Guantanamo torture allegations...

[locas]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3706050.stm

The first uncensored letter from a Briton held at Guantanamo Bay shows he has been tortured, his lawyers claim.


Moazzam Begg, 36, has been detained at the US military base without trial for two-and-a-half years.

His letter said he had been tortured, threatened with death and kept in solitary confinement since early 2003.

The US military has denied abuses at the camp, but said the questioning of detainees had provided "vital" information about al-Qaeda. Mr Begg's lawyers said the government was now "compelled" to take "immediate steps" to pass the evidence to the UN and have the US held responsible. Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith said the government should secure the immediate repatriation of Mr Begg.


What scares me about this story, is that this man has been held for 2 years without a trial. As an American, the idea that we can hold people indefinitely without formal representation or trial is horrifying. What are your thoughts and opinions?

Locas

[ravital]

One question: What evidence, other than his letter, regurgitated by about 3,800 Google hits, do we have of the torture?

We are sadly no longer in a position to say it is absolutely impossible. But that doesn't mean we need to eagerly swallow anything put forth by the BBC, CNN, Amensty International, and certainly not his lawyers (who probably found their law degrees in a fortune cookie). I'm asking for solid sources, please. Anyone can write a letter. Here, let me demonstrate:

Dear Santa Claus,

I'm being tortured.

See? That was easy.

How did the letter get to the recipient? By what channels? Has it been authenticated? How? By whom? Was it in an envelope? Did it have a stamp of some country? Was it smuggled in or out of anywhere? I ask because all those Google hits are thick with flowery rhetoric and thin on evidence.

Other than that, by all means, the U.N. is indeed the proper forum for his lawyers and his family to voice their grievances. The U.N. will bend-over-backwards, when it comes to striking a PR coup against the U.S., while another 12,000 people are killed in Darfour every 24 hours.

[Misu]

I think it's scary that they've been holding him for that long, too. What is their evidence against him to keep him as an enemy combatant (is that how they're keeping him?)

[ShinyTop]

I have frequently posted that our behavior towards the Gitmo prisoners is not in keeping with our stated values as a nation. I have never held out for a mass release, just for identification and classification, and then lawful treatment in accordance with that classification. It is a black mark on our country.

Ravital is correct, though, in that an allegation by the detainee is hardly proof of anything. I strongly suspect that our conduct at Gitmo has been under such scrutiny that I doubt the veracity of this charge.

[locas]

As I said earlier, what concerns me most is that we are holding people without representation and trial. There are no formal lists as to who is being detained, for how long, or even what for.

Do I think this man was tortured? Probably not. Do I think he should have some sort of representation, and that some sort of investigation into his accusations be launched....yes.

Guantanamo is increasingly becoming a bigger problem by the day. I think it's shroud of secrecy only adds to the abuse claims, as there seems to be no checks and balance system to verify that actual abuse isn't going on.


Locas

[mers2]

I'm also disturbed by recent revelations, confirmed by the Pentagon, that we have hidden as many as a hundred prisoners from the International Red Cross. I'll wait for solid evidence on the torture allegations, but we definitely need to be up front about the prisoners we have in custody and set some timelines for haviing hearings and trials. Indefinite detention with no legal recourse is reprehensible.

[ethics]

I am actually amazed they are still being held. At first, I believed that what we were doing was right and that the imprisonment was going to be short; trials to follow.

Getting a bit too long for my taste.

[locas]

Getting a bit too long for my taste.
What exactly is the point of detaining someone for so long anyhow? That's what I want to know, and why no legal representation or formal charges yet??


Locas

[cdw]

Ok, I might as well be the one. I don't have a problem with there still being prisoners at Gitmo. They are slowly going in front of the tribunals and either being released or still held. Slow? Sure. We're at war. Some have gone home and been good fellows...others, well, they've gone home and have had trouble with their own governments, some have gone home, became head of a Taliban faction and gotten themselves killed.
I also have no problem with us minding prisoners elsewhere in the world, holding them for their own governments, or ours for when we are ready to bring them to trial. We're at war.
Now. If you want to talk about US citizens being treated this way, well, then I have issues with it. And yes, I fully believe US citizens have more rights than those who crash the party or are taken prisoner in a war.
By the way...I see he has a problem with this and his lawyer has a problem with it but I don't see in the post if his government does. Apologies, I didn't click the link. But I think we have a working relationship with the UK, no?

[ravital]

I think it's shroud of secrecy only adds to the abuse claims, as there seems to be no checks and balance system to verify that actual abuse isn't going on.
And if the U.S. military had the reputation of Saddam, I'd be as concerned as you. What's lost in all these media oratories about prisoner abuse is that Abu-Ghraib was the exception.

Young Germans getting drafted into WWII got some advice from their fathers and uncles who fought in WWI - "be brave, volunteer for the front-lines, and surrender to the first American you meet" (source here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/prisoners_5-11.html)) - and I would have added "shoot yourself before you surrender to a Russian." That, not Abu-Ghraib, is the norm for the U.S. military. Even better, this war in Iraq is the first war in which soldiers have been trained, on a regular basis and repeatedly, to disobey direct orders if they lead to prisoner abuse (same source). Add to that the level of scrutiny that Camp Delta at Gitmo is under, and it makes it very difficult to presume guilt.

On the length of detention - I don't like it either and I don't know that anybody does. But we've been through all those arguments back in the EL - If these are Bona-Fide prisoners of war, the Geneva convention allows us to hold them for the duration of the war with the country in which they were captures. We're still at war in Afghanistan, so there's nothing illegal in holding these prisoners. And I do hope that someone appreciates the fact that U.S. and Allied POW were held in Germany much longer than this.

If on the other hand, they are not POW, then we obviously are treating them better than we are required to, because at our own initiative, we have elected to treat them as POW. And I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice, that a recent Supreme Court ruling makes it possible for each one of these 600 detainees to obtain redress in any of our Federal Court Districts. Can anyone point to a country anywhere in the world whose top-level judiciary would intercede on behalf of people captured on the battlefield pointing firearms at its soldiers? Have you heard the BBC and those brilliant British lawyers discuss that? Do you think they'll mention that to the U.N.?

As to the shroud of secrecy: If we hold beneath contempt an icon of punditry like Bob Novak to expose a CIA operative and supposedly jeopardize at the very least the cases she's working on, why does it make any sense to jeopardize so much more by insisting on a full account of the intelligence gains we make thanks to those detainees when the same war is still going on? For the sake of what? A lopsided sense of the public's right to know, at the possible expense of the same public's security and life? Will I be happy when someone else is killed because I insisted on being so completely informed?

[ravital]

What exactly is the point of detaining someone for so long anyhow? That's what I want to know, and why no legal representation or formal charges yet?? Forgive me if I seem to monopolize the conversation.

I understand very well the motivation for this question, I'm not at ease with this either. But respectfully, we are all fallible, we don't know everything, and a question such as yours would require some training in the tradecraft of intelligence. I don't claim to have any, but I have seen more of these realities, and have at least a modicum of understanding of how they work.

There could be any number of reasons: Releasing them or putting them under the magnifying glass of public media - which is the almost inevitable result of formal charges and courtroom appearances, could jeopardize ongoing operations; it could tip our hand as to what we know, in conjunction with whatever actions we are taking on the ground under the gaze of enemy intelligence; it could jeopardize our own personnel, covert or other; for all anyone knows, it could jeopardize the detainee himself, since he's a liability to the same people on whose side he fought to begin with. It invites un-necessary complications of efforts that the lives of Americans depend on.

I'd rather read the full story in a book some years from now (for all I know, maybe even decades), and learn that we have acted properly - or not - than risk American lives for the sake of proving a point to the rest of the world about our principles, which they won't "get" no matter what we do anyway. There will be plenty of time for holding our officials to task, for congressional investigations of their actions if warranted, for our national soul-searching and reckoning. I don't belittle these, I recognize their importance. But that won't happen if only chipmunks and roaches are left to give a damn about it.

[araina]

How dependable is Seymour Hersh?

[ravital]

How dependable is Seymour Hersh?
If his latest appearances I caught on C-Span are any indication, as dependable as a Yugo held together with chewing-gum scampering down Mount Washington, I'd rather walk and risk facing a bear. Why?

[araina]

If his latest appearances I caught on C-Span are any indication, as dependable as a Yugo held together with chewing-gum scampering down Mount Washington, I'd rather walk and risk facing a bear. Why?

Saw him on TV mentioning that Abu Gharib was a 10 year old's b'day party (something to the effect) compared to Guantanamo.

Other than that: did you read about the Dane who got released from Guantanamo and is now planning to go underground in Denmark to join the Chechen rebels?

All the more reason to process these people: if they show any tendencies of fighting for Islamic anywhere, anytime--- shoot them and be done.

BUT FOR GOD's sake..give them a trial!

[ravital]

Other than that: did you read about the Dane who got released from Guantanamo and is now planning to go underground in Denmark to join the Chechen rebels?

All the more reason to process these people: if they show any tendencies of fighting for Islamic anywhere, anytime--- shoot them and be done.
And you, Kofi Anan, the BBC, Mike Wallace and Amnesty International would be ok with that, right? No more flashy headlines, no more condemnations, no more scouring Google for FUAs, right?

[ShinyTop]

I fail to understand that treating them better than Nazi's or Russians treated WWII prisoners has any bearing. We have founding documents that talk about inalienable rights. I failed to notice that these documents said unless our government got scared and could not protect us within the bounds of our values.

The standards we claim to uphold are tough to maintain but that is what makes us the United States and not the USSR, Indonesia, Turkey, Syria, or many other countries where liberties are, or were, more chance than fact.

[ravital]

I fail to understand that treating them better than Nazi's or Russians treated WWII prisoners has any bearing. We have founding documents that talk about inalienable rights. I failed to notice that these documents said unless our government got scared and could not protect us within the bounds of our values.

And with respect, I failed to notice that they applied to non-citizens, or people taking arms against us, whatever their status.



The standards we claim to uphold are tough to maintain but that is what makes us the United States and not the USSR, Indonesia, Turkey, Syria, or many other countries where liberties are, or were, more chance than fact.
Well said. And I don't know how the rest of humanity will be better served, if our country were to disappear and leave the world to the Indonesias, the Syrias, the Chiles, and other such countries.

I'm really not trying to make light of this, I know you care about these standards and principles, and contrary to what you might conclude, so do I. I simply do not put them above human life, American or other.

[ShinyTop]

I understand that Ravital but I maintain that we do not need to sacrifice our standards to maintain our country and the lives of our citizens. Certainly if criticism of religion is the beginning of a slippery slope to mandatory atheism one can worry that the loss of a few liberties and ignoring the standards upon which our country is founded can lead to our country becoming that which we claim to oppose around the world.

[efuseakay]

Well, we can always have stuff like this happen:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133581,00.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=6&u=/ap/20040930/ap_on_re_eu/denmark_guantanamo_detainee

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/07/06/World/Afghans.Released.From.Gitmo.Return.To.Terrorism-691624.shtml

Nope... nothing to worry about...

As for this man's claims... what else do you expect him to say? :rolleyes:

[ShinyTop]

Well, we can always have stuff like this happen:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133581,00.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=6&u=/ap/20040930/ap_on_re_eu/denmark_guantanamo_detainee

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/07/06/World/Afghans.Released.From.Gitmo.Return.To.Terrorism-691624.shtml

Nope... nothing to worry about...

As for this man's claims... what else do you expect him to say? :rolleyes:

I repeat, classify them and treat them IAW the classification. I do not ask for mass release. I do not claim they are harmless. I ask for the rule of law and American standards.

[locas]

Well, we can always have stuff like this happen:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133581,00.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=6&u=/ap/20040930/ap_on_re_eu/denmark_guantanamo_detainee

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/07/06/World/Afghans.Released.From.Gitmo.Return.To.Terrorism-691624.shtml

Nope... nothing to worry about...

As for this man's claims... what else do you expect him to say? :rolleyes:
I am not denying that these men are most likely terrorists, however I am wondering what the purpose and justifications the U.S government has in denying these men trials and representation.

Surely a trial would show the danger they are to society, if the claims against them are indeed true. The problem is that these men are being held without reason, justification, or representation.




Locas

[ravital]

Certainly if criticism of religion is the beginning of a slippery slope to mandatory atheism one can worry that the loss of a few liberties and ignoring the standards upon which our country is founded can lead to our country becoming that which we claim to oppose around the world.
Good catch. But for the record, I never had a problem with the criticism you mention, only with the acrimony that leads to actual denial of rights (much too involved a process to explain in this thread as it would be OT), and rights of law-abiding Americans at that, not people captured on the battlefield shooting at us.

And I do believe, as I've mentioned, that our judicial arm has ruled in favor of these people's ability to obtain redress. So we probably are on the right track.

[ShinyTop]

And I do believe, as I've mentioned, that our judicial arm has ruled in favor of these people's ability to obtain redress. So we probably are on the right track.
Ya, I know and I had to start saying it is not up to our standards rather than law. :cool:

I am not in agreement but hey, law is law.

[ravital]

I am wondering what the purpose and justifications the U.S government has in denying these men trials and representation.

Sorry to repeat myself, you've probably missed it, but several posts above I did mention that our own Supreme Court has determined that we won't be denying them that much in the near future.


The problem is that these men are being held without reason, justification, or representation.

Again, you may have missed it above, but I've offered several possible explanations for the reasons for which we are denying such representation.

Incidentally, If you search on the name "Lynne Stewart" you'll find an excellent example of prior experience with the matter of legal representation to terrorists, that gives our government pause and good reasons for curtailing that, at least temporarily. I highly recommend it.

And for the record, they are not held without reason, they are held, again, for being captured shooting at us or otherwise engaged in conspiracies to harm Americans in spectacular ways.

[efuseakay]

I am not denying that these men are most likely terrorists, however I am wondering what the purpose and justifications the U.S government has in denying these men trials and representation.

Surely a trial would show the danger they are to society, if the claims against them are indeed true. The problem is that these men are being held without reason, justification, or representation.




Locas

It is not a US court... they are not US citizens.

[Stiofán]

Surely a trial would show the danger they are to society, if the claims against them are indeed true. The problem is that these men are being held without reason, justification, or representation.


Perhaps to win any conviction, a trial would also show all the intelligence information we have gleened from them (actually any good defense attorney, knowing this, would demand all our sources and discoveries be made public in trial).

Wthout reason or justification? You know for a fact that information we have learned has not helped us avert another attack on our citizens either here at home or abroad? That's quite a leap. You also trust them not to hook up with their local terrorist cell after release and return to whatever they were doing as foreigners fighting in Afganistan? You trust the Saudi or Syrian governments they were released to not to immediately turn them lose?

You probably will never be able to fully trust these men, but the goal (granted it may not be achievable) is to keep them out of action until Al Quada is sufficiently broken so they won't be as high a threat as they would be now.

[locas]

Wthout reason or justification? You know for a fact that information we have learned has not helped us avert another attack on our citizens either here at home or abroad? Let me clarify. I meant legal justification.

Again, I am not in favor of releasing these men back into society, nor am I saying that these men aren't a threat to national security. What I am saying is that under the constitution of the United States of America, every man and woman is granted a right to a fair trial. (I don't remember anything in the U.S constitution saying that only Americans should be granted a right to fair trial either!)

Again, I am not saying these men should be released, I am saying that the U.S government should uphold the U.S constitution, and that tampering with the very freedoms we are afforded under it can have serious and dire consequences.

Locas

[ravital]

Let me clarify. I meant legal justification.
I'm not callenging you, I'm trying to understand: If there's no legal justification and they're holding people willie-nillie, how come I'm not in Gitmo right now in orange overalls? Or you? Certainly, we've seen fair-skinned, blue-eyed people with western-sounding names being detained there, haven't we? It's not limited to Moslems, is it?

This is not a "where there's smoke there's fire" argument. What do you believe was the chain of events that led to someone finding himself at Camp Delta?

And if you're concenred with the lack of legal representation, and you refuse to address the intelligence risks I've listed:

Lynne Stewart was the attorney representing the so-called "Blind Shiekh" Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted of directing the attack against the World Trade Center in NY back in 1993. To make a long story short:




She was allowed into his cell with an interpreter.
She had to sign a "SAM" - Special Administrative Measures - agreement with the DOJ in order to see him.
That agreement stipulates that she is not allowed to discuss her exchanges with her client outside of a court of law.
The FBI was tapping the phone of, and conducting surveillance on an Egyptian-born postal worker living on Staten Island, in a completely unrelated investigation.
Lynne Stewart's interpreter and the above postal worker had been observed spending a lot of time together, so the FBI obtained a court order to monitor his activities as well, including the use of listening devices at the jail where he interpreted for the Sheikh and the attorney.
Tapes show that Lynne Stewart would often speak in a loud voice about unrelated matters, to fool the guards, while the interpreter was in fact getting directives from the Sheikh to his "Moslem Brotherhood" terrorist/followers back in Egypt. They all had a good laugh about it afterwards.
When word got to Lynne Stewart, that his underlings in Egypt had recieved his instructions to strike against the Egyptian government, but doubted their reliability, she violated the SAM she signed, held a press conference and explicitly confirmed that his instructions were genuine.
Since then, Lynne Stewart has been the darling martyr of college campuses, lecturing for no doubt handsome fees.
All of the above is thoroughly documented, all you have to do is google up "Lynne Stewart" - and it's not just Frontpage or other "tainted and suspicious" right-wing publications.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone in the Federal Government whose job it is to worry about our safety, and ask yourself how far you're willing to trust "issue lawyers" with Al-Qaeda members and sympathizers.

Does this reflect on all lawyers? Of course not. Aren't there any detainees who are perfectly innocent? There probably are. But until you look to your left and right at your neighbors and co-workers, and ask yourself who might be killed next as a result of shennanigans such as the above, you might consider that government might actually get something right once in a while, rather than hammer away with an otherwise healthy skepticism, sense of justice, and perfectly valid questions.

What if I were one of those people in Gitmo, and I were innocent and denied representation and held for so long?

I would curse my country of origin to damnation, for forcing the greatest country in the entire history of the world to take such measures.

[Advocat]

The first uncensored letter from a Briton held at Guantanamo Bay shows he has been tortured, his lawyers claim.

I suppose the whole debate comes down to what you consider to be "torture". A lot has been said about the "stress and duress" techniques before; the question remains, what does or does not comprise torture? In the main, it seems to depend on your point of view. I certainly don't race to believe everything this fellow says, but given the information which follows, I have to keep an open mind to his claims... depending, of course, on what you define as torture.

Guantanamo techniques improperly used elsewhere, report finds (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/9219590.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp&1c)
<blockquote>Military interrogators working in Iraq and Afghanistan improperly embraced harsh techniques that had been approved only for use on detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a 321-page report released Thursday by the Army Inspector General.

The report, written by Lt. Gen. Paul Mikolashek, said commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan incorporated the harsher techniques into their interrogation policies based in part on memos they had read about the Guantanamo interrogations.

But the report said the commanders failed "take into account that different standards applied" to Guantanamo, where suspected members of al-Qaida were not covered by the Geneva Conventions, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Geneva Conventions largely applied. </blockquote>

So techniques which are considered somewhere between abuse and severe abuse (or even light torture), and which result in charges anywhere else, are considered ok at Gitmo. If the fellow in question is referring to these practices being used on him, is this torture?


We know 20 tougher interrogation techniques were authorized: Pentagon Approved Tougher Interrogations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11017-2004May8?language=printer), and that the Justice Department wrote the now somewhat infamous memo supplying legal justification for torture (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html), which essentially says that to be considered torture under their definition, an act(s) would have to result in permanent physical or psychological damage. Anything less may or may not meet the standard for torture, depending on the situation.
<blockquote>The 2002 memo, for example, included the interpretation that "it is difficult to take a specific act out of context and conclude that the act in isolation would constitute torture." The memo named seven techniques that courts have considered torture, including severe beatings with truncheons and clubs, threats of imminent death, burning with cigarettes, electric shocks to genitalia, rape or sexual assault, and forcing a prisoner to watch the torture of another person.

"While we cannot say with certainty that acts falling short of these seven would not constitute torture," the memo advised, ". . . we believe that interrogation techniques would have to be similar to these in their extreme nature and in the type of harm caused to violate law."

"For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture," the memo said, "it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years." Examples include the development of mental disorders, drug-induced dementia, "post traumatic stress disorder which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression."

Of mental torture, however, an interrogator could show he acted in good faith by "taking such steps as surveying professional literature, consulting with experts or reviewing evidence gained in past experience" to show he or she did not intend to cause severe mental pain and that the conduct, therefore, "would not amount to the acts prohibited by the statute." </blockquote>

American soldiers have been charged in both Iraq and Gitmo for abusing prisoners (from the Pentagon Approved Tougher Interrogation Techniques link above):<blockquote>U.S. military acknowledged that two Guantanamo Bay guards had been disciplined in cases involving the use of excessive force against detainees. Detainees released from the facility have given disparate accounts of their stay there, some praising the food and free schooling, others claiming that guards roughed them up.</blockquote> so <b>no</b>, I don't think the US is running a dungeon on Gitmo.

Are, however, the interrogation techniques being alluded to the <i>equivilent</i> of torture? While there are many legal questions and definitions being argued, and many agendas, I can't help but come back to a simple question in my own mind...

If it was being done to you, would you consider it abuse or torture?

[ShinyTop]

Rav, the only thing forcing us to take such measures are fear and incompetence. The steps taken against the lawyer either were or could have been pursued without the steps taken of limiting rights and indefinite incarceration. I think the balance would likely end up that such actions cause as many deaths as they protect due to the alienation of the undecideds when they determine our high sounding principals are only for a select few. I highly respect your opinion but in this case I must disagree and maintain relaxation of our standards is playing right into the enemy's hand.

[cdw]

I really don't understand what the big hullabaloo is about. The administration decided to handle something a certain way. The courts decided differently. There are tribunals (which are legal and have precedence) are moving along, and the reviews regarding the status of each prisoner is starting this month.
Seems like the system is working to me. Slowly but surely, which is the American justice system's way, it will all be handled.

[ethics]

Great, informative post, Adv.

[Doctor Dan]

What exactly is the point of detaining someone for so long anyhow?
That's a very good point. In most other places on this planet, after the desired information was extracted, the prisoner would be summarily shot.

- Dan

[Biker]

That's a very good point. In most other places on this planet, after the desired information was extracted, the prisoner would be summarily shot.

- Dan

Doc, I do like your style. I'll even provide the rounds smeared with bacon grease. :cool:

[ethics]

I guess I see the points of both sides of this debate but let's go outside of the legalities of citizens/non-citizens and the laws applied to either or none.

We all know that no matter how you look at this, it's a bad PR for Bush administration, especially at a time of elections.

Do we all agree here?

If so, then why not make this process a little more efficient? Yes, I am saying that it is not efficient. There are not many prisoners there, and I can't understand that the charged against individuals brought forth can not be regarded as anything substantial. If they can't find good charges that will stick, set them free, get rid of them. The charges won't pop up out of no-where?

[archidante]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3706050.stm

The first uncensored letter from a Briton held at Guantanamo Bay shows he has been tortured, his lawyers claim.


Moazzam Begg, 36, has been detained at the US military base without trial for two-and-a-half years.

His letter said he had been tortured, threatened with death and kept in solitary confinement since early 2003.

The US military has denied abuses at the camp, but said the questioning of detainees had provided "vital" information about al-Qaeda. Mr Begg's lawyers said the government was now "compelled" to take "immediate steps" to pass the evidence to the UN and have the US held responsible. Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith said the government should secure the immediate repatriation of Mr Begg.


What scares me about this story, is that this man has been held for 2 years without a trial. As an American, the idea that we can hold people indefinitely without formal representation or trial is horrifying. What are your thoughts and opinions?

LocasA guy last night was telling me Saddam used to videotape dropping live people slowly into wood chippers. 3,000 people were summarily executed without charges on 911.
Hundreds of little kids in Russia spending the last days of their short lives in fear drinking urine, young girls raped. I don't give a rats bottom about civil rights procedures in this contest. The last thing my buddies little sister heard in the world trade center was the booming thunder of dozens of concrete floors collasping at a hundred miles an hour towards her head. Solitary confinement? I aint even sorry. Torture? We're facing down the pit of hell here. I say we goive them hell right back.:vmad:

[ethics]

Ah, but someone once said that the best way to judge a civilization is to see how they treat prisoners.

[Doctor Dan]

Doc, I do like your style. I'll even provide the rounds smeared with bacon grease.

LOL... if I were running Gtmo, everything on the menu would have some pork product in it, sort of like that Monty Python "Spam" Skit.

If they asked for Halal food, I'd tell them that all the special meals went down with the planes their buddies crashed into the WTC and Pentagon.

- Dan

[locas]

A guy last night was telling me Saddam used to videotape dropping live people slowly into wood chippers. 3,000 people were summarily executed without charges on 911.
Hundreds of little kids in Russia spending the last days of their short lives in fear drinking urine, young girls raped. I don't give a rats bottom about civil rights procedures in this contest. The last thing my buddies little sister heard in the world trade center was the booming thunder of dozens of concrete floors collasping at a hundred miles an hour towards her head. Solitary confinement? I aint even sorry. Torture? We're facing down the pit of hell here. I say we goive them hell right back.:vmad:I don't know. To excuse our rotten behavior by saying the rotten behavior of others is worse, doesn't exactly sit well with me, nor do I think it's a valid excuse.

Yes, there are other nations that are barbaric and cruel with their punishment. Does that justify any possible wrongdoings from us? No. I don't think it does.

Personally I get frustrated when I see Americans that sink to the lows of others in an effort to "even the score." What happened at Abu Grhaib is NOT representative of American standards. If there is actual abuse at Gitmo, then it is NOT representative of American standards. I don't care what Saddam Hussein did, I don't care what Iran does, and I don't care how barbaric others nations are with punishment. Such behavior should not degrade our behavior or standards.

How can we convince Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq that our way of life is better, if we keep lowering our own standards in the name of retaliation?

Locas

[efuseakay]

Ah, but someone once said that the best way to judge a civilization is to see how they treat prisoners.

Please tell me this doesn't only apply to us... :)

[Doctor Dan]

Ah, but someone once said that the best way to judge a civilization is to see how they treat prisoners.
Hmmm, I always thought the quote was "the best way to judge a civilization is to see how they eat prisoners." :P

- Dan

[cdw]

I guess the biggest hurdle was....what exactly is the process. What exactly is legal, what's not. So, now it's be decided and things are moving along. They have released some prisoners, they have set up a review process regarding each prisoner which will start this month and if it is determined they are no longer or were never a threat, they get released back to their country.
The tribunals have started. People have access to their attorneys...things are moving right along. :)

[Biker]

How can we convince Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq that our way of life is better, if we keep lowering our own standards in the name of retaliation?


There comes a point in time when being "nice" no longer cuts the mustard. Many view the US as being weak because of the percieved lack of will to be totally ruthless in our dealings with terrorists. There is a place for being "nice" and setting the good example. And then there are times to be totally and utterly ruthless in our dealings with terrorists.

[ravital]

If it was being done to you, would you consider it abuse or torture?
Advocat, what Ethics said, you got my vote and some points.

As to your question above, I would also take in consideration the manner, circumstances, and actions for which I became a prisoner.

[ShinyTop]

When I commanded troops in a combat zone I doubt if a quick read of any Geneva or other convention would have deterred me from whatever action with prisoners necessary if I thought I could save one of the men committed to my charge from death. And I dare say if I could have polled the parents and friends of those same men that permission to torture would have been positively voted upon.

The point being that the further one is from the field of battle and the less personal the losses that occur on far away fields the easier it becomes to talk about concepts of honor towards prisoners and the way we should treat those captured by our forces.

Which is precisely the reason we must have firm rules, teach those rules, and then enforce the rules. In the heat of every battle, even the War on Terrorism, we will wink at the rules and bemoan the loss of each life as possibly unnecessary if we only were not following such nice rules. And then it becomes easier to sway public opinion.

The firm rules established during peacetime are those which express the desired standards of a nation and a people. The degree with which we change those rules during a time of testing and stress is the measure of a country's character and its leadership. The treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo is a blemish on the character of our country. It is arguable whether or not that treatment saved or cost lives. It is inarguable that our country will regret the behavior when we are once again told we are safe.

[ravital]

Rav, the only thing forcing us to take such measures are fear and incompetence. The steps taken against the lawyer either were or could have been pursued without the steps taken of limiting rights and indefinite incarceration.

Yes, they could have, but I disagree respectfully, that there is anything indefinite about it. There is a clear definition, anchored as I mentioned earlier in the Geneva convention, to wit, that these people were captured on the battlefield in a war that is still ongoing, and that even though the strict definitions of POW in the Geneva and The Hague conventions do not require us to extend them the status of POW, we do. Therefore, as such, for as long as the war is going on, their incarceration is not illegal and not indefinite ( and still shorter than the incarceration of WWII POWs, incidentally, who never saw a lawyer either).

And I also agree that there is too much of the fear and incompetence you speak of, but I don't know how it relates to the specifics of detaining combatants captured in battle.



I think the balance would likely end up that such actions cause as many deaths as they protect due to the alienation of the undecideds when they determine our high sounding principals are only for a select few.

I was under the impression that our principles are for the vast majority of us - Americans or not - who don't engage in crime or terrorism or adventurism in support of extremist ideologies that result in carnage of the kind we've seen in NY, Beslan, Darfour, and other places. How is that a select few?



I highly respect your opinion but in this case I must disagree and maintain relaxation of our standards is playing right into the enemy's hand.
With equal or greater respect for yours, I in fact agree with you there. When we end up with McCarthyist-like practices that set us against each other, blacklists, snitching for personal or other gain, or tanks in the streets, the terrorists will have won. Again, I cannot stress enough that while its completely possible that some poor soul in Gitmo was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and is perfectly innocent, we are talking about a few hundred people arrested while aiming weapons with live ammunition at us. And by decree of our highest judiciary authority, we are proceeding to obtain the full daylight of a day in court for them. I hardly see that as playing into the enemy's hand.

[Stiofán]

We all know that no matter how you look at this, it's a bad PR for Bush administration, especially at a time of elections.

Do we all agree here?

Just a small point Leon.

Don't fall into the trap of only assuming things from your own point of view.

There's a large heartland in this nation which does not think the same way as an urban bond trader in NYC. ;)

They want to be safe, they generally trust the government, especially when headed by someone they voted for, and they really don't care about a few thousand foreign combantants fighting on the side of the Taliban and Al Qaeda against our troops when they perceive the safety of 280,000,000 Americans is at issue. Now maybe they should, but it's not the horrid PR mess to everybody. I'm sure the MSM in the large cities does like to present it as such though.

[ethics]

Just a small point Leon.

Don't fall into the trap of only assuming things from your own point of view.

Very good point, and just for the record, I try to have that in mind.

I should have said it for people like me, centrists, on the fence, people who are supportive of war but leery of Patriot Act.



P.S. I am not a trader. :P

[Doctor Dan]

Don't fall into the trap of only assuming things from your own point of view.

A very good point. For example, when I saw the Abu Gharib Prison photos, my initial impression was "Wow... some people actually pay for that kind of humiliation."

I guess the liberal media expected that we were going to serve them Girl Scout Cookies while they watched Al Jazeera on HDTV.

- Dan

[joseftu]

They want to be safe, they generally trust the government, especially when headed by someone they voted for.Just to point out that for the majority of Americans, this government is <b>not</b> headed by someone they voted for. (But you still have a good point, Stiofan--although I happen to think we'd all be better off if at least a few more people thought the same as ethics on this issue!)

[Stiofán]

Having grown up in a population center of 10 million, I easy fall into the same trap myself. However, I just spent 9 days driving through the PacNW and Rocky Mountain states, where the largest city had a population of just 87,000, but most town populations were numbered in the hundreds. When your entire county population can fit in a mid sized Vegas hotel, your concerns and viewpoints are drastically different than us urbanites. This isn't to say or imply folks in small towns are unsophisicated, far from it. They have access to all the media and information as the rest of us. They just digest it different. ;)

Leon, about you're occupation, sorry my bad. I didn't know the hormone treatments had finished and you are through with the surgery so soon. I realize now you will finally be able to fulfill that dream of being part of the traveling company for La Cage Aux Follies. :)