say the least, to think that terrorism has a beginning and an ending. But, that is exactly what gw & co. want from us, the ability to wage a war without end.

The administration is not and never has been free to act in any way that it wants to. They, as elected officials are bound by the rules of this country and any international treaties that have been signed in this country's name. This adminstration has acted shamefully.

I dunno about your claim that w/o the Brits we would have been able to continue. We needed Tony the poodle's confirmation of the evils lurking in Iraq. Of course it was all a bunch of bs as the French and Germans said it was......

[wordmunger]

Not half as naïve as it would be to trust the jailer's version.
Why? Because someone is Islamic, are they more reliable than an American? What greater cause is there to believe this guy than to believe his captors? By expressing your belief that the prisoner is more reliable than the jailer, your are expressing an incredible bias, and, dare I say, naivete.

[wordmunger]

i miswrote. i meant torture, not interrogation.

As I wrote before, "torture" is a matter of definition. Look, if we can shoot people in a war, certainly we can hit them with sticks. I realize they are prisoners now, but prisoners can be dangerous, too. Prisoners killed several of their captors in Afghanistan. I doubt that prisoners were subjected to serious torture--the mind-blowing, horrendous stuff that everyone agrees is torture. Things like the rack, or hot coals on your feet, all that awful stuff that went on in the Tower of London or the Spanish Inquisition. I don't think that happened, not because I'm a blind Bush zombie, but because it turns out not to be an effective technique for interrogation. People will confess to anything under those conditions. What we want is good information, not "what we want to hear." See this article (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/bowden.htm) for more.

[skunk]

Why? Because someone is Islamic, are they more reliable than an American? What greater cause is there to believe this guy than to believe his captors? By expressing your belief that the prisoner is more reliable than the jailer, your are expressing an incredible bias, and, dare I say, naivete.
No bias, just common sense: of course the jailer is going to say he hasn't done anything. And probably, given the absence of checks and balances in the no-man's-land of Guantanamo, the tendency of power to corrupt will have its way. If you keep people in cages, you will see them as animals.

[skunk]

I don't think that happened, not because I'm a blind Bush zombie, but because it turns out not to be an effective technique for interrogation.
That's never stopped anyone.

[skunk]

which is what i think is the underlying rationalization for ignoring large parts of the geneva convention. "it doesn't apply in this case"
Well, if we're all going to be dragged into this, I think it should be redefined. It's more like a jihad. Who's going to write the new GC for jihads? The Pope? An Ayatollah? The White House?

[wordmunger]

Believe what you want, Skunk, but you should realize that your arguments have devolved to the level of beliefs. If you can't make a logical response, I'm not going to debate you.

[skunk]

Believe what you want, Skunk, but you should realize that your arguments have devolved to the level of beliefs. If you can't make a logical response, I'm not going to debate you.

We're all working on a basis of belief here: that's the problem. Your implicit belief/default assumption seems to be that the Authorities are to be trusted. Mine is that there's little reason to assume that. If you can't handle that, debate is fairly redundant.

[wordmunger]

We're all working on a basis of belief here: that's the problem. Your implicit belief/default assumption seems to be that the Authorities are to be trusted. Mine is that there's little reason to assume that. If you can't handle that, debate is fairly redundant.
No, your implicit belief is that individuals can always be trusted over authorities. My belief is that we can completely trust neither, and so we need to look for other evidence to support our claims.

[skunk]

My belief is that we can completely trust neither, and so we need to look for other evidence to support our claims.

I can work with that. But the evidence has not been produced. All we have, and probably ever will have, is conflicting statements by the ex-prisoner and by the jailers. At some point you have to make a judgment based on your reading of human nature. Mine is that holding people without charge in a legal black hole for two years shows a great deal of contempt and arrogance: I would be surprised if this attitude among the authorities did not filter down to the lower echelons. I would certainly not dismiss these claims out of hand.

[wordmunger]

At some point you have to make a judgment based on your reading of human nature. Mine is that holding people without charge in a legal black hole for two years shows a great deal of contempt and arrogance
My threshold is a little longer than that. Despite the fact that people in this thread have argued that this is not a "real" war, there is a real conflict continuing in Afghanistan. We haven't even captured the leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Normally POWs aren't released until the war is over. That said, given the potential for this thing to go on indefinitely, the US needs to form a policy for dealing with these prisoners. It would be wrong to keep them in limbo forever.

I would be surprised if this attitude among the authorities did not filter down to the lower echelons. I would certainly not dismiss these claims out of hand.
I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand either, and I didn't. Read over this thread and you will see that. However, if you read the article that I've linked to twice in this thread, you will see that interrogators, especially effective ones, must be disciplined. Simply abusing the prisoners for no gain doesn't make any sense. Why would the U.S. set up a prison in Cuba just for that? Their goal is to get information, and no one in this thread has provided a reason or evidence to suppose that they are doing anything to jeopardize that goal.

[skunk]

Why would the U.S. set up a prison in Cuba just for that? Their goal is to get information, and no one in this thread has provided a reason or evidence to suppose that they are doing anything to jeopardize that goal.

The evidence we are discussing was in the link at the beginning. Eighteen attempted suicides won't help get information.

[wordmunger]

The evidence we are discussing was in the link at the beginning. Eighteen attempted suicides won't help get information.

I didn't see that in either article. If they were just "attempted" suicides, then the guards did a good job preventing them. Interrogation can be unpleasant, but if it prevents innocent deaths, then I'm in favor of a limited application of interrogation.

[Thanatoast]

Why? Because someone is Islamic, are they more reliable than an American? What greater cause is there to believe this guy than to believe his captors? By expressing your belief that the prisoner is more reliable than the jailer, your are expressing an incredible bias, and, dare I say, naivete.
No, because his captors held him for two years in Cuba, specifically so they could deny him access to the US justice system. He was not allowed access to counsel, nor trial by jury (should it have come to that), and was held in an outdoor facility. And he was innocent. Any government that uses legal technicalities to deny access to the justice system because it's inconvenient is automatically open to suspicion, if not outright hostility. That's why I'm more willing to trust his statements than my own governments, because he hasn't lied to me yet, and my own government has proven itself unworthy of my support through its actions.

[zimv20]

As I wrote before, "torture" is a matter of definition.
good god man, the GC defined it and i posted it for you.

bottom line is: you accept torture as a reasonable method of interrogation. the GC and official US policy do not. if that's your belief, that's fine, but
a) admit it
b) realize it's not GC or US policy
c) stop trying to convince me it is w/in such policy
d) know that i think you're dead wrong

[toontra]

good god man, the GC defined it and i posted it for you.

bottom line is: you accept torture as a reasonable method of interrogation. the GC and official US policy do not. if that's your belief, that's fine, but
a) admit it
b) realize it's not GC or US policy
c) stop trying to convince me it is w/in such policy
d) know that i think you're dead wrong

I have to agree.

It's a waste of everyone'e energy for someone to repeatedly post the same viewpoint without adequetly responding to the critisism and counter-arguments which people have gone to such lenth to post.

[wordmunger]

good god man, the GC defined it and i posted it for you.

bottom line is: you accept torture as a reasonable method of interrogation. the GC and official US policy do not. if that's your belief, that's fine, but
a) admit it
b) realize it's not GC or US policy
c) stop trying to convince me it is w/in such policy
d) know that i think you're dead wrong

a. I admit it. If I knew torturing someone would help prevent innocent people from being murdered, I would say it is justified. However, I don't think it's a reasonable method of interrogation, as I've said repeatedly throughout this thread, because it doesn't work.

b. It would be ridiculous to have an official policy condoning torture. This would open the door to all sorts of abuse.

c. I haven't been trying to convince you of that. In fact, I admitted above that I was wrong about several applications of the G.C. Nonetheless, I think these prisoners have been adequately treated. They have access to medical care and food and shelter. Being a prisoner is hard. It's no surprise that the released prisoners complained about their experience. It would be more surprising if they didn't complain.

d. I think you've made that clear.

[wordmunger]

I have to agree.

It's a waste of everyone'e energy for someone to repeatedly post the same viewpoint without adequetly responding to the critisism and counter-arguments which people have gone to such lenth to post.

If I haven't addressed a key point of this debate, please let me know. I've been in and out over the course of the day/weekend and I might have missed something. I should also point out that many of my points have met no response.

[toontra]

If I haven't addressed a key point of this debate, please let me know.

The guys released are totally innocent of any terrorist activity. Do you agree?

Given that, why should I or anyone else have any confidence that any of the remaining detainees are guilty of anything either?

Why did it take 2.5 years to release the first 5 Brits?

Answers please.

[skunk]

a. I admit it. If I knew torturing someone would help prevent innocent people from being murdered, I would say it is justified. However, I don't think it's a reasonable method of interrogation, as I've said repeatedly throughout this thread, because it doesn't work.

Well, which is it? Reasonable or unreasonable? Get off that fence.

b. It would be ridiculous to have an official policy condoning torture. This would open the door to all sorts of abuse.

What the issue is here is UNOFFICIAL policy.

c. I haven't been trying to convince you of that. In fact, I admitted above that I was wrong about several applications of the G.C. Nonetheless, I think these prisoners have been adequately treated.

Adequate in your opinion (spoken from the fence) or adequate according to the GC?

They have access to medical care and food and shelter.

If shelter is an open cage, yes. If you're after a dictionary definition, I don't think so.

[skunk]

Basically, as I see it, it comes down to one thing: if the situation was the other way round, and some other nation was treating US soldiers this way, would you say the same things? Would you excuse them on the grounds of expediency? This, after all, is the reason we have international conventions, isn't it?

[wordmunger]

The guys released are totally innocent of any terrorist activity. Do you agree?
Why should I agree with that? I don't know. They probably are innocent, or they wouldn't have been released. I should add that I was probably wrong to suggest that they were guilty at the beginning of this thread. This is something you guys have convinced me of.

Given that, why should I or anyone else have any confidence that any of the remaining detainees are guilty of anything either?
Because they haven't been released. But you shouldn't have a lot of confidence in that, either. There's not much evidence one way or another, is there? Of course we do know that some of the captives are die-hard terrorists, because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is among them.
Why did it take 2.5 years to release the first 5 Brits?

I don't know, and like you, I'd like to know. But wouldn't it have been a mistake to release someone who really was a terrorist? It sounds like these guys were captured under rather mysterious circumstances. Why would a British citizen be driving a truck through a war zone? If we believe his story, it was because he was misled. Who misled him? Was that person a terrorist? So now he's driving through a war zone with a terrorist. Sounds pretty suspicious to me. But all this is conjecture. Like you, I'd like to know more. But I also don't want to assume they were innocent, or that their innocence would be obvious in some amount of time less than 2.5 years. Would 1 year be okay? 1 month? Where do you draw the line?

[skunk]

Of course we do know that some of the captives are die-hard terrorists, because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is among them.
No he's not.

[skunk]

Why would a British citizen be driving a truck through a war zone? If we believe his story, it was because he was misled. Who misled him? Was that person a terrorist? So now he's driving through a war zone with a terrorist. Sounds pretty suspicious to me. But all this is conjecture. Like you, I'd like to know more. But I also don't want to assume they were innocent
You have a very strange notion of "innocent until proven guilty".

[wordmunger]

Basically, as I see it, it comes down to one thing: if the situation was the other way round, and some other nation was treating US soldiers this way, would you say the same things? Would you excuse them on the grounds of expediency? This, after all, is the reason we have international conventions, isn't it?
That's why the G.C. doesn't completely apply. They're not soldiers. They're terrorists, criminals. If the U.S. did what Al Qaeda did, intentionally murdering thousands of innocent civilians, and if the rest of the world was somehow able to conquer and capture a significant portion of our armed forces, I would be thankful if they were as merciful as U.S. forces appear to have been to the prisoners at Guantanamo. I doubt they would be.

[wordmunger]

You have a very strange notion of "innocent until proven guilty".
I am not a criminal court. I am not a juror. I was asked my opinion and I gave it. I don't have any power over these individuals. I just don't know whether they are innocent or guilty. I think they are probably innocent. There is no burden on *me* to assume they are innocent.

If I see a man commit a murder, I think he is guilty. I don't assume he is "innocent until proven guilty." This is not my personal burden.

[skunk]

That's why the G.C. doesn't completely apply. They're not soldiers. They're terrorists, criminals.
You are playing semantics. The US is unilaterally defining them as such WITHOUT ANY (visible) EVIDENCE.
If the U.S. did what Al Qaeda did, intentionally murdering thousands of innocent civilians...
You might find that there are Afghanis and Iraqis who feel that the US is doing just that.

[wordmunger]

Well, which is it? Reasonable or unreasonable? Get off that fence.

What the issue is here is UNOFFICIAL policy.

Adequate in your opinion (spoken from the fence) or adequate according to the GC?

If shelter is an open cage, yes. If you're after a dictionary definition, I don't think so.
Reread my response and what I responded to. I think you'll see I answered his questions. I do agree that the open cage aspect was a little harsh, but they were being held in a very hot climate. An enclosed tent might have been just as uncomfortable.

[zimv20]

That's why the G.C. doesn't completely apply. They're not soldiers. They're terrorists, criminals.

are you old enough to remember the iran hostages? boy, those iranians sure drew a lot of attention by capturing all those US spies.

[wordmunger]

are you old enough to remember the iran hostages? boy, those iranians sure drew a lot of attention by capturing all those US spies.
The Iranians captured who they could, because they were justifiably angry over their treatment under the U.S.-supported Shah's regime. The difference is they made no effort to capture the actual perpetrators of the crimes against them--because they were powerless to do so.

[skunk]

The Iranians captured who they could, because they were justifiably angry over their treatment under the U.S.-supported Shah's regime. The difference is they made no effort to capture the actual perpetrators of the crimes against them--because they were powerless to do so.
And your point is?

[wordmunger]

And your point is?
The U.S. didn't take innocent hostages at the Afghan embassy. They went to Afghanistan and tried to find the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11. So the situation is different from the Iran hostage crisis.

[zimv20]

The Iranians captured who they could

but the iranian gov't swore up and down that they were spies

[wordmunger]

but the iranian gov't swore up and down that they were spies
So what are you saying? Some governments lie, therefore the U.S. government lies? Hell, I'll even buy that the U.S. government lies some of the time. But that doesn't prove they're lying in this case. In this case, the preponderance of evidence suggests that they're doing the right thing: trying to find the people responsible for 9/11 and others who are planning future attacks. They're not arbitarily lashing about at anyone who is convenient to capture. They're going to all ends of the earth to try and catch the people who are really responsible. In this case, where it looks like they probably made a mistake, they released the prisoners.

[skunk]

So what are you saying? Some governments lie, therefore the U.S. government lies?
Who said the Iranians were lying?
In this case, the preponderance of evidence suggests that they're doing the right thing:
There IS no evidence.
.. trying to find the people responsible for 9/11 and others who are planning future attacks. They're not arbitarily lashing about at anyone who is convenient to capture. They're going to all ends of the earth to try and catch the people who are really responsible.
What, the grunts at Guantanamo are responsible for flying those aircraft??In this case, where it looks like they probably made a mistake, they released the prisoners.
How good of them.

[zimv20]

So what are you saying? Some governments lie, therefore the U.S. government lies?

if you abstract it, you'll see that in both cases people were held against their will, the governments proclaimed their guilt and threatened to execute them.

in one case you say the gov't is lying, in another you say the gov't is telling the truth. your judgements are made on faith.

in both cases, i say get the evidence out in the open and have a fair trial.

[numediaman]

More releases:
from the BBC:
Twenty-six freed from Guantanamo

Critics have attacked US policy as heavy-handed and unlawful

Twenty-three Afghans and three Pakistanis held at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay have been freed, the American military has said.
The men were released in Afghanistan and Pakistan, US officials said.
No specific reason was given for their release. In a statement, the Pentagon defended retaining 610 "enemy combatants" at the base in Cuba.
The US says that in all, 119 detainees have been released and 12 have been transferred for continued detention.
So, after two and a half years, more are released. No charges, no explanations.

[skunk]

From the same article:
More releases:
from the BBC:
Twenty-six freed from Guantanamo
It has described allegations by three detainees recently repatriated to the UK that they were beaten and tortured in the camp as "lies and fabrications".
The Pentagon also acknowledges that many detainees could be held indefinitely without trial. It says it is entitled to do this under international laws of war.


What "International Laws of War"? Chapter and Verse, please, George.