Forget Gitmo?

bonkey · 03-11-2005 1:48pm #1

from [url=]here[/url]

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held.

There's a chunk of other, similar articles on this referenced from google news at the moment.

Maybe I shouldn't be shocked. After all, these prisons, like Gitmo, are only for "really bad people", right? And don't we need to be kept safe.

Interestingly, I can see those who have no issue with this being largely the same group who have supported various actions of the US government, often justifying the loss of civil liberties / privacy on the grounds of "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear"

One would have to ask, therefore, what it is the US fears, given that it has up-till-recently hidden teh mere existence fo these prisons, and even now seeks to keep hidden the manner in which it treats its prisoners.

jc

bonkey · 03-11-2005 1:51pm

Forgot link. Can't edit above post from where I currently am.

It should have been...

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=111c425e-3f65-49c3-b5c3-a40754abf457

Hobbes · 03-11-2005 2:01pm

Saw that the other day. Although the US government have denied it, but then with thier record on being truthful whos to say.

I had posted some months back on politics a link to a canadian guy who was detained in the US (only flying through the country to get to another), sent to another country to be tourtured and after months was released without charge. His crime? Asking a stranger to co-sign a lease who was in the same place as him when getting an apartment (AFAIR).

So I can well believe this crap is going on.

Snickers Man · 03-11-2005 4:15pm

Hobbes wrote:

canadian guy who was detained in the US (only flying through the country to get to another), sent to another country to be tourtured and after months was released without charge. His crime? Asking a stranger to co-sign a lease who was in the same place as him when getting an apartment.

I think you're being a little disingenuous there Hobbes and not telling us the full truth. I'll bet here were other grounds for suspicion.

eg

having a swarthy complexion

declining to eat the bacon in his airline meal.

sporting a full dark beard

being called Mohammed

I'm sure they got him bang to rights.

Zombrex · 03-11-2005 4:40pm

I mean what kind of person doesn't eat bacon?? A Communist thats who!

Hobbes do you have a link to that post (search isn't working for me for some reason)

bonkey · 03-11-2005 5:01pm

Careful now. All these nasty comments about bacon will have people calling you anti-Semitic.

or something.

Hobbes wrote:

Although the US government have denied it

Have they?

All I could find was that the Administration and CIA had refused to comment on the article in the Washington Post that appeared yesterday.

Refused to comment...the words "nothing to hide" are echoing around my head again.

jc

Zombrex · 03-11-2005 5:57pm

bonkey wrote:

Careful now. All these nasty comments about bacon will have people calling you anti-Semitic

Watch Mel Gibson's The Passion bonkey ... Mel Gibson isn't wrong bonkey, he isn't wrong ... just watch it ..

(anyone who doesn't watch South Park won't get this ...

)

Anyway, back on topic ... it think it is a bit of damning statement of the fear the American public is in that they really don't seem to care about what happened at Gitmo. I mean it is all very well to say it isn't Americans its just Bush, but the Gitmo issue is largely ignored or not understood by middle America

I think in time history will look back at this with horror as it did the Japanise interment camps during WWII

Memnoch · 03-11-2005 7:22pm

Harsh times call for harsh measures.

We must fight these terrorists home and abroad, and sometimes, some of us must sacrifice our principles in true pragmatism so that the majority may safely follow theirs.

America is a light in the darkness, a symbol of freedom, democracy and equality, and you damned europeans should just be thankful that we are around or you would all be speaking german right now.

Sand · 03-11-2005 10:01pm

Harsh times call for harsh measures.

We must fight these terrorists home and abroad, and sometimes, some of us must sacrifice our principles in true pragmatism so that the majority may safely follow theirs.

America is a light in the darkness, a symbol of freedom, democracy and equality, and you damned europeans should just be thankful that we are around or you would all be speaking german right now.

Thats crazy talk.

Theres no such thing as Al-Queda.

We must strive to home and abroad, to find these non-existent terrorists so we can surrender to them and try to adapt to how our moral masters dictate - grow beards, force women back into the kitchen, preferably wearing a sheet. This "alleged" desire to carry out massive attacks on our cities is clearly a lie spread by the nefarious neo-cons, these brave young freedom fighters - if they exist at all - wish only to liberate themselves from our cruel and evil depradations such as McDonalds!

Because at the end of the day, its Americas fault. America is clearly the worst country in the whole world. Americans are basically to blame for everything. Polution? America. Famine? America. Poverty? America. Tsuanamis? America. China/India buying up all the oil? America. U.N. being useless? America. Israel not wiped off the map yet? America. Chechnya? America. Tieniemen Square? America. USSR not winning the Cold War? America. Didnt get a parking spot this morning? America. They should just be grateful they have us Europeans here to remind them what a mess of things theyre making.

Seriously though, Gitmo is enough. Given its apparently a medieval torture dungeon complete with ogre last I heard - I also heard disturbing rumours about detainees being taught to read and stuff like that, but I assume thats hysterical sensationalism - what are they doing in these black sites thats worse than the hellhole Gitmo apparently is?

breandan · 04-11-2005 1:23am

Memnoch wrote:

America is a light in the darkness, a symbol of freedom, democracy and equality, and you damned europeans should just be thankful that we are around or you would all be speaking german right now.

As apposed to the English we now speak............

bonkey · 04-11-2005 1:16pm

Memnoch wrote:

America is a light in the darkness, a symbol of freedom, democracy and equality, and you damned europeans should just be thankful that we are around or you would all be speaking german right now.

At the risk of not picking up on humour....

The point most critics are making is that the second word of that quote is in danger of becoming (some would say has become) the wrong tense.

jc

supersheep · 05-11-2005 1:12am

Sand wrote:

Thats crazy talk.

Theres no such thing as Al-Queda.

We must strive to home and abroad, to find these non-existent terrorists so we can surrender to them and try to adapt to how our moral masters dictate - grow beards, force women back into the kitchen, preferably wearing a sheet. This "alleged" desire to carry out massive attacks on our cities is clearly a lie spread by the nefarious neo-cons, these brave young freedom fighters - if they exist at all - wish only to liberate themselves from our cruel and evil depradations such as McDonalds!

Because at the end of the day, its Americas fault. America is clearly the worst country in the whole world. Americans are basically to blame for everything. Polution? America. Famine? America. Poverty? America. Tsuanamis? America. China/India buying up all the oil? America. U.N. being useless? America. Israel not wiped off the map yet? America. Chechnya? America. Tieniemen Square? America. USSR not winning the Cold War? America. Didnt get a parking spot this morning? America. They should just be grateful they have us Europeans here to remind them what a mess of things theyre making.

Seriously though, Gitmo is enough. Given its apparently a medieval torture dungeon complete with ogre last I heard - I also heard disturbing rumours about detainees being taught to read and stuff like that, but I assume thats hysterical sensationalism - what are they doing in these black sites thats worse than the hellhole Gitmo apparently is?

Thing is though, America are supposed to be the good guys. And the good guys don't get to play with the nasty spiky torture things and the like - that's only for the bad guys. If you claim to uphold freedom, you can't take someone and stick them in a camp for four years without charge, or hide them in Poland. You've gotta play by the rules. Even if it means you're handicapping yourself.
That's how the good guys play.

Sand · 05-11-2005 6:49pm

Thing is though, America are supposed to be the good guys. And the good guys don't get to play with the nasty spiky torture things and the like - that's only for the bad guys. If you claim to uphold freedom, you can't take someone and stick them in a camp for four years without charge, or hide them in Poland. You've gotta play by the rules. Even if it means you're handicapping yourself.
That's how the good guys play.

Well in the case where nasty spiky torture things were used, Abu Gharib, the soldiers involved were charged and convicted and the officer who was supposed to be running the show was demoted.

And in the case of Gitmo, that hell on earth where detainees are supposed to be having their toenails ripped out - actually they do things like teach people how to read and do their prayer calls and so on and so forth. So you see, I do feel that A) The Abu Gharib fallout demonstrated to any soldier or whoever else that if prisoners are mistreated they will be prosecuted, and to officers that they will be held responsible for any mistreatment in their facilities and

The reports on Gitmo painting it as some sort of death camp were a little over the top, hence these reports of secret CIA camps (the CIA has secret facilities, whod have thunk it, next youll be telling me they have people working for them that dont say they work for the CIA) are only the next subject of hysterical sensationalism. The worst Ive heard coming out of Gitmo is that when the most non-compliant are interogated that theyre insulted, belittled, humiliated and put under tremendous emotional strain. That is standard run of the mill techniques for interrogating fanatics who dont want to tell you what they know. Its not a pleasant experience for the person undergoing it but its not meant to be. And its a far cry from spiky torture instruments you describe.

Look at that case of the British soldiers which collapsed recently, they were accused of going into a town, beating a teenager to death, attacking a woman and various other crimes. This would have been hyped up as showing the evil crimes of the coalition forces - except when it came to trial there was no body, no grave, no proof showing any of the accused soldiers were even in the town, and several of the witnessess admitted they had lied about what they had seen so as to claim appearance fees in the court, and eventually claim blood money from the UK. The judge directed that given the above there was no way any of the men could be convicted.

So theres a lot of claims about misdemeanors on the part of the "good" guys, that usually doesnt hold up to the light of day. It is however a mark that they are the good guys that such claims are investigated and punished as appropriate. So again, I get a little cautious about believing every detention facility is an orwellian nightmare, every coalition soldier is a redneck Texan who spends his patrols shooting up civillians for ****s and giggles, and so on and so forth.

Also, on your point about upholding freedom and locking people up for 4 years - actually the US can lock up people for as long as they want, technically until they die of old age without charge. If Al Queda is fighting a war against the US, which they claim, then any of their "soldiers" taken prisoner do not have to be released until the end of hostilities, which will never happen as Al Queda and Co will never sign a peace deal with the US. All perfectly above board too.

supersheep · 06-11-2005 12:55am

Sand wrote:

Well in the case where nasty spiky torture things were used, Abu Gharib, the soldiers involved were charged and convicted and the officer who was supposed to be running the show was demoted.

And in the case of Gitmo, that hell on earth where detainees are supposed to be having their toenails ripped out - actually they do things like teach people how to read and do their prayer calls and so on and so forth. So you see, I do feel that A) The Abu Gharib fallout demonstrated to any soldier or whoever else that if prisoners are mistreated they will be prosecuted, and to officers that they will be held responsible for any mistreatment in their facilities and The reports on Gitmo painting it as some sort of death camp were a little over the top, hence these reports of secret CIA camps (the CIA has secret facilities, whod have thunk it, next youll be telling me they have people working for them that dont say they work for the CIA) are only the next subject of hysterical sensationalism. The worst Ive heard coming out of Gitmo is that when the most non-compliant are interogated that theyre insulted, belittled, humiliated and put under tremendous emotional strain. That is standard run of the mill techniques for interrogating fanatics who dont want to tell you what they know. Its not a pleasant experience for the person undergoing it but its not meant to be. And its a far cry from spiky torture instruments you describe.

As far as I know, no sharp pointy torture implements were actually used in Abu Ghraib, just humiliation and abuse. Similar to what is used in Gunatanamo, I believe - emotional torture is still torture.

Sand wrote:

Look at that case of the British soldiers which collapsed recently, they were accused of going into a town, beating a teenager to death, attacking a woman and various other crimes. This would have been hyped up as showing the evil crimes of the coalition forces - except when it came to trial there was no body, no grave, no proof showing any of the accused soldiers were even in the town, and several of the witnessess admitted they had lied about what they had seen so as to claim appearance fees in the court, and eventually claim blood money from the UK. The judge directed that given the above there was no way any of the men could be convicted.

So theres a lot of claims about misdemeanors on the part of the "good" guys, that usually doesnt hold up to the light of day. It is however a mark that they are the good guys that such claims are investigated and punished as appropriate. So again, I get a little cautious about believing every detention facility is an orwellian nightmare, every coalition soldier is a redneck Texan who spends his patrols shooting up civillians for ****s and giggles, and so on and so forth.

Doesn't mean they didn't do it... But yes, I mainly agree here. I just want to point out that the boy they were accused of killing WAS actually killed - just not necessarily by them.

Sand wrote:

Also, on your point about upholding freedom and locking people up for 4 years - actually the US can lock up people for as long as they want, technically until they die of old age without charge. If Al Queda is fighting a war against the US, which they claim, then any of their "soldiers" taken prisoner do not have to be released until the end of hostilities, which will never happen as Al Queda and Co will never sign a peace deal with the US. All perfectly above board too.

But then, certain rules which the US are not applying would apply - the rules concerning the treatment of prisoners of war.

Hobbes · 06-11-2005 7:15am

Wicknight wrote:

Hobbes do you have a link to that post (search isn't working for me for some reason)

Heres the link...

http://www.maherarar.ca/

Worth reading.

Hobbes · 06-11-2005 7:28am

Sand wrote:

actually they do things like teach people how to read and do their prayer calls and so on and so forth.

If it is such a wonderful place why then are a large number of the immates on hunger strike then?

And which inmates are they teaching to read? Those children they have detained? You know, the ones that aren't actually charged with anything, just happen to be related to some of the prisoners.

The reports on Gitmo painting it as some sort of death camp were a little over the top,

Your right in those regards. However 2-3 years ago the US did mention they were building gas chamber to execute those they find seriously guilty (or whatever term). Considering the trials are far from fair, what name would you call the place? Happy funcamp?

hence these reports of secret CIA camps (the CIA has secret facilities, whod have thunk it, next youll be telling me they have people working for them that dont say they work for the CIA) are only the next subject of hysterical sensationalism.

Exporting of tourture has been going on for years and has been reported by the Press worldwide for a number of years in relation to Gitmo. The previous link I just gave gives 1 incident. Hard to believe you can be detained without rights by the US in an US airport (more then one incident with this), but it happens.

The worst Ive heard coming out of Gitmo is that when the most non-compliant are interogated that theyre insulted, belittled, humiliated and put under tremendous emotional strain.

2-4 year holiday is great. Imagine I removed your from society for 2 years, told no one where you were and then returned you without compensation to that society. Do you think you would still have a job? A house? Family and friends? A lot of people released without charge after YEARS of detainment are in this position.

From how I read it you have no problem with people being detained in cages without rights and reasonable tourture without being charged of any crime.

And that is right how?

Also, on your point about upholding freedom and locking people up for 4 years - actually the US can lock up people for as long as they want, technically until they die of old age without charge. If Al Queda is fighting a war against the US, which they claim, then any of their "soldiers" taken prisoner do not have to be released until the end of hostilities, which will never happen as Al Queda and Co will never sign a peace deal with the US. All perfectly above board too.

Then they would attain POW status, they would have to officially declare war on a country and they would have to be released at the end of such instances. Didn't Bush claim "Mission Accomplished" some time ago? Although I don't remember Congress officially declaring war.

Also as POW they would be entitled to more rights then they have now.

AQ and co... AQ are independant of the and co, and lumping the two together just helps to futher abuse peoples rights in the name of fighting terror.

Sand · 07-11-2005 10:16pm

As far as I know, no sharp pointy torture implements were actually used in Abu Ghraib, just humiliation and abuse. Similar to what is used in Gunatanamo, I believe - emotional torture is still torture.

As I understand it there was beatings and physical mistreatment of the prisoners there. A step above emotional stress. And youre now in the proccess of a U turn from originally claiming that the US *shouldnt* use nasty spiky torture things to now claiming no nasty spiky torture things were actually used at all. Which is a reminder of why hyped up sensationalism about torture only confuses the issue.

Doesn't mean they didn't do it... But yes, I mainly agree here. I just want to point out that the boy they were accused of killing WAS actually killed - just not necessarily by them.

Well the defence lawyer for the men made the point that the prosecution couldnt produce a body or a grave. Given that is it even certain any boy was killed?

But then, certain rules which the US are not applying would apply - the rules concerning the treatment of prisoners of war.

Only real difference would be questioning. They probably couldnt question them on their links to terrorism. Which is the most practical reason for not going down that path. Mind you, POWs are obliged to provide their unit, rank, and so on and so forth. The equivalent for a terrorist would be his cell. However, the non-compliant arent likely to talk anyway so the lock them up and throw away the key option sounds safest.

If it is such a wonderful place why then are a large number of the immates on hunger strike then?

Maybe they have a really strong belief in their cause? Wouldnt be the first time terrorists went on hunger strike.

And which inmates are they teaching to read? Those children they have detained? You know, the ones that aren't actually charged with anything, just happen to be related to some of the prisoners.

The compliant prisoners, those who cant read anyway Id imagine.

Your right in those regards. However 2-3 years ago the US did mention they were building gas chamber to execute those they find seriously guilty (or whatever term). Considering the trials are far from fair, what name would you call the place? Happy funcamp?

A detention facility, a lot of US prisons have nearby means of execution. Theyre still usually called prisons as opposed to death camps. Its a different country Hobbes, with a different system of crime and punishment. They do some things a little more "progressively" than we do, and vice versa.

Exporting of tourture has been going on for years and has been reported by the Press worldwide for a number of years in relation to Gitmo. The previous link I just gave gives 1 incident. Hard to believe you can be detained without rights by the US in an US airport (more then one incident with this), but it happens.

Well with all that evidence it should be easy to get a conviction then shouldnt it? Seeing as the usual domestic law enforcement are touted by people as being enough to deal with secretive, fanatical terrorists it shouldnt be a big deal to get convictions using the same system against a government/system thats bound by the law and accountable to the people and leaks like a sieve any time anything mildly embarrassing develops.

From how I read it you have no problem with people being detained in cages without rights and reasonable tourture without being charged of any crime.

I run a pros/cons angle on it. My ideal solution would be that stuff like 9/11 didnt happen, or that the people who carried it out werent attempting to carry out more of them. But unfortunately thats not the case. And given the anti-bush lobbys struggle to convict Bush for torture in Gitmo despite apparent evidence being everywhere, you can understand my misgivings about the ability of normal orthodox law enforcement to deal with these guys.

Also you and I as fellow Irishmen ( Im guessing?) owe a great debt of gratitude to Dev and his policy of people being detained in cages without rights and without being charged with any crime. It smashed the IRA in the Free State/Republic and helped protect our democracy. Wasnt kittens and sunshine but it worked.

So overall, I see it as the least worst option.

AQ and co... AQ are independant of the and co, and lumping the two together just helps to futher abuse peoples rights in the name of fighting terror.

Do you have a shorthand version of the above, that can stress the differentiation of the two whilst allowing me to refer to AQ and their allied local groups without a sentence of several hundred words? I was working with "and" but this apparently isnt pedantic enough.

rsynnott · 08-11-2005 12:08am

Memnoch wrote:

Harsh times call for harsh measures.

We must fight these terrorists home and abroad, and sometimes, some of us must sacrifice our principles in true pragmatism so that the majority may safely follow theirs.

America is a light in the darkness, a symbol of freedom, democracy and equality, and you damned europeans should just be thankful that we are around or you would all be speaking german right now.

Is this a joke? Honestly, I can't tell.

There were, as far as I know, no nasty spiky things. There was however, sleep deprivation and other related nastiness. Torture by EU standards, though not by US or UN standards.

Hobbes · 08-11-2005 7:07am

Sand wrote:

Maybe they have a really strong belief in their cause? Wouldnt be the first time terrorists went on hunger strike.

Actually they are demanding to be tried or released. You do read the news right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4206908.stm

Also they have been convicted of no crime to date, so how can you call them terrorists? Were the 100's that were released from the camp after 2 years imprisonment also terrorists?

A detention facility, a lot of US prisons have nearby means of execution. Theyre still usually called prisons as opposed to death camps.

Except that in a US prison you are normally given a fair trial and whatnot before you are executed. In Gitmo these prisoners can't even see what crimes they are being accused of and there is no oversight in this regards. Although if you know of any let me know.

Well with all that evidence it should be easy to get a conviction then shouldnt it?

Except that the US have twisted the laws to basically say "You are not in the US, we can do what we like". A good example is US airports. The ground is classed as international land, so they can detain you there without rights also and have done so to people.

It smashed the IRA in the Free State/Republic and helped protect our democracy.

Actually the IRA had little to no real power during the world wars. It only gained strength during the civil rights movements. Can you show where it helped protect democracy? Have you even read the history during that time? Do you also condone the imprisonment of Japanese during WWII in the US? Same thing no?

Do you have a shorthand version of the above

I point I am making you (and generally the US administration) can just slap AQ onto something to imply that hey everyone is a terrorist.

But I would like to know how you can infer that people in Gitmo are all terrorists when they haven't even been charged. Also you skipped over the bit if you were detained without rights for 2 years. You don't seem to have a problem with this?

bonkey · 08-11-2005 10:00am

Sand wrote:

Well with all that evidence it should be easy to get a conviction then shouldnt it?

Any reason you don't apply this reasoning to what the US is doing to its suspects, but do apply it to the critics of said policy?

Its ok to hold people indefinitely in Gitmo without evidence etc, because hey - proving they've done something wrong obviously isn't that important. As long as you suggest you'll eventually let them go, let them die, or give them a trial, then you're free to treat them as though they are already guilty.

Criticise this policy, or any of the other areas where there's questions about its legality/morality, and all of a sudden its a case of knocking the criticism because it hasn't been taken to court and shown to hold up there.

I would suggest that no defence of what has gone on / is going on in Gitmo can use the "take it to trial" defence, nor any other form of "innocent until proven guilty" reasoning without sacrificing any shred of intellectual honesty the argument may otherwise have had.

jc

lili · 08-11-2005 10:15am

do those people in gitmo have laywers for defend their rights?

Hobbes · 08-11-2005 10:29am

lili wrote:

do those people in gitmo have laywers for defend their rights?

Some do, however they are being denied the right to talk to thier clients and even when they do get access it is far from normal. Also a lot of the evidence the lawyers are not even allowed see.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4343898.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1098618,00.html

bonkey · 09-11-2005 2:23pm

Just saw the following regarding these prisons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110900318.html

Basically, it alleges that the CIA are asking the Justice Dept to investigate the leaking of this information.

This is very interesting. So far, the only answers regarding the allegations about these prisons have either dodged the topic or insisted that the prisons don't exist.

Now, the CIA are apparently looking to find out who leaked this classified information about prisons which don't exist and who's existence has been denied.

Of course, if this turns around to bite Republicans in the ass, I'm sure that this, unlike the Plame case, will be widely billed as a worthy investigation into very serious allegations of leaking classified information.

jc

Hobbes · 09-11-2005 2:55pm

Its been common knowledge that CIA were exporting people to Uzbek to be torture some time back. What has changed now?

Capt'n Midnight · 07-12-2005 10:14pm

Hobbes wrote:

Its been common knowledge that CIA were exporting people to Uzbek to be torture some time back. What has changed now?

http://robinrowland.com/garret/2005/11/waterboarding-is-war-crime.html
this Blog describes "Waterboarding" which the US have admited to using.

Of course the Waterboarding the US uses is the good kind that coerces terrorists into revealing only genuine info that prevents attacks.

The other kind of Waterboarding, while technically exactly the same, is bad. The Japanese used it in WWII on innocent civilians who had taken no parth in an attack (by special forces) yet the civilians confessed. These false confessions don't happen with the good kind. Also the bad kind of Waterboarding is a capital offense, the Japanese involved were executed for war crimes. This also doesn't happen with the totally different good kind of Waterboarding even though it's technically the same as the bad kind.

wiseones2cents · 08-12-2005 2:09am

America is guilty of many things. That is why they refuse to participate in the International courts. They actually threatened them and silenced them.

They refuse to pass anti-Torture laws because they know they are guilty of them.

These guys have made a mockery of war rules. Here is an example.

The U.S. has classified the prisoners held at Camp X-Ray as "illegal combatants" rather than prisoners of war, and claims that the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions.

Were they not captured during war?

And the brains behind this logic was made Attorney General. All of America's puppets and henchmen are promoted.

You people that believe emotional torture of an Innocent man is justifiable, should rethink your positions. None of those men at Guantanamo have been convicted of anything.

Also the CIA transported prisoners to places that practice PHYSICAL Torture.
Which is Clearly Illegal and a Barbaric and Criminal Act.

America is a light in the darkness, a symbol of freedom, democracy and equality, and you damned europeans should just be thankful that we are around or you would all be speaking german right now.

America is a light in the darkness? I dont know where you get your info from but America's glory days are over. It is the complete opposite.

Freedom?They install puppet Dictators around the world to Oppress.

Democracy? America's idea of Democracy is criminals funding politicians and political campaigns world wide.

Equality? Thats not what the Black Population of New Orleans is saying. Its been 4 months and they have not recieved one bit of aid.

You make it seem like America saved the world single handedly.America sat back in both world wars for a few years and watched, thanks to its geographical position. Russia and Britain did most of the work
against Germany.

supersheep · 09-12-2005 9:38pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

http://robinrowland.com/garret/2005/11/waterboarding-is-war-crime.html
this Blog describes "Waterboarding" which the US have admited to using.

Of course the Waterboarding the US uses is the good kind that coerces terrorists into revealing only genuine info that prevents attacks.

The other kind of Waterboarding, while technically exactly the same, is bad. The Japanese used it in WWII on innocent civilians who had taken no parth in an attack (by special forces) yet the civilians confessed. These false confessions don't happen with the good kind. Also the bad kind of Waterboarding is a capital offense, the Japanese involved were executed for war crimes. This also doesn't happen with the totally different good kind of Waterboarding even though it's technically the same as the bad kind.

Did someone see or read Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize Speech?

As for the torture, of course it's still going on. It'll go on as long as people are willing to give up their freedoms in return for "safety" from something that is both highly unlikely to happen to them, and almost impossible to prevent. Not worth it, in my opinion. I'd rather take the risk than give up protection from torture and the shelter of the law.

Sand · 10-12-2005 1:16am

You make it seem like America saved the world single handedly.America sat back in both world wars for a few years and watched, thanks to its geographical position. Russia and Britain did most of the work
against Germany.

I know, that post has a highly unrealistic bias with regards to the U.S. Its disgusting tbh.

Any reason you don't apply this reasoning to what the US is doing to its suspects, but do apply it to the critics of said policy?

Never got round to answering this the first time, but my entire point was that people against Gitmo argue that normal law enforcement is enough to deal with terrorism. They also denounce Bush as a mass war crinimal and christ knows what else. Seeing as Bush is convicted of nothing, despite apparent mounds of evidence and his administration leaking sensitive memos and documents weekly, the same people cant argue that normal law enforcement is enough to deal with secretive, murderous terrorists because normal law encforcement cant convict in (apparently) the most open and shut case since Nuremburg - at least so far as those posters are concerned?

As for the torture, of course it's still going on. It'll go on as long as people are willing to give up their freedoms in return for "safety" from something that is both highly unlikely to happen to them, and almost impossible to prevent. Not worth it, in my opinion. I'd rather take the risk than give up protection from torture and the shelter of the law.

Well, as Rice herself said, she knows what it is like to be before a commitee investigating whether the administration did *everything* possible to avoid a terrorist attack. People here were denouncing her and the Bush administration on the grounds that she read a report that islamic terrorists were planning an attack on the U.S. Heres a newsflash, islamic terrorists are planning attacks right now! You cant have it both ways. And tbh, the reporting on Gitmo was horribly overhyped to the point where the journalists must have collapsed hyperventilating over their keyboards. Abuse was proven and punished in Abu Gharib, not in Gitmo.

Also the CIA transported prisoners to places that practice PHYSICAL Torture.
Which is Clearly Illegal and a Barbaric and Criminal Act.

Countries have renditioned people many times before. I doubt you were out with placards denouncing the capture of Nazi war crinimals by Mossad in South America - or who knows, maybe you were. As Rice pointed out, the taking of Carlos the Jackal to France was challenged in court and the challenge was defeated.

As for these places that practised torture, have you been listening to the testimony in Saddams trial? Apparently human beings were fed into mincing machines in his jails. Woops, instead of human beings, I meant nobody. Because as we all know Saddam was a threat to nobody.

ziggy · 10-12-2005 4:49am

This post has been deleted.

wiseones2cents · 10-12-2005 7:21pm

Countries have renditioned people many times before. I doubt you were out with placards denouncing the capture of Nazi war crinimals by Mossad in South America - or who knows, maybe you were. As Rice pointed out, the taking of Carlos the Jackal to France was challenged in court and the challenge was defeated.

I was not following politics or was aware at the time.I think Carlos the jackal and this situation are highly different.

As for these places that practised torture, have you been listening to the testimony in Saddams trial? Apparently human beings were fed into mincing machines in his jails. Woops, instead of human beings, I meant nobody. Because as we all know Saddam was a threat to nobody.

America is the most disgusting propaganda hyping, mis-information spewing, spin doctors around. They claim Saddam totured? I can name at least another 10 American allies and puppet governments that torture. Why hasn't it attacked them? Rather it sends them innocent prisoners to be tortured.

America only Attacks countries that dont bow to American Imperial will. Saddam had cut America from the oil profits after America back stabbed Iraq by giving the Iranians WMD to fight Iraq in exchange for American prisoners.

This is not about Saddam's ruthless rule. America has put worse dictators in power world wide.This is not about freedom, Al-Qaeda or 9/11 or even WMD. The CIA and MOSSAD had both said Saddam had no WMD.Its about Greed. Oil money. This war was in the works for years....

Now back to the subject. Here is the latest news. Can you say Guilty of Torture?

US rejects Red Cross call for access to all terror suspects
WASHINGTON - The United States rejected a fresh call by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for full access to terror suspects, saying some of those detained were "exceptional" and posed "unique threats" to US security. The ICRC on Friday sought access to all detainees held by the United States in the campaign against terror groups, including those allegedly held in "secret prisons" abroad. The group is at present allowed to visit detainees held at the US military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, under an internationally recognized legal mandate to oversee the fair treatment of detainees captured in conflicts.

supersheep · 11-12-2005 1:06am

To be honest Sand, if it weren't for the fact that Eichmann's execution happened about two and a half decades before I was born, I would have been opposing it. No matter what someone did, the reason some people are the good guys and some people are the bad guys is because the good guys follow the law. If you give up freedom, equality, liberty, your legal system, your morals, just so you can defeat the bad guys, you're not a good guy any more.

Forget Gitmo?

Comments