Guantanamo Redux

[Carpe Coma]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6819487/Guantanamo-inmates-to-transfer-to-Illinois-prison.html

Well, that's one way to close Guantanamo. Doesn't really address the core problem however...

I knew the second that he made the promise to close Guantanamo immediately, that he bit off a bigger piece than he realized. I bet the last of the gitmo detainees won't be processed one way or another by the time election season rolls around again. Anyone else want in on the pool?

[DuncanONeil]

The bold statement "close GTMO in one year" Can never happen.
Besides that I never could understand the problem with using a portion of GTMO as a detention facility for terrosists.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6819487/Guantanamo-inmates-to-transfer-to-Illinois-prison.html

Well, that's one way to close Guantanamo. Doesn't really address the core problem however...

I knew the second that he made the promise to close Guantanamo immediately, that he bit off a bigger piece than he realized. I bet the last of the gitmo detainees won't be processed one way or another by the time election season rolls around again. Anyone else want in on the pool?

[Lion]

The bold statement "close GTMO in one year" Can never happen.
Besides that I never could understand the problem with using a portion of GTMO as a detention facility for terrosists.

Define a terrorist. Some of the inmates were released after years of inprisonment because nothing was ever found. Years of their life just gone needlessly.

An inmate in there was captured around his 16th birthday. A few weeks would have classified him as a child soldier, and he should have gotten help. Instead he's stuck in there with no trial, for doing something he was brainwashed since he was young.

I have no doubt that there are evil people in there, but Gitmo represents everything that I believe America is against. Free speech, right to a fair and speedy trial, compassion...those are values that I believed Americans were most proud of. And absent in an American facility.

Gitmo should never have opened in the first place. As a foreigner, I respected the USA before. Before Gitmo, before Iraq, before the PATRIOT Act, before the whole Obama is a Muslim BS.

I hope Americans don't think that being tough doesn't earn them respect in the world.

[DuncanONeil]

Why should combatants captured in this war be treated different than those captured in any other war? These people were treated as well as any other war prisoners in US custody. They were even treated much the same as they would have been if the were actually members of a foreign nations army.
Many of the rights that accrue to our citizens do not so accrue to those that take arms against us. If we catch someone that has killed a US national in our embassy the same as the bank robber in Kansas City?
More over are those that actively seek to harm the country through their actions to be granted the same rights as a citizen of the US?

Oh the definition, Terrorist; a person that engages in the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
On the other hand; the "unlawful combatant" does not have the "rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State." he does, however, retain the right "to be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention."


Define a terrorist. Some of the inmates were released after years of inprisonment because nothing was ever found. Years of their life just gone needlessly.

An inmate in there was captured around his 16th birthday. A few weeks would have classified him as a child soldier, and he should have gotten help. Instead he's stuck in there with no trial, for doing something he was brainwashed since he was young.

I have no doubt that there are evil people in there, but Gitmo represents everything that I believe America is against. Free speech, right to a fair and speedy trial, compassion...those are values that I believed Americans were most proud of. And absent in an American facility.

Gitmo should never have opened in the first place. As a foreigner, I respected the USA before. Before Gitmo, before Iraq, before the PATRIOT Act, before the whole Obama is a Muslim BS.

I hope Americans don't think that being tough doesn't earn them respect in the world.

[VaAugusta]

These people were treated as well as any other war prisoners in US custody. They were even treated much the same as they...[/B][/COLOR]

Fortunately, Duncan has been to GTMO and can tell us how the people are/were treated.

No, but seriously people on the outside don't know what is going on in there. I'm sure Obama's campaign pledges were made prior to him having insight into the workings of the facility, and maybe after finding out information about it has now changed his opinion since he is more informed.. or should I say informed at all, unlike the people posting in this thread.

[DuncanONeil]

I may not have personally been there but my wife was. And I have seen what was built to care for the prisoners. As well as reports of the persons careing for them.

Don't like being inferred a liar.


Fortunately, Duncan has been to GTMO and can tell us how the people are/were treated.

No, but seriously people on the outside don't know what is going on in there. I'm sure Obama's campaign pledges were made prior to him having insight into the workings of the facility, and maybe after finding out information about it has now changed his opinion since he is more informed.. or should I say informed at all, unlike the people posting in this thread.

[Lion]

My point is that you've decided that they are a terrorist without a trial. You've inferred that they are guilty. I don't care if the prisons have TVs and Playstations, decent treatment of the inmates does not excuse the fact that there are other issues that are being ignored. I care about the ones who are innocent, but in there for years with no trial. I care about the boy who was captured, and put in jail for years, and again, no trial.

[DuncanONeil]

The individuals that are engaging in combat action with the military forces of nation-states currently are not members of the armed force of any nation.
Being captured on the field of combat results in detention. Said detention, during the time of conflict, does not grant anyone a trial. Such individuals are typically detained until hostilities cease.
As such releasing anyone before cessation of hostilities is actuially quite compassionate. That compassion has revealed that in many cases it was misplaced as the very same individuals were again caught engaged in combat action against uniformed personnel.
I make no protestations as to guilt or not, that is not my purview. But if they are engaged in combat action against troops detention is a valid response.
You dismiss humane treatment as immaterial, yet the treatment received by inmates of the detention facility is far better than that a prisoner can expect in any CONUS prison. Your fixation on the efficacy a trial to accord proof is sorely misplaced. The US justice system is not balanced, nor is it concerned with justice.


My point is that you've decided that they are a terrorist without a trial. You've inferred that they are guilty. I don't care if the prisons have TVs and Playstations, decent treatment of the inmates does not excuse the fact that there are other issues that are being ignored. I care about the ones who are innocent, but in there for years with no trial. I care about the boy who was captured, and put in jail for years, and again, no trial.

[Lion]

How long does it take to determine that a boy who just turned 16 was the result of brain washing?

4+ years? and counting. You are correct, I am thinking a lot about their trial process because a few of them are in there for no good reason. They are there because of a mistake made along the way, and I can understand that. What I don't understand is people then claiming that they were all captured under combat with absolute certainty, then doing away with any sort of trial process that is reasonably quick.

THere are some Uighur Muslim inmates right now, that are found innocent. As in, they were not enemy combatants, they were somehow detained and lost years of their lives for no reason other then the inefficiency of the trial process, and the belief of people that all inmates are enemy combatants without any sort of proof. That's what the trial process is for, to determine guilt based on the evidence. And that's why I'm relentless on my belief that it the lack of any speedy trial is a stain on America's reputation. (well, most of this decade has been bad for America's reputation...)

[Bren122]

Can't very well send Uighars training as terrorists home- that would be China where, if they are really lucky, they will get a bullet in the back of the head when they step off the plane. Nobody else wants them for fear of annoying China; just as the US can't release them into the general population for much the same reason.

The problem with Gitmo is that the detainees were held as non-national combatants so that they could be put on trial. Had they been held as POWs then there would have only been a requirement for Red Cross Inspections. Once the lawyers got hold of the evidence for the trials it proved insufficient for anything more than a prima facie case in most instances. To simplify- the US officials thought it sufficient that if it looks like a terrorist and acts like a terrorist then it must be a terrorist; unfortunately people asked them to prove it. That is the hard part; there is a big difference between Not Guilty and Innocent. As Duncan pointed out, a number of released detainees have been recaptured in arms against Western forces. I would hasten to point out that I am not advocating a change in evidentiary standards in these cases- the US made a play for propaganda purposes (show trials) and it bit them in the arse.

The other problem, of course, was a definition of torture. We are told that waterboarding was the 'worst' device used at Gitmo- if so, then Australian SAS endure harsher techniques in their training. For legal purposes any information gathered is inadmissable as it is made under duress, but was it unethical to use these techniques to gather information to prevent another 9-11 or Bali Bomb? Would standard police techniques have worked? Ultimately it becomes a question of life or human rights.

A 16 year old is not a child soldier. There is no legal definition for a child soldier in international law; American federal law allows for the trial of 12years (from memory) and up on adult charges; Cambodia uses 14 years as its standard- Uganda 15 years (these are the two nations with recent legal history of prosecutions involving child soldiers).

As for the decade being bad for America's reputation it depends on how you want to look at it. If you are a rabid anti-American then obviously nothing is going to change your mind. But consider that opposition to Bush was allowed to speak out freely; in the end it resulted in a peaceful change of government. I would have thought that that was a tribute to the American system and people and a positive example for the world.

[DuncanONeil]

If no one can with certainty say they are terrorists, then no one can with certainty say they are not. The certainty regarding involved in combat is directly related to where taken into custody!

Again with the, essentially demand, mantra of speedy trial, let me ask you this. Where was the demand for a speedy trial for those taken into custody on the battlefields of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, et al? This situation is no different than any of those. These people were not engaged in "criminal" activity but war-like actions.

You like to trot out the trial "card" merely because it makes the people you object to look bad. But if they were as bad as you like to claim not one single person captured would have yet been released. Such releases have occurred, you admit that. Yet in spite of acting in a rationale and humane manner, many of those released have been recaptured!


How long does it take to determine that a boy who just turned 16 was the result of brain washing?

4+ years? and counting. You are correct, I am thinking a lot about their trial process because a few of them are in there for no good reason. They are there because of a mistake made along the way, and I can understand that. What I don't understand is people then claiming that they were all captured under combat with absolute certainty, then doing away with any sort of trial process that is reasonably quick.

THere are some Uighur Muslim inmates right now, that are found innocent. As in, they were not enemy combatants, they were somehow detained and lost years of their lives for no reason other then the inefficiency of the trial process, and the belief of people that all inmates are enemy combatants without any sort of proof. That's what the trial process is for, to determine guilt based on the evidence. And that's why I'm relentless on my belief that it the lack of any speedy trial is a stain on America's reputation. (well, most of this decade has been bad for America's reputation...)

[DuncanONeil]

If no one can with certainty say they are terrorists, then no one can with certainty say they are not. The certainty regarding involved in combat is directly related to where taken into custody!

Again with the, essentially demand, mantra of speedy trial, let me ask you this. Where was the demand for a speedy trial for those taken into custody on the battlefields of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, et al? This situation is no different than any of those. These people were not engaged in "criminal" activity but war-like actions.

You like to trot out the trial "card" merely because it makes the people you object to look bad. But if they were as bad as you like to claim not one single person captured would have yet been released. Such releases have occurred, you admit that. Yet in spite of acting in a rationale and humane manner, many of those released have been recaptured!


How long does it take to determine that a boy who just turned 16 was the result of brain washing?

4+ years? and counting. You are correct, I am thinking a lot about their trial process because a few of them are in there for no good reason. They are there because of a mistake made along the way, and I can understand that. What I don't understand is people then claiming that they were all captured under combat with absolute certainty, then doing away with any sort of trial process that is reasonably quick.

THere are some Uighur Muslim inmates right now, that are found innocent. As in, they were not enemy combatants, they were somehow detained and lost years of their lives for no reason other then the inefficiency of the trial process, and the belief of people that all inmates are enemy combatants without any sort of proof. That's what the trial process is for, to determine guilt based on the evidence. And that's why I'm relentless on my belief that it the lack of any speedy trial is a stain on America's reputation. (well, most of this decade has been bad for America's reputation...)

[steelish]

The other problem, of course, was a definition of torture. We are told that waterboarding was the 'worst' device used at Gitmo- if so, then Australian SAS endure harsher techniques in their training.

American soldiers also use that traIning technique, among others

[denuseri]

Yes Americans do use it for training....trainning for resistance when captured and tortured.

As for humane treatment of prisoners or other people detained during time of war. Alltough our own apparent bad behavior in this department may have a lot of people peeved off (and the torture in my oppinion is unexcusable) its an unrealistic expectation on the part of the general public that we give "trials" and or just let them go. Over the past several decades we havent done any big time long term wars so I think we the general public (with a little help from the liberally biased media) clearly are certianly out of touch with the idea of keeping captured and suspected combatants out of the picture.

But the precedent is still there and I certianly havent heard any better solutions proffered up that still give us any security, just letting them all go doesnt cut the mustard. Historically we detained our own Italian, Japanese and German citizens during world war 2. In the case of the Germans it went on allmost a year after the war was over.

One thing however is for certian, the treatment we give them is by far better than anthing they met out to us when we get captured or abducted by them. I havent seen any beheadings on our side of this of late have you?

[DuncanONeil]

There wer about 500 camps with german detainees inside the US!!
The issue of "torture" is one solely of definition. Very few of us will ever agree on a complete definition.


Yes Americans do use it for training....trainning for resistance when captured and tortured.

As for humane treatment of prisoners or other people detained during time of war. Alltough our own apparent bad behavior in this department may have a lot of people peeved off (and the torture in my oppinion is unexcusable) its an unrealistic expectation on the part of the general public that we give "trials" and or just let them go. Over the past several decades we havent done any big time long term wars so I think we the general public (with a little help from the liberally biased media) clearly are certianly out of touch with the idea of keeping captured and suspected combatants out of the picture.

But the precedent is still there and I certianly havent heard any better solutions proffered up that still give us any security, just letting them all go doesnt cut the mustard. Historically we detained our own Italian, Japanese and German citizens during world war 2. In the case of the Germans it went on allmost a year after the war was over.

One thing however is for certian, the treatment we give them is by far better than anthing they met out to us when we get captured or abducted by them. I havent seen any beheadings on our side of this of late have you?

[steelish]

Yes Americans do use it for training....trainning for resistance when captured and tortured.

As for humane treatment of prisoners or other people detained during time of war. Alltough our own apparent bad behavior in this department may have a lot of people peeved off (and the torture in my oppinion is unexcusable) its an unrealistic expectation on the part of the general public that we give "trials" and or just let them go. Over the past several decades we havent done any big time long term wars so I think we the general public (with a little help from the liberally biased media) clearly are certianly out of touch with the idea of keeping captured and suspected combatants out of the picture.

But the precedent is still there and I certianly havent heard any better solutions proffered up that still give us any security, just letting them all go doesnt cut the mustard. Historically we detained our own Italian, Japanese and German citizens during world war 2. In the case of the Germans it went on allmost a year after the war was over.

One thing however is for certian, the treatment we give them is by far better than anthing they met out to us when we get captured or abducted by them. I havent seen any beheadings on our side of this of late have you?

How true. And think, "inhumane" treatment is defined differently for each individual. Many US prisoners have sued over "inhumane" treatment and "personal rights" issues and been granted everything from free education and cable television, to gourmet meals and private cells. Besides, the prisoners in gtmo KNOW of the U.S. "humane" treatments and work the system accordingly. They view it (some of them) as a weakness and exploit it to suit their purposes.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually the detainees in GTMO, even without some of the amenities accorded US prisoners, have a more humane detention as they do not have to worry about gangs in the cells!

The only reasonable prisoner dention system in the US is the one run by Sheriff Arpaio!


How true. And think, "inhumane" treatment is defined differently for each individual. Many US prisoners have sued over "inhumane" treatment and "personal rights" issues and been granted everything from free education and cable television, to gourmet meals and private cells. Besides, the prisoners in gtmo KNOW of the U.S. "humane" treatments and work the system accordingly. They view it (some of them) as a weakness and exploit it to suit their purposes.

[steelish]

Actually the detainees in GTMO, even without some of the amenities accorded US prisoners, have a more humane detention as they do not have to worry about gangs in the cells!

The only reasonable prisoner dention system in the US is the one run by Sheriff Arpaio!

Amen to that! I applaud him!!!

[denuseri]

The definetion of torture that I am speaking of specifically is the one used by resistance training instructors in the airforce for teaching american service members in the eventuality of their capture, which btw 'water boarding" falls into.

[mkemse]

Another Part of closing Gitmo is 2 fold which he might not have realized, if the Goverment decides to buy the Prisobn in Illinois, and they do have to approve the money for it plus the upgrades which I might add it where I am from, Congress 1st has to approve the money to buy, which alone could take months, then 2nd and probably most important they said it could take up to 1 year to upgrade to Prison, to Max Security, it is openend and functining now, but it is NOT a Max SEcurity Prison which they need to make it
So my best guess is completely closing Gitmo will take much more time the annoucement between Congress approving the Purchase then adding in the time and extra Money to upgrade it it, will take they say possible another year, they have 100 inmate there now but it is not secure enough right now to hold those Combatents.
They plan to make it more secure then Supermax is, they claim once all is done that the Prison will be the Most Secure Prison on Earth
Amazingly the people that live in the Twon were it it located are not too terribly opposed to useing it for this, 60% or so agree, plus it will give the area badly needed jobs

[Wiscoman]

Another Part of closing Gitmo is 2 fold which he might not have realized, if the Goverment decides to buy the Prisobn in Illinois, and they do have to approve the money for it plus the upgrades which I might add it where I am from, Congress 1st has to approve the money to buy, which alone could take months, then 2nd and probably most important they said it could take up to 1 year to upgrade to Prison, to Max Security, it is openend and functining now, but it is NOT a Max SEcurity Prison which they need to make it

I'm sorry, but Gitmo's just a home kennel kit the Pentagon bought from Home Depot. I think any town's drunk tank would be more secure.

[Thorne]

I'm sorry, but Gitmo's just a home kennel kit the Pentagon bought from Home Depot. I think any town's drunk tank would be more secure.

Maybe, if it was surrounded by Marines! And even if you get past them, then what? Cuba? They've been known to be less tolerant of terrorists than us!

[steelish]

The definetion of torture that I am speaking of specifically is the one used by resistance training instructors in the airforce for teaching american service members in the eventuality of their capture, which btw 'water boarding" falls into.

Yes, I am aware of that. One of my nephews joined the Air Force and went through such training.

[denuseri]

Well if its defined as torture then why are we still using it?

[Wiscoman]

Maybe, if it was surrounded by Marines! And even if you get past them, then what? Cuba? They've been known to be less tolerant of terrorists than us!

So it's your opinion that Cuban police do a better job than American police?

Why are you dissing the USA?

[steelish]

Well if its defined as torture then why are we still using it?

in which capacity? in training...or at gtmo?

[Thorne]

So it's your opinion that Cuban police do a better job than American police?
Why are you dissing the USA?
No, that's not my point. Cuba is a much more restrictive country than the US. Even if the prisoners were to escape, where would they go? It's an island, albeit a large one, and not as easy to escape from as, say, crossing into Mexico, where they could establish contact with other terrorist groups. Plus, Cuba's security forces are much more intrusive and its society much more exclusive, making it more difficult for strangers to hide.

I'm not dissing the USA, by any means. It's just that, because of the freedoms we have here, it's easier for a criminal, once he's escaped, to disappear in plain sight.

[denuseri]

My Owner pretty much explained in detail why they use certian techniques in training for specific personel.

My question is why, if we are supposed to be the good guys is it that we are running around torturing prisoners of war and civilian detainees.

Why allow ourselves to sink to the enemies level?

The USA "used" to be one of the biggist supporters of the Genieva Conventions.

And Gitmo is not the only place it is still happening at, from what Ive heard we are doing all over the place.

[steelish]

No, that's not my point. Cuba is a much more restrictive country than the US. Even if the prisoners were to escape, where would they go? It's an island, albeit a large one, and not as easy to escape from as, say, crossing into Mexico, where they could establish contact with other terrorist groups. Plus, Cuba's security forces are much more intrusive and its society much more exclusive, making it more difficult for strangers to hide.

I'm not dissing the USA, by any means. It's just that, because of the freedoms we have here, it's easier for a criminal, once he's escaped, to disappear in plain sight.

Exactly! They know this, and they exploit it!

[steelish]

My Owner pretty much explained in detail why they use certian techniques in training for specific personel.

My question is why, if we are supposed to be the good guys is it that we are running around torturing prisoners of war and civilian detainees.

Why allow ourselves to sink to the enemies level?

The USA "used" to be one of the biggist supporters of the Genieva Conventions.

And Gitmo is not the only place it is still happening at, from what Ive heard we are doing all over the place.

That is a difficult question to answer. I do not condone the use of torture and it is quite possible that there are "rogue correctional officers" out there. BUT, it is my belief that wardens and others look the other way when such things are going on...why? Possibly because the prisoners do not behave unless they feel the "threat" of it hanging over their heads.

Personally, in my humble opinion, terrorists have absolutely NO respect for Americans because of their humanity and compassion. So what are we to do? How do YOU feel about people who will terrorize and kill us while looking down their noses at us simply because they don't understand/believe in our way of life?

[denuseri]

Side steping the issue of torture being wrong is no excuse for our practice of it.

[Thorne]

Personally, in my humble opinion, terrorists have absolutely NO respect for Americans because of their humanity and compassion. So what are we to do? How do YOU feel about people who will terrorize and kill us while looking down their noses at us simply because they don't understand/believe in our way of life?
I agree with you. Sadly, it is sometimes necessary to fight like your enemy in order to defeat your enemy. There has to be a way to distinguish enemy combatants from terrorists. If the enemy abides by the Geneva convention, even to the point of using guerrilla warfare, then prisoners are captured combatants and can be held, without trial, until cessation of hostilities. If they do not abide by the convention, then they should not be treated according to the convention.

[denuseri]

The Geneva Conventions comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, for example:

wounded or sick fighters
prisoners of war
civilians
medical and religious personnel

The United States Ratified these some time ago along with a bunch of other nations.

No where in the Conventions does it say" ...but if your enemy doesnt abide by the Coventions then you don't have to eaither"

Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial.Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

taking of hostages
extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.

Further, those provisions are considered customary international law, allowing war crimes prosecution even over groups that have not formally accepted the terms of the Geneva Conventions.

I am ashamed to see our beloved country fall so low as to use such dishonorable methods and even try to validate there use, especially when all it does is to garner more opposition against our cuase!

[DuncanONeil]

The definetion of torture that I am speaking of specifically is the one used by resistance training instructors in the airforce for teaching american service members in the eventuality of their capture, which btw 'water boarding" falls into.


Does that mean that being made to stand on a box, wearing a sack and a hood is torture?

BTW when troops are trained in E & E, resisting interrogation is part of that. To teach resistance it is than necessary to teach various techniques in use. Does not make all of those techniques torture.
This statement does not mean I condone torture, just that I find much of what people have been claiming as torture to not be. Were that the xcase every police department engages in such activity daily.

[DuncanONeil]

The prison in Illinois is unused since built.
GTMO is a much safer location than any in CONUS. Both for the detainees and the US.
Also there is no possible way that any prison in the CONUS can be more secure than that in GTMO.


Another Part of closing Gitmo is 2 fold which he might not have realized, if the Goverment decides to buy the Prisobn in Illinois, and they do have to approve the money for it plus the upgrades which I might add it where I am from, Congress 1st has to approve the money to buy, which alone could take months, then 2nd and probably most important they said it could take up to 1 year to upgrade to Prison, to Max Security, it is openend and functining now, but it is NOT a Max SEcurity Prison which they need to make it
So my best guess is completely closing Gitmo will take much more time the annoucement between Congress approving the Purchase then adding in the time and extra Money to upgrade it it, will take they say possible another year, they have 100 inmate there now but it is not secure enough right now to hold those Combatents.
They plan to make it more secure then Supermax is, they claim once all is done that the Prison will be the Most Secure Prison on Earth
Amazingly the people that live in the Twon were it it located are not too terribly opposed to useing it for this, 60% or so agree, plus it will give the area badly needed jobs

[DuncanONeil]

I'm sorry, but Gitmo's just a home kennel kit the Pentagon bought from Home Depot. I think any town's drunk tank would be more secure.

You have no clue what the detention facilities are like in GTMO. You obviously have listened only to the voices that want it closed, no matter the consequences
File:Guantanamo Bay David Hicks Cell, Reading Room Inset.jpg
Does this look like a dog kennel to anyone?
If that is not enough check out;
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta-pics.htm

[DuncanONeil]

I'm sorry, but Gitmo's just a home kennel kit the Pentagon bought from Home Depot. I think any town's drunk tank would be more secure.

As for security, there are two things no active prison in the US can boast.
A no man's land and land mines to the north and the Caribbean in all other directions. I think that tops any security that can be built in the US.

[DuncanONeil]

Well if its defined as torture then why are we still using it?


We aren't!

[DuncanONeil]

So it's your opinion that Cuban police do a better job than American police?

Why are you dissing the USA?


No! What they said was that Cuba, as a nation, is less tolerant, that the US is these days!

[DuncanONeil]

No, that's not my point. Cuba is a much more restrictive country than the US. Even if the prisoners were to escape, where would they go? It's an island, albeit a large one, and not as easy to escape from as, say, crossing into Mexico, where they could establish contact with other terrorist groups. Plus, Cuba's security forces are much more intrusive and its society much more exclusive, making it more difficult for strangers to hide.

I'm not dissing the USA, by any means. It's just that, because of the freedoms we have here, it's easier for a criminal, once he's escaped, to disappear in plain sight.


Do not forget that the boundary between GTMO and Cuba proper is both a no man's land and a mine field

[DuncanONeil]

My Owner pretty much explained in detail why they use certian techniques in training for specific personel.

My question is why, if we are supposed to be the good guys is it that we are running around torturing prisoners of war and civilian detainees.

Why allow ourselves to sink to the enemies level?

The USA "used" to be one of the biggist supporters of the Genieva Conventions.

And Gitmo is not the only place it is still happening at, from what Ive heard we are doing all over the place.

[COLOR="Yellow"]
The truth of the matter is that anything and everything that did not fit the mold of "please tell all you secrets" was portrayed as torture. Many of the techniques used are precisely the same as those used by police departments when questioning criminal suspects!

[DuncanONeil]

Do not forget that the greatest threat to health, life, and limb comes not from the authorities but from the inmates!


That is a difficult question to answer. I do not condone the use of torture and it is quite possible that there are "rogue correctional officers" out there. BUT, it is my belief that wardens and others look the other way when such things are going on...why? Possibly because the prisoners do not behave unless they feel the "threat" of it hanging over their heads.

Personally, in my humble opinion, terrorists have absolutely NO respect for Americans because of their humanity and compassion. So what are we to do? How do YOU feel about people who will terrorize and kill us while looking down their noses at us simply because they don't understand/believe in our way of life?

[DuncanONeil]

Side steping the issue of torture being wrong is no excuse for our practice of it.


This is like the third time that you express the belief that torture is still practiced by the US as a matter of policy. Such has never been the case, but just what are you using to support that position?

[DuncanONeil]

I agree with you. Sadly, it is sometimes necessary to fight like your enemy in order to defeat your enemy. There has to be a way to distinguish enemy combatants from terrorists. If the enemy abides by the Geneva convention, even to the point of using guerrilla warfare, then prisoners are captured combatants and can be held, without trial, until cessation of hostilities. If they do not abide by the convention, then they should not be treated according to the convention.


There are specific requirements for an individual to fall under the purview of the conventions. The individuals engaging in the acts favored by the likes of Al Quaida do not qualify. In spite of that we actually are according them many of the rights of the Conventions, even though it is not required. That is just because of who we are.

[denuseri]

Does that mean that being made to stand on a box, wearing a sack and a hood is torture?

If its for any extended period of time in which one would be cuased physical pain from it...YES. Just like half a dozen other "torture" positions used, such as strabo while kneeling etc etc.

BTW when troops are trained in E & E, resisting interrogation is part of that. To teach resistance it is than necessary to teach various techniques in use. Does not make all of those techniques torture.

Actually despite the methods in resitance training being called simulated, they are in fact real torture techniques being employed. The difference is that they are considerd to be "simulated situations" becuase they do them in an academic setting under strict monitoring and halt everything at the first signs of any real distress with "administrative time outs" and "safe words" for all the participants. Its all very SSC & RACK just like bdsm is supposed to be in a way.

If however such methods were employed by our police they would be subject to censure or legal aprobation.

This statement does not mean I condone torture, just that I find much of what people have been claiming as torture to not be. Were that the xcase every police department engages in such activity daily.

Calling whats been done by us at gitmo and otherplaces "agressive interogation" is just window dressing for what it really is, by our own military's definition...plain and simple...torture.

[denuseri]

We aren't!

Sorry but I am married to a man in the military who is very close to this issue and he has all but said we still are indeed doing it and for obvious reasons I can't divulge anything further on that.

[denuseri]

[/B]
The truth of the matter is that anything and everything that did not fit the mold of "please tell all you secrets" was portrayed as torture. Many of the techniques used are precisely the same as those used by police departments when questioning criminal suspects!

[COLOR="Pink"]Being tied in an over the head suspension for 6 hours is not used by our police.

Having ones hands cuffed to their ankles with a choke tie around the neck to force the prisoner to lean back to breath in an uncomfortable possibely damaging position for an hour or more at a time is not used by our police.

Being water boarded, is not used by our police.

Being stripped nude, and kept in a small confinment box in near hypothermic conditions for extended periods is not used by our police.

Electroshock is not used by our police.

The list goes on and on and on.

[DuncanONeil]

I am sorry but the police engage, on an almost daily basis, many of the things that are considered "torture" if engaged in by either the intelligence community or the military. Sleep deprivation and psychological stressors to name two.

It seems that you have pre-concluded that "torture" was a SOP and no other information is due any consideration.


Calling whats been done by us at gitmo and otherplaces "agressive interogation" is just window dressing for what it really is, by our own military's definition...plain and simple...torture.

[DuncanONeil]

And I am married to a naval Senior Chief that was stationed at the detention facility at GTMO. That and other contacts I have with others stationed there, support my position. (A)nd for obvious reasons I can't divulge anything further on that.


Sorry but I am married to a man in the military who is very close to this issue and he has all but said we still are indeed doing it and for obvious reasons I can't divulge anything further on that.

[DuncanONeil]

I presume that your source is the aforementioned spouse?


Being tied in an over the head suspension for 6 hours is not used by our police.

Having ones hands cuffed to their ankles with a choke tie around the neck to force the prisoner to lean back to breath in an uncomfortable possibely damaging position for an hour or more at a time is not used by our police.

Being water boarded, is not used by our police.

Being stripped nude, and kept in a small confinment box in near hypothermic conditions for extended periods is not used by our police.

Electroshock is not used by our police.

The list goes on and on and on.

[Bren122]

The Geneva Conventions comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, for example:

wounded or sick fighters
prisoners of war
civilians
medical and religious personnel

The United States Ratified these some time ago along with a bunch of other nations.

No where in the Conventions does it say" ...but if your enemy doesnt abide by the Coventions then you don't have to eaither"

Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial.Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

taking of hostages
extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.

Further, those provisions are considered customary international law, allowing war crimes prosecution even over groups that have not formally accepted the terms of the Geneva Conventions.

I am ashamed to see our beloved country fall so low as to use such dishonorable methods and even try to validate there use, especially when all it does is to garner more opposition against our cuase!

These Geneva Conventions only apply to those that can be clearly identified as soldiers. This is defined within these conventions and within the Protocols. The Taliban, not being recognised as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda are regarded as non-state actors AT BEST. The US made a determination that members of these two organisations did not fit the description, provided under the Protocols, for non-state actors and are therefore not subject to the limitations of the Convention or the Protocol.

This was in order to try them in US courts, which is not permitted under international law for PoWs. They do not qualify as civillians because they were taken in arms. Ironically it was countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, etc. who were the most opposed to widening the definition of a non-state actor in order to, for example, use nerve gas on their populations or ethnic cleansing or to enable them to use torture techniques more in line with a real definition of torture. One favoured technique is to nail a prisoner's hands to a heavy table or wall mount and then sever the fingers a joint at a time with bolt cutters; this is very different to water boarding.

The Geneva conventions only apply to civillians and soldiers of legitimate governments recognised by a majority of the UN- it does not protect freedom fighters, partisans, terrorists or any other term you wish to use. The Protocol extends the Geneva Conventions to civillians supporting these movements- civillians being strictly defined as not being in possession of weapons and not being taken in company of others possessing weapons. A legitimate non-state actor must meet many qualifications, all of which Al-qaeda fail and most of which the Taliban fail. It is an all or nothing definition- which is why no nation has attempted to suggest that they are before an international court.

[denuseri]

I presume that your source is the aforementioned spouse?

I would say Duh!....But:

Its not him alone, the other guys in his unit that I know also have mentioned things.

[denuseri]

These Geneva Conventions only apply to those that can be clearly identified as soldiers. This is defined within these conventions and within the Protocols. The Taliban, not being recognised as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda are regarded as non-state actors AT BEST. The US made a determination that members of these two organisations did not fit the description, provided under the Protocols, for non-state actors and are therefore not subject to the limitations of the Convention or the Protocol.

This was in order to try them in US courts, which is not permitted under international law for PoWs. They do not qualify as civillians because they were taken in arms. Ironically it was countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, etc. who were the most opposed to widening the definition of a non-state actor in order to, for example, use nerve gas on their populations or ethnic cleansing or to enable them to use torture techniques more in line with a real definition of torture. One favoured technique is to nail a prisoner's hands to a heavy table or wall mount and then sever the fingers a joint at a time with bolt cutters; this is very different to water boarding.

The Geneva conventions only apply to civillians and soldiers of legitimate governments recognised by a majority of the UN- it does not protect freedom fighters, partisans, terrorists or any other term you wish to use. The Protocol extends the Geneva Conventions to civillians supporting these movements- civillians being strictly defined as not being in possession of weapons and not being taken in company of others possessing weapons. A legitimate non-state actor must meet many qualifications, all of which Al-qaeda fail and most of which the Taliban fail. It is an all or nothing definition- which is why no nation has attempted to suggest that they are before an international court.

A bit of legal loop holing to justify it doesnt mean its right. Besides there are quite a few legal scholars out there that disagree with your point of view.

[denuseri]

And I am married to a naval Senior Chief that was stationed at the detention facility at GTMO. That and other contacts I have with others stationed there, support my position. (A)nd for obvious reasons I can't divulge anything further on that.



So you have a source you consider valid saying that torture is no longer taking place who is stationed at GTMO as a what? Interogator?

Where as I have a scource who's job involves things I can't speak about, but who is also directly involved with the issue in question, yes ...DIRECTLY. He isnt at GTMO on any regular basis that I know of however, (but GTMO isnt the only place where interogations take place now is it) but some of his friends who are interogators there are; and well, as Ive allready mentioned, its still happening.

As for what our police do and do not, read over the list of things I presented again. I am not talking about a little sleep deprevation now am I?

You can try to self justify and candy coat and side step the issue all you want. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

[steelish]

It's obvious that you have very strong opinions/feelings on this matter.

Can you say with all honesty that if your family or (God forbid) if you had a child who's life was in direct danger from a terrorist and the ONLY way you could find out where the child was being held was to torture one of the terrorist pals of the ringleader...you would NOT do this? I can say with all honesty, that if a terrorist was holding my child and I caught one of his buddies, God help him.

These are some of the same sort of people who beheaded a man and videotaped it! I repeat, I do not condone torture...but I also do not condone the acts the terrorists are committing. We do not know all the particulars regarding this. Neither does your owner, as you said, he was not one of the guards at Gtmo. Only the terrorists, God and the guards involved know exactly what happened. I would not presume to know or understand what occurred. All we know is hearsay, regardless of what was released/said/testified to. It's still just hearsay.

[Bren122]

A bit of legal loop holing to justify it doesnt mean its right. Besides there are quite a few legal scholars out there that disagree with your point of view.

They can disagree all they like- only governments can bring actions under the conventions and the protocols.

and i didn't say it was right- i just pointed out you can't use either and why.

[Bren122]

It's obvious that you have very strong opinions/feelings on this matter.

Can you say with all honesty that if your family or (God forbid) if you had a child who's life was in direct danger from a terrorist and the ONLY way you could find out where the child was being held was to torture one of the terrorist pals of the ringleader...you would NOT do this? I can say with all honesty, that if a terrorist was holding my child and I caught one of his buddies, God help him.

These are some of the same sort of people who beheaded a man and videotaped it! I repeat, I do not condone torture...but I also do not condone the acts the terrorists are committing. We do not know all the particulars regarding this. Neither does your owner, as you said, he was not one of the guards at Gtmo. Only the terrorists, God and the guards involved know exactly what happened. I would not presume to know or understand what occurred. All we know is hearsay, regardless of what was released/said/testified to. It's still just hearsay.

when you act like the enemy, you become the enemy. i am all for a few adjustments to the civil code to make it easier to get the information we need- and i think that we're getting more than enough for our safety under the original laws- but we're on a slippery slope. In Western Australia our government has introduced new search and seizure laws on the basis that it has worked against the terrorists, it should also work against bikies- it worked against the bikies so we can try it on the hooligans who carry on cranky on Friday and Saturday night. New Year's Eve we had 2000 'Incidents' and 250 arrests- about 20 times more than last year with fewer public events. where does it stop?

[steelish]

when you act like the enemy, you become the enemy. i am all for a few adjustments to the civil code to make it easier to get the information we need- and i think that we're getting more than enough for our safety under the original laws- but we're on a slippery slope. In Western Australia our government has introduced new search and seizure laws on the basis that it has worked against the terrorists, it should also work against bikies- it worked against the bikies so we can try it on the hooligans who carry on cranky on Friday and Saturday night. New Year's Eve we had 2000 'Incidents' and 250 arrests- about 20 times more than last year with fewer public events. where does it stop?

As you said, only governments can bring actions under the conventions and protocol.

My point is that NO ONE knows what they would do in a given situation unless that specific situation occurs. It's easy to step up and be righteous when you're not the one faced with such choices.

[denuseri]

Yet more side steping.

[Bren122]

My point is that NO ONE knows what they would do in a given situation unless that specific situation occurs. It's easy to step up and be righteous when you're not the one faced with such choices.

we owe it to our history to at least act like we have learned something from it. if we do not challenge our government at every threat to our liberties, whether it affects us directly or not, we will find ourselves serving a government that thinks it knows what is best for us even if we do not. liberty must be defined that it can be grasped, but it should never be defined by the needs of the moment. government should be for the needs of the people, not for the people to serve the needs of government.

your argument depends on the acceptance that an emotional response is the best response- that relying on outrage or anger or desperation is a suitable justification for any action. we are more than a bundle of emotions; we have a soul that lets us aspire to be better than we are and certainly better than our enemies.

waterboarding, sleep deprivation and so on are torments, not torture. i have no problem with them. others obviously do. but there can not be a carte blanche allowance for the government or its representatives to do as they please in order to protect society because we can never be sure where it will end.

[Lion]

It's obvious that you have very strong opinions/feelings on this matter.

Can you say with all honesty that if your family or (God forbid) if you had a child who's life was in direct danger from a terrorist and the ONLY way you could find out where the child was being held was to torture one of the terrorist pals of the ringleader...you would NOT do this? I can say with all honesty, that if a terrorist was holding my child and I caught one of his buddies, God help him.



I've heard this arguement thrown around so many times for the side of torture.

First of all, these prisoners have been in Gitmo for years, nothing they could possibly know could stop an imminent attack, unless they all have email access!

Secondly, assuming that someone was just caught, and the above scenario played out exactly as you mentioned (as unlikely as it is), what's to stop this person intent on killing from making crap up.


I can not believe that this sort of arguement is playing out in the "free world".

I think it was Bush that said "They hate us for our freedom". If that is true, then they're winning.

[steelish]

your argument depends on the acceptance that an emotional response is the best response- that relying on outrage or anger or desperation is a suitable justification for any action.



Absolutely not. My argument is that we simply do not know how we will respond to ANY given situation unless we are actually confronted with it and I was honest enough to say that I truly do not know how I would react in that situation. I would love to be altruistic and say that I would be "above" my enemy...but I cannot truly say that, since I have never been confronted with that. However, that does not apply only to the scenario I outlined. It also applies to the difficult decisions that our government is throwing at us right now. (Health Care, Cap and Trade, and our current administration in the White House) How each individual will respond to this and either defend the United States as the country it was created to be, or vote in favor of moving forward and transforming it into a different sort of government is also something I was alluding to.

For so many years now the majority of Americans sat back and allowed the backstabbing political arena to sway their votes, rather than actually looking into candidates issues, what they stood for, viewing their track record and conduct in whatever capacity they worked before and voting accordingly. We are now faced with becoming knowledgeable constituents, rather than being sheep led by politicians...and this includes voicing our concerns with what happened at Gitmo. Rather than debate it amongst ourselves, we need to let our politicians know how we feel through emails and phone calls. THAT is the only way something will be done decisively with citizen input.

[DuncanONeil]

Point is that all qualifies as hearsay. Ant storiews in the service travel through many ears and mouth. We all know what that does to the fact of the matter.


I would say Duh!....But:

Its not him alone, the other guys in his unit that I know also have mentioned things.

[DuncanONeil]

It is not legal loop holing. It is clearly spelled out who is not covered by the Conventions. And the people in question do not meet the requirements of the Conventions.
Yet in spite of that they are being provided with many if not most of them!


A bit of legal loop holing to justify it doesnt mean its right. Besides there are quite a few legal scholars out there that disagree with your point of view.

[DuncanONeil]

Your implication is you are married to a special operator and I will not even try to discuss anything along those lines.

The problem is that people that say "no torture" and those that say "torture" do not agree on what they are talking about. With out that agreement there can really be no discussion!

Is it right for somebody to walk into a wedding reception sit down among the guests and detonate a bomb? Is it right for somebody to board a random airplane and attempt to blow it up? Another point to consider is that these are not isolated incidents!


So you have a source you consider valid saying that torture is no longer taking place who is stationed at GTMO as a what? Interogator?

Where as I have a scource who's job involves things I can't speak about, but who is also directly involved with the issue in question, yes ...DIRECTLY. He isnt at GTMO on any regular basis that I know of however, (but GTMO isnt the only place where interogations take place now is it) but some of his friends who are interogators there are; and well, as Ive allready mentioned, its still happening.

As for what our police do and do not, read over the list of things I presented again. I am not talking about a little sleep deprevation now am I?

You can try to self justify and candy coat and side step the issue all you want. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

[DuncanONeil]

"Bikies"?? Am I to understand that is the Aussie version of MCGs?


when you act like the enemy, you become the enemy. i am all for a few adjustments to the civil code to make it easier to get the information we need- and i think that we're getting more than enough for our safety under the original laws- but we're on a slippery slope. In Western Australia our government has introduced new search and seizure laws on the basis that it has worked against the terrorists, it should also work against bikies- it worked against the bikies so we can try it on the hooligans who carry on cranky on Friday and Saturday night. New Year's Eve we had 2000 'Incidents' and 250 arrests- about 20 times more than last year with fewer public events. where does it stop?

[DuncanONeil]

Hear! Hear!


As you said, only governments can bring actions under the conventions and protocol.

My point is that NO ONE knows what they would do in a given situation unless that specific situation occurs. It's easy to step up and be righteous when you're not the one faced with such choices.

[DuncanONeil]

Field intelligence does not really have a shelf life. While a specific piece of data may in fact be "dated" it is still intell. All intell is of value regardless of age. At worst it confirms something you know, at best it tells you about something actionable. Most often it is a lead to search down.
All good!


I've heard this arguement thrown around so many times for the side of torture.

First of all, these prisoners have been in Gitmo for years, nothing they could possibly know could stop an imminent attack, unless they all have email access!

Secondly, assuming that someone was just caught, and the above scenario played out exactly as you mentioned (as unlikely as it is), what's to stop this person intent on killing from making crap up.


I can not believe that this sort of arguement is playing out in the "free world".

I think it was Bush that said "They hate us for our freedom". If that is true, then they're winning.

[DuncanONeil]

"We are now faced with becoming knowledgeable constituents"
The sentiment is correct! But should the statement not be "return to being knowledgeable constituents"?
Just a thought.


Absolutely not. My argument is that we simply do not know how we will respond to ANY given situation unless we are actually confronted with it and I was honest enough to say that I truly do not know how I would react in that situation. I would love to be altruistic and say that I would be "above" my enemy...but I cannot truly say that, since I have never been confronted with that. However, that does not apply only to the scenario I outlined. It also applies to the difficult decisions that our government is throwing at us right now. (Health Care, Cap and Trade, and our current administration in the White House) How each individual will respond to this and either defend the United States as the country it was created to be, or vote in favor of moving forward and transforming it into a different sort of government is also something I was alluding to.

For so many years now the majority of Americans sat back and allowed the backstabbing political arena to sway their votes, rather than actually looking into candidates issues, what they stood for, viewing their track record and conduct in whatever capacity they worked before and voting accordingly. We are now faced with becoming knowledgeable constituents, rather than being sheep led by politicians...and this includes voicing our concerns with what happened at Gitmo. Rather than debate it amongst ourselves, we need to let our politicians know how we feel through emails and phone calls. THAT is the only way something will be done decisively with citizen input.

[steelish]

"We are now faced with becoming knowledgeable constituents"
The sentiment is correct! But should the statement not be "return to being knowledgeable constituents"?
Just a thought.

*smiles*

Yes, that should be the statement, unfortunately, it doesn't apply to everyone. Most of America trusted their politicians to do the job they were elected to do. NOT further their own agenda via lobbyists

[DuncanONeil]

*smiles*

Yes, that should be the statement, unfortunately, it doesn't apply to everyone. Most of America trusted their politicians to do the job they were elected to do. NOT further their own agenda via lobbyists

Maybe what we have is 535 lobbyists that are being paid by the budget. I mean since they are insisting on doing what such a small portion of the people want! Isn't that what a lobbyist gets paid for?

[steelish]

Maybe what we have is 535 lobbyists that are being paid by the budget. I mean since they are insisting on doing what such a small portion of the people want! Isn't that what a lobbyist gets paid for?

You mean, get paid to "lobby" for their corporation's/interest group's consideration and special favors, etc? Yes, and if the corporations and/or special interest groups that paid the lobbyists actually had altruistic motives and the best interests of the American people on their mind, I wouldn't mind so much...and we would all be in a much better place.

[DuncanONeil]

You mean, get paid to "lobby" for their corporation's/interest group's consideration and special favors, etc? Yes, and if the corporations and/or special interest groups that paid the lobbyists actually had altruistic motives and the best interests of the American people on their mind, I wouldn't mind so much...and we would all be in a much better place.


No ... no ... no! I am talking about the 535 lobbyists that you and I are paying out of the Federal budget (and their staffs)!!