Guantanamo Redux

[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/milita...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][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!

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.