Torture of detainees by the US? - Page 5

Wernazuma III · December 30, 2002, 18:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

I am no sure to what extent enemy combatants have any rights under US law. We seem to have given Walker a trial only because he is a citizen. However, I believe even this was not required by the constitution.

The US Supreme Court has been highly deferrential to the commander in chief concerning military matters in time of war. I doubt that the Supreme Court would intervene in the case of the al Qaida held in Cuba.

Poor Ned, under attack from both sides.
I still can't see how there can be some legal status between POW and criminal. It's weird that people who are not POWs are simply detained without a clear accusation.
There's no way around it. The detention of Taliban/Al Quaeda (and, as I've heard, 60 people who are neither and according to CIA advice should be freed) in Guantanamo Bay strips individuals from granted rights. You may defend it by saying that there's no other way than baring them from all rights and even torturing them if you want to prevent more things to happen, even if this means detaining some fighter who has no clue about further attacks.
It seems ridiculous anyhow that those captured after the invasion in Afghanistan still hold any knowledge of possible terror attacks.
So, if they don't you'd have to do one of the following things:
a) Release them (probably not popular)
b)Show that they were part in some way in one of the earlier terror attacks. Make this extensive, so that even training terrorists makes guilty for the attack itself. Do this in a proper trial, otherwise you're not doing better than China.

Jaakko · December 31, 2002, 01:41

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Jaakko: The only questionable part of this affair that you and others seem to be ignoring in your obvious zeal to say that the US is personally torturing people in its custody (A ludicrous suggestion in and of itself given how unreliable information obtained through such methods is) is the prisoner transfers.

If you bothered to read my posts in this thread, you'd see me mentioning the transfer of prisoners several times. However, no one seemed to be willing to acknowledge the issue, so it sorta faded away.

Ned · December 31, 2002, 02:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

I am no sure to what extent enemy combatants have any rights under US law. We seem to have given Walker a trial only because he is a citizen. However, I believe even this was not required by the constitution.

The US Supreme Court has been highly deferrential to the commander in chief concerning military matters in time of war. I doubt that the Supreme Court would intervene in the case of the al Qaida held in Cuba.

Poor Ned, under attack from both sides.
I still can't see how there can be some legal status between POW and criminal. It's weird that people who are not POWs are simply detained without a clear accusation.
There's no way around it. The detention of Taliban/Al Quaeda (and, as I've heard, 60 people who are neither and according to CIA advice should be freed) in Guantanamo Bay strips individuals from granted rights. You may defend it by saying that there's no other way than baring them from all rights and even torturing them if you want to prevent more things to happen, even if this means detaining some fighter who has no clue about further attacks.
It seems ridiculous anyhow that those captured after the invasion in Afghanistan still hold any knowledge of possible terror attacks.
So, if they don't you'd have to do one of the following things:
a) Release them (probably not popular)
b)Show that they were part in some way in one of the earlier terror attacks. Make this extensive, so that even training terrorists makes guilty for the attack itself. Do this in a proper trial, otherwise you're not doing better than China.

The problem of a release is that these guys really are POWs. The POWs must remain captives pending the cessation of hostilities. I have no real objection to having the POWs that have no further information on future attacks being transferred to Allied countries where they might be held indefinitely. What I suspect is happening now is that we are holding the Al Qaeda ourselves so that we may trade them for any US or allied POWs captured by Al Qaeda.

As to our questioning Al Qaeda when we capture them, especially the senior Al Qaeda, I have no fundamental objection to questioning these folks and even making conditions for them unpleasant if they refuse to talk. They are a cross between prisoners of war and criminal's, but the kind of criminal whose crimes are great crimes, crimes against humanity. The information we seek is designed to prevent the loss of civilian lives, not the lives of soldiers. There is a critical difference here. I hope you recognize it.

To the extent that the international treaties do not recognize the inherent necessity of questioning under these circumstances, I suggest that we are duty-bound to amend the treaties rather than creating "sophistries."

Chris 62 · December 31, 2002, 03:37

A year has gone by, and I see this foolishness still surfaces.

No matter how hard some of you try, the US isn't the bad guy, so give it up, you look damn stupid.

First, they are held at Gitmo for ONE reason, it ISN'T US soil, that DOESN'T mean that they aern't subject to US law, IT MEANS they DON'T get US Constitutional protections.
You don't like it?
Too damn bad.

Next, Al Qaeda is a TERRORIST organization, so it is NOT subject to ANY provision of the Geneva convention, and to be an enemy combatent you must meet ALL the criteria, not this or that.
You MUST be identifiable as such, they were not.
Again, too damn bad, FOR THEM.

Next, the iternational Red Cross, after the last FALSE accusation by British Left wingers INSPECTED the facility at Gitmo, and confirmed EVERYTHING was being done correctly, NO violations.
So this latest article, based on a picture, and the comments of conveintly unamed sources has as much value as a Goebels propaganda release.

For you in the "Bleeding heart" crowd, why not concentrate on people WORTH helping?
These sh1tbags aern't worth it, and spare me "Oh, they are human beings, how can you do it?"
Nothing is being "done" to them yet, but we will give them lovely injections before long, so they can go join Allah.
Want someone to worry about?
How about them:

Since some of you seem to have forgoten what this is about, here's a sight I saw live, to freshen your memories:

If that can be prevented by making some morons sit outside, make em sit.

Torture...most of you don't understand what the word means.

Zero-Tau · December 31, 2002, 04:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
A year has gone by, and I see this foolishness still surfaces.

No matter how hard some of you try, the US isn't the bad guy, so give it up, you look damn stupid.

I agree, the US isn't the bad guy. But that doesn't imply that we can't be critical of its actions.

Oerdin · December 31, 2002, 04:35

I'd have to agree with our Portugese friend. Making prisioners wear chains and blacked out sunglasses just doesn't equal torture no matter how much leftest news reports wish it did. For clear cut cases of torture you can read about what the North Vietnamese did to captured U.S. airmen during that war or to what the Chinese & Korean communists did to U.N. soldiers they captured during the Korean conflict or even to Iraq's treatment of POWs during the Iran-Iraq war as well as the Gulf war. What make these cases worse is these were uniformed service men who were tortured by countries which had signed the Geneva & Hague conventions.

Wernazuma III · December 31, 2002, 07:30

Oerdin, I hope fo you that you agree only with the lower bit...

Chris, your self-righteous performnance is sickening. Or I could show you the picture of the only thing left after the US attack on the wedding party in Afghanistan, this leads nowhere. While 9/11 was an act of incredible brutality and absolutely sick, it's not that we haven't seen similar or even worse things in history. As example, I could come here, post a few pics of masses of massacred Tutsis back in 1996 and ask why the US didn't do anything against this armaggeddon down there...

We all know that Al Quaeda is responsible for the attacks, they are criminals, they're "bad guys", everyone agrees. but that doesn't mean we should not give sh#t about what's happening. Legal security anyone? That's an important issue in a democracy and the Guantanamo thing a cheap way to bypass it. If someone's found to be guilty of mass-murder, go execute him after a fair trial (I don't like the general death penalty thing, but let's ignore this here).

Hell, everyone ought to get a fair trial, yet the US seems to be in a rage for revenge (hunt them down), so they think to have the right not to care about anything...

Wernazuma III · December 31, 2002, 07:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Iraq's treatment of POWs during the Iran-Iraq war as well as the Gulf war. What make these cases worse is these were uniformed service men who were tortured by countries which had signed the Geneva & Hague conventions.

...being America's best friends against evil Iran back then, receiving billions of dollars aid and **** Cheney selling them a sh*tload of weapons through Halliburton industries...

And about North Vietnam: You don't think it's worth talking about the behavior of US soldiers there.

Oh, of course, I must understand in what sh*t situation they were, down there, surrounded by the Vietkong. What else should they do than massacring a village when they suspected them of cooperation with the enemy? What do you think why on the other side the Vietkong fighter tortured the US-soldier? Maybe he was just a freak (and such you can find anywhere), but maybe he had walked before through one of those villages, where US-soldiers did their "job" and was very angry. That's not justifying anything, but it's at least as understandable as the US-crimes.
And all those cases should be judged by objective norms and courts, not excepting anyone. But the US think they can ignore all that, making up poor excuses why they can do what they want in Guantanamo and not signing the International warcrimes court treaty! After all, US-soldiers could be accused of crimes

by others. The USA holds the freedom and the truth and the good side, no matter what we do. If we do something bad, it's still for the best for everyone. All the others are stupid and should the f*ck shut up or we'll blow them up. Because we are the only truth 'everyone who is not for us is against us' "(where, damn it, have I heard this before)

The problem with all that is no that others are bad-as$es too, or even worse. The problem of the US is that they, like others, justify their own violations of treaties or acts against humanity with the "higher end". Unless the US understands that the other side justifies their (doubtlessly in many cases much more frequent or "bigger" crimes) in the same way they do, it won't get better.

Jaakko · December 31, 2002, 10:58

Of course, Chris should also read the articles in question, so he too could see that it's not just about Gitmo anymore...

Why is that so hard?

As for the legality of things, what Wernazuma said.

Ned · December 31, 2002, 12:35

W III, one does not have to give POWs trials. That is international law.

The only question here is whether we can question them about further crimes against humanity or war crimes without violating international law.

I suggest that the situation we have here is unique. There is nothing in the POW treaties that was intended to address a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda. The treaties were intended to address conventional wars between states.

Now as to the senior Al Qaeda, I am sure that we intend to put these folks to death. I am sure that we will give these gentlemen a fair trial provining their active involvement in crimes against humanity, etc.

Sava · December 31, 2002, 12:44

big fat hairy deal Chris... I could just as easily post pictures of starving Iraqi children... 3,000 people have died in NY.... 500,000 have died as a result of the UN sanctions against Iraq since 1998.

What sets good moral people apart from terrorists is how we treat our prisoners. Putting them in torture-like conditions just shows that the US government is no better than Osama.

Lorizael · December 31, 2002, 12:47

Those who support torture of the enemy because we hold the moral high ground don't realize what they're doing. The problem with this is that the enemy believes they hold the moral high ground as well. In fact, everyone who does anything believes that they are in the right. And who's to say they're wrong? Who's to say that anyone, anywhere, is wrong in what they're doing?

Now I am not saying that the United States is the bad guy here nor am I saying that the Taliban and al-qaeda are the goods guys. What I'm saying is that if the United States justifies its actions by believing that it is has good and right on its side, what's to stop others from doing the exact same thing?

The United States can violate international laws, or at least find shortcuts around them, in order to do whatever is they want in the name of good and right. But in violating international law, they destroy the only purely objective format of judging who is right and who is wrong, who is good and who is evil.

The actions of the United States, whether technically torture or not, whether right or not, lower the level of humanity in the world, and bring us one step closer to chaos.

Oh, and the terrorists are humans for christ's sake, they deserve the same treatment as everyone else. But that argument's already been made.

Ned · December 31, 2002, 17:56

Lorizael, what do you think the reaction of the world would be to a proposed amendment to the "POWs" treaty that specifically addressed the Al Qaeda situation?

This issue has to be addressed in some manner, as the Israelis, Russians, Spanish and British are also facing a very similar situation with the various Palestinian, Chechan, ETA and IRA terrorists. I believe Israel, Russia, Spain and the British all had/have the same solution to terrorist POWs: warehouse them in concentration camps pending resolution of the conflict.

I am willing to bet that the British, Russians, Spanish and the Israelis questioned the terrorists when they were captured. I further have no doubt that they all applied coercive methods, short of torture, not unlike those being applied to the Al Qaeda by United States.

DinoDoc · December 31, 2002, 18:15

Everything old seems to be new again. Didn't we have the discussion on the issue of thier claim on POW status months ago?

Chris 62 · January 1, 2003, 00:10

Yep, and they were disproven Dino, but the nubes and the ol bleeding hearts think it's safe to start their silliness again...."Self-Righteous"...Wernazuma you simp, I AM A 9/11 Suvivor, don't tell me about self-rightous, while you sit in Austria!

Some of you continue to be simple-minded, go ahead.
How does it make us different Sava?
Easy.
We didn't start it.
And bringing up that wedding just proves how silly you are, how many CIVILIZED weddings feature wild gunfire into the sky?

Only a fool or a troll would use that!

Ted Striker · January 1, 2003, 01:03

Quote:

Sometimes, female officers conduct interrogations, a psychologically jarring experience for men reared in a conservative Muslim culture where women are never in control.

For the love of Allah, noooooo!!!!

Somebody once said their legal status is that of pirates. I'd say that sounds about right.

Quote:

As to our questioning Al Qaeda when we capture them, especially the senior Al Qaeda, I have no fundamental objection to questioning these folks and even making conditions for them unpleasant if they refuse to talk. They are a cross between prisoners of war and criminal's, but the kind of criminal whose crimes are great crimes, crimes against humanity. The information we seek is designed to prevent the loss of civilian lives, not the lives of soldiers. There is a critical difference here. I hope you recognize it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Joseph · January 1, 2003, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
.... 500,000 have died as a result of the UN sanctions against Iraq since 1998.

Sadam could stop that tomorrow Jan 1, 2003 if he gave a shlt. But he don't.

cia · January 1, 2003, 01:49

Well, here's a kicker.
The solution is simple. If the fighters in Afghanistan are POWs and they crossed the border into Pakistan before we caught them, we have option of keeping them or turning them over to Pakistan as an invading army. If they were captured in Afghanistan there is no longer a government which will acknowledge them so we detain them until the die. If they are not POWs they ae screwed. BTW, regarding the Iraqi thing. Is someone out there willing to say Hussein does NOT have the money or ability to feed all his people right now?

Sikander · January 1, 2003, 04:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
big fat hairy deal Chris... I could just as easily post pictures of starving Iraqi children... 3,000 people have died in NY.... 500,000 have died as a result of the UN sanctions against Iraq since 1998.

What sets good moral people apart from terrorists is how we treat our prisoners. Putting them in torture-like conditions just shows that the US government is no better than Osama.

If 500,000 people have died in Iraq since the last Gulf War (and that's a big if) they did not do so because of the U.N. sanctions. Take a look at the portion of Iraq that receives the same per capita money as the rest of the country, but is not being run by Sadam Hussein. Its health statistics are improved from pre-Gulf War levels. Look at what Iraq receives from the food for oil program alone (ie none of their smuggling income, and assume that there is no other economic activity), and you can see that there are a lot of countries in the world that make do on much less per capita income. Of course perhaps their people aren't being robbed blind by their leadership, but that is hardly the U.S.' fault, we've been trying to knock off Sadam and company for a while now.

And if the U.S. government is no better than Osama, then please take advantage of one of the many freedoms you have as an American citizen and get the fvck out of here. We really don't need you, or want you here. I'd rather see you whine ineffectually for the other side, any other side.

Wernazuma III · January 1, 2003, 04:27

I shouldn't even bother to reply to you Chris, you appear to be the only troll here. But anyway, I will do it this last time.

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Yep, and they were disproven Dino, but the nubes and the ol bleeding hearts think it's safe to start their silliness again...."Self-Righteous"...Wernazuma you simp, I AM A 9/11 Suvivor, don't tell me about self-rightous, while you sit in Austria!

Again, that's VERY self-righteous. I bet that the event shook the survivors in NY more than me in Austria, but does that mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion in this? I don't bother where exactly you were when the plains crashed, but you over there are not the only survivors of vile attacks. What are you trying to tell me with this pathos?

Quote:

Some of you continue to be simple-minded, go ahead.

Yeah, you're right. You've been proven right and why, damn it, can someone be so idiot not to see the proofs. I really admire your analytic skills and your intention to reveal the only truth and nothing but the truth to us stupid savages who won't listen and lack rational thought.

Quote:

How does it make us different Sava?
Easy.
We didn't start it.

No one said you did, but so this entitles you to do everything you want?

Quote:

And bringing up that wedding just proves how silly you are, how many CIVILIZED weddings feature wild gunfire into the sky?

Only a fool or a troll would use that!

1. Weddings with excessive salute shooting can be found in many areas of the world. It might not be what you call "civilized" (and I think your definition of civilization would be quite scary to me), but it's not something unusual considering the fact that those people living with war (most of the time sponsored by the US) for 20 years had to keep and use their arms...

Next time, when posting, you should try to respond to the arguments of the other instead of ignoring the contents of elaborate posts and spitting nonsense that only aims to insult the other but doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. So, you enlightened me that I'm silly, simple-minded, a fool and a simp? I've heard many things about me, but the last one to call me a simp was my kindergarden teacher who thought I was retarded...
You should better stick to the topic and not throw around mud wildly without getting more substantial.
If you're not able to discuss in a "civilized" manner and with actual arguments you should better let posting.

red_jon · January 1, 2003, 12:05

Don't argue with Chris, he's obviously a troll and a sick, sick man...

What happened on 9/11 does not justify violating basic human rights. The people held in Cuba were not those responsible for the atrocities in New York - many were just defending the area they had fought for (and against the Soviets, with HELP FROM THE US GOVERNMENT) for years. They were the armed enforcers of a regime - making them soldiers, IMO.

As for what the Taliban would do to me given the chance - I have no doubt that, as a homosexual, they would kill me in a horrific way. But does that mean I want to see them treated badly? No - I hate to see any human being in suffering, as I hope most of you lot do.

Chris 62 · January 1, 2003, 12:11

Your the troll, you two sick individuals.

Any chance to attack the US, you losers jump in.

Some day you may grow up, but I doubt it.

"Boo Hoo, the poor widdle terrorists have to sit in the hot sun..." Cry me a river.

You are SO naive.

Chris 62 · January 1, 2003, 12:13

And as an added bonus, anyone that thinks gunfire is the way to celibrate, is BACKWARD.

red_jon · January 1, 2003, 12:14

Chris, you obviously like to see these people suffer as it somehow helps make what happened in NY more fair.

As a firsthand witness, obviously you're gonna feel this way, but it's still wrong

And I've never seen you provide a decent argument on any subject.

Chris 62 · January 1, 2003, 12:18

Mainly because you never look youngster.

This topic was a giant troll from the getgo, only a simp (and that fits SO well here) would accuse the US of torturing prisoners.

If your this gullible, you already show that intelligent discourse is beyound you.

Human rights...how do YOU know they are violated?
Answer: You haven't a clue.
Unnamed sources...yeah, right.

red_jon · January 1, 2003, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
And as an added bonus, anyone that thinks gunfire is the way to celibrate, is BACKWARD.

Well done, you've managed to display complete ignorance of other cultures.

Quote:

Mainly because you never look youngster.

The age argument is getting tired...

Quote:

This topic was a giant troll from the getgo, only a simp (and that fits SO well here) would accuse the US of torturing prisoners.

Using insults does not constitute a decent argument. Plus, it's a pretty well established fact that the US has tortured prisoners before (as has Britain for that matter, so you can't brand your country as exempt) - where do you think the phrase 'the third degree' comes from - in the 1930s, prisoners were steamed until their skin burned away.

Quote:

If your this gullible, you already show that intelligent discourse is beyound you.

This coming from someone who cannot tell the differece between your and you're .

Quote:

Human rights...how do YOU know they are violated?
Answer: You haven't a clue.
Unnamed sources...yeah, right.

If you actually bothred to read the thread, you'd see that I already stated that the British media picked up on this at the time. I'd hardly call the newsapers and other media outlets over here 'unnamed sources'.

Chris 62 · January 1, 2003, 12:31

You are still such a baby, red, a year and your still acting like a petulant child.

The British press started this last time, and where made to look like fools as the Red Cross inspection proved all the alligations false.
We should believe them now?

You also show your childishness by:
a) Always saying I'm trolling. Silly child, stating the truth is not trolling.
b) Excessive political correctness, to-wit, this ludicrous statement:
"Well done, you've managed to display complete ignorance of other cultures."
Genital mutilation is displayed by many cultres.
Homophobia is displayed by many cultures.
Neither makes them diversified child, it makes them BACKWARD.
Just like shooting a gun into the air.

You haven't grown at all, it's a shame.

Jaakko · January 1, 2003, 13:05

Ya know Chris, this thread was going rather nicely until you came along.

Chris 62 · January 1, 2003, 13:13

Spoiled your US bash fest?

What a shame.

Try being fair and constructive, it would be a nice change.

Jaakko · January 1, 2003, 14:00

Well here's your chance then flameboy, give me some arguments. Don't try to shout me down like you tried with everyone else.

Like I said from the start, this NOT the same as the Gitmo controversy. The accusations are pointing to other facilities, and they are a whole lot worse than Gitmo. The specifics can be found by reading the thread and the links.

The accusations are coming from a number of government sources, and as such seem quite waterproof.
The activities described are torture, and considered so even by the US State Dept, in their human rights reports.
The "renditions" of prisoners are even a more clear case, getting a whole article in international law (ie. it's illegal)

My ethical position is that once we descend to this level, we're starting to resemble the enemy just a little bit too much for comfort. A civilised nation does not use such methods on its prisoners.