Guantanamo Bay: Shame on you, United States

[Michaelangelica]

It's not on topic, but wouldn't you agree this thread has brought forth some very negative feelings?

No I don't. There are people for and against ("little liberals and little conservatives" as Gilbert and Sullivan sing).

I think you have stimulated a very useful and spirited discussion by doggedly sticking to your guns.

This makes other people articulate and detail their objections to GB.

Many see it as important, so posts are emphatic, as it goes to the heart of what a democracy is, or should be.

 

I do wish you would read the replies people send to you more carefully however, and stop repeating questions that have been answered

(eg inmates live better in GB- just stating that does not make it so, and you have received two detailed reply about this but have not challenged them).

 

Anyway I may be insane but for sheer dogged pigheadedness I am sending you some rep.

[freeztar]

Modest, as you and Freeztar go through life, maybe you will be confronted with some life or death situations. You may at some time have to defend the country you hate.

 

So, I hate my country now?! ;)

(I suppose I'll go join the rest of the "right-brained liberals" that you have branded "haters" :) )

Can you show me one post where I have declared hatred for my county?

 

Your accusations hold no water and do nothing to further this discussion. Actually, they have the opposite effect.

 

"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

-Thomas Jefferson

[DougF]

questor

Modest' date=' as you and Freeztar go through life, maybe you will be confronted with some life or death situations. You may at some time have to defend the country you hate. You may have to make a real-life decision concerning the lives of others, and you may have to take someone else's life or he will take yours. If this happens or you gain empathy and maturity about the struggles

of reality, we can have another talk. I like to talk with someone who has walked the walk [/quote']

 

And you have walked this walk?

being confronted with some life or death situations (IE: kill or be killed) is not the same as torture.

 

(Originally Posted by questor

6. Is there any recognition of the fact that many of these people have a better life in captivity than they had before?)

 

the people who have a better life are the people that don't have to worry about these terrorist's, a prison is not a county club.

 

but all of this has little if anything to do with the US torturing anyone,

there is NO reason for this to have happened at all, We should condemn it as barbaric, this is not the American way.. torture and America should not be used in the same sentence this county should be trying to stop such atrocities like Rwanda and it should not make a deference if America has interests in Rwanda, genocide should not happen and all of the world not just the US should step in and stop it.

 

Michaelangelica

America is in a special place in the world community having made itself the "world's policeman" so it needs to listen to constructive criticism from the world community. Too often criticism and feedback from others in the world is just negated- as you have now- as "Yank -haters." and ignored.

 

The criticism is made because we are concerned about a friend.

 

Thank you Michaelangelica,

and as the "world's policeman" we should take the lead and be the country that everyone wants to emulate.

[Michaelangelica]

Elect to End Torture:

Sign the Petition Today

Join these 33,911 other Americans for Human Rights and stand against torture.

 

Count me in! I want a U.S. President who will not allow torture to happen again in America’s name. All U.S. personnel must uphold the absolute ban on torture and cruel treatment with no exceptions. I do not tolerate "outsourcing" torture or holding prisoners in secret.

 

Once you sign, we will keep you posted about the range of ways you can "Elect to End Torture" throughout the 2008 presidential campaign.

 

Click here to read the petition letter that will be presented to the presidential candidates along with your names

Human Rights First | Elect to End Torture '08

[InfiniteNow]

Human Rights First | Elect to End Torture '08

 

This implies that those in charge care what the populace wants. What do you think this is, some sort of democracy?

 

 

Jaded... :phones:

[freeztar]

This implies that those in charge care what the populace wants. What do you think this is, some sort of democracy?

 

 

Jaded... :phones:

 

You are OBVIOUSLY a right-brainer.

;)

[Michaelangelica]

AP Confirms Secret Camp Inside Gitmo

 

 

Wednesday February 6, 2008 10:01 PM

 

By ANDREW O. SELSKY

 

Associated Press Writer

 

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) - Somewhere amid the cactus-studded hills on this sprawling Navy base, separate from the cells where hundreds of men suspected of links to al-Qaida and the Taliban have been locked up for years, is a place even more closely guarded - a jailhouse so protected that its very location is top secret.

 

For the first time, the top commander of detention operations at Guantanamo has confirmed the existence of the mysterious Camp 7. In an interview with The Associated Press, Rear Adm. Mark Buzby also provided a few details about the maximum-security lockup.

. . .

While some military personnel have reportedly grumbled about being kept out of the loop, others don't mind.

 

Army Col. Larry James, whose team of psychologists assists interrogators, said he does not want to know where Camp 7 is.

 

``I learned a long, long time ago, if I'm going to be successful in the intel community, I'm meticulously - in a very, very dedicated way - going to stay in my lane,'' he said. ``So if I don't have a specific need to know about something, I don't want to know about it. I don't ask about it.''

AP Confirms Secret Camp Inside Gitmo | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited

[REASON]

The U.N., which we so readily disregard these days, has weighed in on the testimony of Gen. Hayden this week regarding the use of torture.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-UN-Waterboarding.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

GENEVA (AP) -- The United Nations' torture investigator criticized the White House Wednesday for defending the use of waterboarding and urged the U.S. to give up its defense of ''unjustifiable'' interrogation methods.

 

The comments from Manfred Nowak, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on torture, came a day after the Bush administration acknowledged publicly for the first time that waterboarding was used by U.S. government questioners on three terror suspects.

 

Testifying before Congress, CIA Director Michael Hayden said the suspects were waterboarded in 2002 and 2003.

 

''This is absolutely unacceptable under international human rights law,'' Nowak said. ''Time has come that the government will actually acknowledge that they did something wrong and not continue trying to justify what is unjustifiable.''.....

[REASON]

It appears a new law suit is forthcoming that will refute Gen. Hayden's testimony to congress that torture was used on only three Guantanamo detainees since 2003.

 

New Charges of Guantanamo Torture - Time Magazine

 

.....Majid Khan, 27, a former suburban Baltimore high school student, was first seized by authorities in Pakistan, where he said he was visiting his brother. Khan then spent more than three years in a secret overseas CIA "black site" before President Bush ordered his transfer to Guantanamo along with 13 other high-value detainees. Also transferred was alleged 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheik Mohammed, who had allegedly ordered Khan to research attacks on American water reservoirs and gas stations.

 

Khan's lawyers are armed with more than 500 pages of top-secret notes taken during recent sessions with their client at Guantanamo; they will use the material to describe his interrogation and detention to the Intelligence Committee. Though details are highly classified, his lawyers claim that he and others were tortured and videotaped, charges that Hayden and other CIA officials deny. On Feb. 5, Hayden admitted to Congress that the CIA had used waterboarding on Khaled Sheik Mohammed and two others. The CIA continues to assert that it does not engage in torture.

 

Rising to Hayden's defense, the White House this week made clear its view that waterboarding has saved American lives, is legal - and does not constitute torture, as critics insist. A spokesman for Bush said the President would authorize waterboarding for use on future terror suspects if certain standards are met, a spokesman said. Hayden himself banned the technique in 2006 for use in CIA interrogations, and the Pentagon and FBI have done likewise.....

 

This is intended to be nothing more than political and legal cover for illegal activities. Let's waterboard Bush, Cheney, and the rest of their numbskull White House staffers and then see whether they think waterboarding is torture. ;) Idiots!

[REASON]

Here's an additional article that elaborates on the bolded statements in my post above. It appears that since the cat is out of the bag, and the administration has now admitted to waterboarding detainees, they have to officially deem the practice legal in order to avoid a criminal investigation and remain consistent with their previous statements that they had not engaged in illegal torture. They have no integrity whatsoever. :lol:

 

Waterboarding is legal, White House says - Los Angeles Times

 

WASHINGTON -- The White House said Wednesday that the widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding is legal and that President Bush could authorize the CIA to resume using the simulated-drowning method under extraordinary circumstances.

 

The surprise assertion from the Bush administration reopened a debate that many in Washington had considered closed. Two laws passed by Congress in recent years -- as well as a Supreme Court ruling on the treatment of detainees -- were widely interpreted to have banned the CIA's use of the extreme interrogation method.

 

But in remarks that were greeted with disbelief by some members of Congress and human rights groups, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that waterboarding was a legal technique that could be employed again "under certain circumstances.".....

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

It appears a new law suit is forthcoming that will refute Gen. Hayden's testimony to congress that torture was used on only three Guantanamo detainees since 2003.

Oooooooooooh...only three....that's a different story then...of course it's not torture or immorral.

[freeztar]

They have no integrity whatsoever. :lol:

 

What boggles my mind is that they're able to get away with it. :lol:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

What boggles my mind is that they're able to get away with it. :lol:

Why? Who has the power to stop and or punish them?:lol:

 

I'd welcome a trial and hanging:) It was good enough for Sadam why not Bush and his croneys. BUT who the Fk is going to make it happen?

[freeztar]

Why? Who has the power to stop and or punish them?:lol:

 

The judicial and legislative branches.

Congress has tried to stop the administration on lots of stuff and the admin either slithers its way out of it (this for example), or it doesn't have enough congressional support.

The supreme court has, what is it, 3 Bush-appointed justices. Not much luck there I suppose...

 

But I guess a discussion on the erosion of the system of checks and balances is a discussion for a different day, and thread.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

The judicial and legislative branches.

Congress has tried to stop the administration on lots of stuff and the admin either slithers its way out of it (this for example), or it doesn't have enough congressional support.

The supreme court has, what is it, 3 Bush-appointed justices. Not much luck there I suppose...

 

But I guess a discussion on the erosion of the system of checks and balances is a discussion for a different day, and thread.

A.T.M.'s* been gatherin dust and this is just the type of bull I started that thread to discuss...see ya there?:lol:

 

 

 

*(America the Myth)*

[Kayra]

I have been trying to think of a way to say this without coming across as a complete hypocrite, but I am beginning to believe that being hypocritical is the only solution.

 

In the world of espionage almost all of the activity is implicitly illegal. Most countries that you spy on do not really give permission to do so, and it is usually against their own laws for external governments to spy on them.(theses are the only laws that count in their country)

 

EVERY major country, regardless of political system or founding principles, plays in the espionage game. It is an amoral, often brutal, and completely necessary course of action. Murder, torture, lies, manipulation of people, theft of property (both intellectual and physical). These occur on a regular bases since opposing governments have existed. The key to these operations though is the complete secrecy and ability to politically deny their existence. Tremendous efforts are made to ensure that nobody finds out or if they do, it can be denied. These are undertaken with every action. This is the way the game is (and must be) played. If knowledge of these actions gets out, there is a price to pay. Often a steep one and this is how it should be. This consequence acts as a balance to minimize such actions on any scale.

 

I believe this is necessary in order to allow a country like the United States (and many others now and throughout history) to work towards a higher moral ground. (Hence the hypocrisy :D). The general populace and the representatives they appoint must be able to act with a reasonably clean conscience on the global stage, or else no one can be held to a higher moral standards they wish everyone could attain (including themselves), without being ridiculed for their own actions.

 

The Bush administration has decided not to play that game in this particular case, and I am uncertain as to why. By trying to bring these actions into lawful and moral acceptance, they damage the entire country, and every single person in it. They hamper, and in some places cripple their own ability to act on the world stage. If they are allowed to legitimize these processes both morally and legally, then the scale of such operations will no longer be held in check by the need for secrecy, deniability, and discretion.

 

I actually find myself rather ambivalent about the prisoners of GT (sad but true). I know none of them personally, and my own space is relatively unaffected by their plight. This may seem petty, but in truth I think most of us feel this way. What gives me great pause though is the consequences of places like GT, and the thinking behind publicly allowing them, becoming a commonly accepted practice world wide. You need to imagine a world where each country feels they have the right, “THE RIGHT”, to set aside their own laws and the wishes of their people and do as a single leader desires without checks and balances. Eventually and inevitably, one of these leaders will truly make use of that sort of power.

 

(Points at himself)

Hypocrite!!

/forums/images/smilies/devilsign.gif

[CraigD]

In the world of espionage almost all of the activity is implicitly illegal. Most countries that you spy on do not really give permission to do so, and it is usually against their own laws for external governments to spy on them.(theses are the only laws that count in their country)

This is an interesting perspective on the “US War on terror” issue, of a form I’ve not heard before. I think there are a few flaw in its arguments, however.

 

The largest flaw I find is that very few of the prisoners at GB are suspected of espionage. Although its very difficult to determine the acts of which they are suspected (the whole point of the detention camp is, essentially, to allow prisoners to be held indefinitely without specific charges, which is not legal within the US) most of them are, I gather, non-English speaking people captured by the US military on “battlefields”, or transferred from prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, who are neither suspected nor very capable of spying on the US. Rather, they are considered dangerous to US soldiers and civilians within and outside because they are suspected of shooting at, bombing, or otherwise killing or injuring US citizens, attempting to do so, or plotting to do so.

 

I believe, as Kayra states, that spys are occasionally – though very rarely - imprisoned, tortured, and killed in a manner illegal under US law, because their governments are unwilling to object, because to do so would require them to admit having ordered spying. A similar situation occurs, in what I suspect are much greater numbers, among criminals, because the colleagues of the victims cannot appeal to the legal system without revealing their own crimes.

 

In the case of the “enemy combatants” at GB, their governments didn’t order them to spy on the US, attack the US, or, with the arguable exception of the deposed government of Afghanistan, fight against US soldiers. It appears that in many or most cases, their governments don’t care, or are even unaware, that they have been incarcerated.

 

Another flaw with comparing “war on terror” prisoners to spies is one of quantity. There are many times more prisoners at GB, and possibly other US run or controlled prisons, than there were, I think, at any time spies held secretly by US intelligence agencies.

 

Although details are difficult or impossible to obtain, unlike, presumably, spys who have been secretly confined, questioned, and even killed, the presence and numbers of prisoners at GB is not secret. Lists are available, with no objection from the US government, from several sources, including the wikipedia article “List of Guantánamo Bay detainees”. The IRC visits GB prisoners to assure they are being fed and provided medical care. Although many of them may be without support from their governments, families, and friends, in the stereotypical, spy-movie sense of the word, these prisoners are not “expendable”.

The Bush administration has decided not to play that game in this particular case, and I am uncertain as to why.

I think the Executive, Executive branch and military staff are “playing the game” the way they are, seeking legal justification for their acts and avoiding outright secrecy, is because to do otherwise might result in their criminal prosecution. Unlike a spy, disavowed by his government, and fate known only by a small number of people mutually sworn to secrecy, WOT prisoners can’t simply be secretly killed. There whereabouts are known to many people – IRC representatives, families and foreign governments, US soldiers, government officials, and anyone who cares to read a list on the internet. Undeniably “amoral, often brutal” acts against them would simply be criminal, and could result in those involved facing criminal punishments, even as high-up a leader as the President.

By trying to bring these actions into lawful and moral acceptance, they damage the entire country, and every single person in it. They hamper, and in some places cripple their own ability to act on the world stage. If they are allowed to legitimize these processes both morally and legally, then the scale of such operations will no longer be held in check by the need for secrecy, deniability, and discretion.

I disagree. Except in situations where near absolute secrecy on the parts of friends and even foes is possible, such as those involving a few spies over the course of decades, all legitimate governments must be able to act both secretly and within the law – even if, as appears in many ways the case with the current administration, they revise and create the law as needs warrant, and with less than adequate government review, checks, and balances. Amoral, brutal treatment of hundreds or thousands people over the course of a few years is, IMHO, beyond the fringe permitted of “spy games”.

I actually find myself rather ambivalent about the prisoners of GT (sad but true).

I too feel ambivalence. Though I’m deeply unhappy and disapproving of the conduct of my government over the past 6+ years, I could be much more so, and am grateful I’m not. It’s hard for me to imagine much greater ambivalence than the paired emotions of disapproval and gratitude.