The Road to Guantanamo

[Good Sir Knight]

The war on drugs is silly. Would it surprise if you I told you that I'm all for legalizing most drugs?

 

Furthermore, if torcher didn't work over the last few centuries... why would anyone do it? Just out of malice and spite? Partly.... though it does work for interrogation and militaries around the world specialize in it.

 

Who are we to say what works and what doesn't in an interrogation scenario? There's guys out there that live that type of thing.

[StaffSaberist]

If sleep depravation was wrong, all schools in the nation should be banned from giving final exams and long-term projects. Puh-leaze!

[TK-8252]

The war on drugs is silly.

 

Of course it is, but it was just an example. The so-called "War on Terror" is silly too.

 

Would it surprise if you I told you that I'm all for legalizing most drugs?

 

Hey, why not? Legalize ALL drugs if you ask me.

 

Furthermore, if torcher didn't work over the last few centuries... why would anyone do it? Just out of malice and spite? Partly.... though it does work for interrogation and militaries around the world specialize in it.

 

So if it may work, why not do it in all prison situations? Why with just terrorists?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The ACLU doesn't see it that way and I think thats wrong. This goes to you too Toms, no right in the constitution shall be infringed regardless of how scary some people might think it.

Except the one about cruel and inhuman punishment. I see:rolleyes:.

 

Furthermore, if torcher didn't work over the last few centuries... why would anyone do it? Just out of malice and spite?

For example, yes.

 

If sleep depravation was wrong, all schools in the nation should be banned from giving final exams and long-term projects. Puh-leaze!

You're joking, right? If a student fails to organize his time so that he loses sleep over a project, that's hardly the school's fault. Not even in the same league as the horrors of Guantanamo, where inmates are forced to lose sleep.

 

And we're still not only discussing sleep deprivation, we're discussing the more severe cases of torture at Guantanamo, too. If you seriously think the worst thing happening at Guantanamo is sleep deprivation, you're more ignorant on the matter than you quite frankly have a moral privilege (sp.?) to be. There are beatings, sexual abuse, attack dogs, and so on and so forth. Focusing on the sleep deprivation is like saying that "all ibn Ladin did on 9/11 was hijack four airliners, how's that so bad?". Maybe that in itself isn't so atrocious, but he also happened to kill 3000+ people by using the planes as missiles.

 

So if it may work, why not do it in all prison situations? Why with just terrorists?

Exactly. I already covered that in last post, but it appears my opponents "missed" it.

 

As for POWs not being entitled to their rights: Just that you can do something, doesn't mean you're right in doing it or ethically justified in doing it. There was a time when Africans were not entitled to vote, too, you know.

 

This is a war.

Not a good enough argument. Just that you're in a state of war against a hyped-up enemy doesn't make it right to use extreme means.

[toms]

Personally, for me the 2nd amendment is just as important as the 1st.

This is going totally OT but why?

 

I disagree with Jakob. If you're not a POW you don't have any rights and that sounds pretty cold but for me, with my family background and the people I know in harms way...it's pretty hard to feel sorry for them.

 

Just because you don't have any rights doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T have any rights.

 

And even if you shouldn't have any rights doesn't mean we should torture you.

 

And the NOT A POW category is a bit too broad for my liking.. as it includes me, you, aid workers, tourists, journalists, peace campaigners, and practically anyone else you might want to name.

 

If I had decided to do the same as a number of other peace campaigners and go to afganistan to try and campaign for peace, or show my support for the afgan people and opposition for the war.. and then had been picked up by US troops... (and had a big beard or looked muslim) then i could very well have found myself in guantanamo as one of these spurious "illegal combatants" and i'd have no decent way to prove my innocence.. no day in court.. and if i was eventually released after 3 years of living in a small cage and having sleep deprivation (which can be fatal BTW) torure then i might argue with you about what was right, legal and humane.

[rccar328]

And the NOT A POW category is a bit too broad for my liking.. as it includes me, you, aid workers, tourists, journalists, peace campaigners, and practically anyone else you might want to name.

 

If I had decided to do the same as a number of other peace campaigners and go to afganistan to try and campaign for peace, or show my support for the afgan people and opposition for the war.. and then had been picked up by US troops... (and had a big beard or looked muslim) then i could very well have found myself in guantanamo as one of these spurious "illegal combatants" and i'd have no decent way to prove my innocence.. no day in court.. and if i was eventually released after 3 years of living in a small cage and having sleep deprivation (which can be fatal BTW) torure then i might argue with you about what was right, legal and humane.

That depends on how you would be 'campaigning' for peace. If you tried to oppose or obstruct members of the military, you could very well end up in GTMO...because you were aiding enemies of the United States. However, while I fall into the "not a POW" category, I have no fear of being hauled off to GTMO because there is no reason for the government to believe that I'm a terrorist or am conspiring to take action against the US or its war effort.

 

I happen to know some people who are showing support for the Afghan people, not by opposing US troops, but by helping the people of Afghanistan as missionary aid workers. In a nation such as the US with a right to freedom of speech, there are many, many ways to express opposition to the war without ending up in GTMO or any other prison. There are also many, many ways to show support for the people in Afghanistan and Iraq without being dragged off to GTMO. There are proper and improper ways to voice your opinion...and if you express your opposition to the war in an improper way, such as getting in the way of the US military, then you have to deal with the consequences of your decision.

[Good Sir Knight]

Pentagon Releases Gitmo Detainees' Names

 

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Guantanamo_Detainees

 

 

Are you happy now guys?

 

j/k

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Personally, for me the 2nd amendment is just as important as the 1st.

I beg to differ.

 

Just because you don't have any rights doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T have any rights.

 

And even if you shouldn't have any rights doesn't mean we should torture you.

How about this: Since this is the fourth (give or take) time this has been brought up in this thread, it'd be nice if you torture-apologists actually addressed it.

 

I have no fear of being hauled off to GTMO because there is no reason for the government to believe that I'm a terrorist or am conspiring to take action against the US or its war effort.

But they have "reasons" to believe that others are threats when they really aren't.

 

The Road to Guantanamo is about a goup of people who were brought to the prison camp and tortured simply for being caught in a mosque known to be used for terrorist-recruitment. And that's just one example.

[toms]

The Road to Guantanamo is about a goup of people who were brought to the prison camp and tortured simply for being caught in a mosque known to be used for terrorist-recruitment. And that's just one example.

 

But we all know that all muslims are terrorists so i'm not that worried about that.. they don't really count.

[StaffSaberist]

Of course, we are also holding everyone we can hostage, and treating everyone like that movie... right, we're just a bunch of Christian Fascists.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by rccar328:

Well, first of all, I believe their official classification is "enemy combatant." They are enemies who were fighting our soldiers, but because they weren't fighting in the uniform of a particular enemy nation, they don't classify as POWs. Therefore, they are not afforded the same rights as POWs. That's not me "passing judgment," that's just how it works.

Of course it's you passing judgement, don't be silly. And what is this nonsense "that's just how it works"? What is that supposed to mean? The only reason that this is "how it works", is because your government has just recently decided that it is how it's going to work. And the merit of their decision is the subject of this debate. Do you really believe the US government's actions in this matter were inevitable? Do you really believe that those actions are beyond morality?

 

As to the more salient aspects of your argument: The shiny new terminology the US government has used when "classifying" these prisoners is an irrelevance. They're prisoners held by your government, and therefore fall under the protection of civil law, or military convention in time of conflict. That means they're either prisoners of the state, or prisoners of war. Your government is affording them the rights of NEITHER. That's illegal. It's illegal because it's counter to both US law and international law. It's counter to international treaties. It's tantamount to terrorism, to be frank. It's similarly illegal, it's similarly amoral, and it's similarly designed to "set an example" to others who would resist a US invasion force.

 

It's the sort of thing that the bad guys would do.

 

As to your argument regarding people not being "in uniform", as Toms has pointed out, it's a rather pathetic argument. Shiny mass-produced uniforms with polished buttons are not universally issued to combatants from poorer nations, even when those combatants are NOT engaging in covert manoeuvres. That doesn't mean they're not soldiers fighting in a cause, or for their nation.

 

Originally Posted by rccar328:

If you're a US citizen, then you are entitled to certain rights under the US Constitution, among them due process of the law and a trial by a jury of your peers. If you're not from the US, then the US Constitution doesn't apply to you, and you would fall under a different set of rules.

Okay, so I come to America and steal your slice of apple pie... That means I can be imprisoned without trial, does it? Please get off your constitutional horse. There is law and moral obligation above and beyond that which is guaranteed by your US citizenship. And, these are men that have allegedly commited "crimes" OUTSIDE U.S. JURISDICTION. Or is the whole planet merely the fifty-first state?

 

Originally Posted by rccar328:

By your statement above, you seem to be assuming that the US military is going around rounding up anyone they feel like rounding up...and that seeming assessment is entirely innacurate. These are enemy combatants who were fighting against the United States military.

You assert that they were enemy combatants. Then they should be treated like prisoners of war.

 

Originally Posted by rccar328:

I refer to them as terrorists because many of them use terror tactics to try and drive US public opinion against the war, and many are, in fact, members of terrorist organizations. Maybe under a strict definition they wouldn't classify as "terrorists", but who cares? That's just semantics. Either way, they were captured while trying to kill US soldiers.

Most of them weren't even captured by US forces, by all accounts. And you have no evidence to support your assertion that these men were "captured while trying to kill US soldiers." The US has used tactics that could be termed "terror tactics" in the recent engagements. The killing of unarmed prisoners, detention without trial of POWs... Does that make the whole US a "bunch of terrorists"? Of course not. Now start applying the same standards to others, as you apply to yourself.

 

Now you're admitting to yourself and to us that the detainees couldn't be defined as terrorists in terms of the strict definition of the word "terrorist". Yet you still think it's okay to call them terrorists? So basically, anyone you don't like is a terrorist. That's the inevitable extrapolation of calling people who DON'T qualify as terrorists, terrorists.

 

You can scream "semantics" all you like, but I call a terrorist a terrorist. Someone who isn't, ain't.

 

Originally Posted by rccar328:

Here's something about pundits: they can pretty much say whatever the heck they want, and that doesn't mean that it's true. Just because 9 out of 10 pundits agree that something is illegal, that doesn't make it illegal.

Oh, of course. You'd rather believe your government's illogical propaganda than the considered opinion of independent legal experts who are interviewed and quoted in the media. My bad.

 

As to "the law", Go and google some articles from experts on US law, international law, even the US supreme court, as I recall. It's clearly counter to law. You just choose not to see it. CHOOSE, mind you.

 

Originally Posted by rccar328:

That depends on how you would be 'campaigning' for peace. If you tried to oppose or obstruct members of the military, you could very well end up in GTMO...because you were aiding enemies of the United States.

It's scary that you think this is an acceptable state of affairs. So a Swedish anti-war campaigner that lies down in front of a tank could- in your view- be spirited off to Guantanamo and held indefinitely without trial for "aiding enemies of the US"? Heh. Terrifying.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:

Well first of all I didn't bring up the ACLU, I heard people espousing them as righteous and I thought I'd bring up their duplicity.

Once again, there is no "duplicity". You're confused. One COULD agree with the right to free speech AND disagree with the right to bear arms at the same time. There would be no hypocrisy there. Or do you regard the US constitution as "holy" in some way, and indivisible? Do you believe that you "either believe in the whole constitution, or none at all"?

 

Besides, it's a moot point. The ACLU doesn't "disagree with the 2nd amendment". They just interpret it differently to you.

 

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:

After all, guns don't kill people....people kill people.

Please stop regurgitating NRA slogans and come up with something original. Here, I'll start the ball rolling by coining a new slogan for you: "Guns don't shoot people, people shoot guns!" Equally meaningless, pseudish and nonsensical as yours, I'm sure you'll agree.

 

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:

I stated that they do not meet the legal requirements to be treated as POW's.

And you have no evidence for this claim. Neither does your government. They claim to be "at war" with terrorism, yet they deny the basic wartime rights of people they accuse of being terrorists.

 

Once again, they're either prisoners of the US state, in which case they should go through the civil court system, or they're captured enemy combatants, in which case they should be afforded the basic rights of any POW under standard military conventions. Pick one.

 

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:

I'll leave you with a quote from Jakob Kellenberger, President of the Red Cross. "There is a certain subcategory of individuals who have forfeited their protections under the Geneva Conventions and there is not an obligation to allow access to those individuals."

That wasn't a quote from Kellenberger! You're fabricating! That was a quote from the US State Department's Sean McCormack! He's a US government spokesman! By god sir, that's a faux pas. Get your references right. Here's proof: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/66202.htm

 

Kellenberger has been firmly anti-Guantanamo across the board, as far as I'm aware.

 

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:

The war on drugs is silly. Would it surprise if you I told you that I'm all for legalizing most drugs?

It is completely unsurprising to me that as a republican, you are against the legalisation of ALL recreational drugs.

 

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:

Furthermore, if torcher didn't work over the last few centuries... why would anyone do it?

And if burying a potato at a crossroads during a full moon doesn't work to get rid of warts... Why would generations of superstitious fools do it?

 

These are two questions with one common answer. That answer is one word: ignorance.

 

Torture does "work" if you're asking a very specific question, like "what is the combination for that safe over there". But as soon as the questions become more general, torture's effectiveness breaks down. The torturer will receive a lot of information punctuated with incoherent screaming babble, and some or all of that information may be completely fabricated by his victim in order to escape any more pain. Regardless of its "effectiveness" however, it's amoral in the extreme.

 

The dentist scene from Marathon Man illustrates this point beautifully, albeit fictionally.

[StaffSaberist]

Of course it's you passing judgement, don't be silly. And what is this nonsense "that's just how it works"? What is that supposed to mean? The only reason that this is "how it works", is because your government has just recently decided that it is how it's going to work. And the merit of their decision is the subject of this debate. Do you really believe the US government's actions in this matter were inevitable? Do you really believe that those actions are beyond morality?

 

Look at what you're making a big deal of. Sleep depravation, maybe bathroom denial. That's not very pretty, but it's far from inhumane. I want to get one point through the skulls of you lot: We are *NOT* putting these people on the rack! We are *NOT* cutting them with sharp knives! We are *NOT* shocking them! Until you can find indisputable proof the contrary (and you won't), I refuse to believe what we're putting them through is torture.

 

Okay, so I come to America and steal your slice of apple pie... That means I can be imprisoned without trial, does it? Please get off your constitutional horse. There is law and moral obligation above and beyond that which is guaranteed by your US citizenship. And, these are men that have allegedly commited "crimes" OUTSIDE U.S. JURISDICTION. Or is the whole planet merely the fifty-first state?

 

Sir, if we get off our "Constitutional horses", then we miss the entire point of this. Isn't this whole thing about, basically, what rights POW's have? Such things are granted by the Constitution and it's amendments over here, last time I checked. POW's are exempt from this. So are illegal aliens. Sorry if that sounds ugly, but it's true. Denying this is stupid at best.

 

Oh, and yes, if you illegally immigrated and commited petty theft, you'd likely just get deported for illegal immigration. If you legally immigrated, well, I'm too lazy ATM to look up the penalty for petty theft, but it's small -- not that you care. After all, punishing you is inhumane.

 

You assert that they were enemy combatants. Then they should be treated like prisoners of war.

 

They are. Enemy combatents are interrogated, and sometimes it takes more that the politically correct "ask really really nicely" to get information.

 

Most of them weren't even captured by US forces, by all accounts. And you have no evidence to support your assertion that these men were "captured while trying to kill US soldiers."

 

Can you prove they weren't? Can you prove that they weren't masterminding attacks, or planning them, instead of the narrow "attacking at the time" view? I thought not.

 

The killing of unarmed prisoners

 

The B.S. meter is at a 95/100 level, at this point...

 

Oh, of course. You'd rather believe your government's illogical propaganda than the considered opinion of independent legal experts who are interviewed and quoted in the media. My bad.

 

You are misguided, sir.

 

1) Propaganda is not illegal. Show me a law that says, in summary, "thou shalt not propagandize" and I'll recant my view on this point.

 

2) Of course you believe "your" media is flawless, unbiased, always right. But you must realize that correctness in political matters is based soley on opinion and has no weight in any debate worth its salt.

 

I am having internet difficulties, and cannot finish the reply. However, I will summarize by saying that your incorrect views are understandable, if only by ignorance.

[ET Warrior]

1) Propaganda is not illegal.

 

...

 

 

your government's illogical propaganda

Last I heard, the word Illogical was not a synonym for the word illegal.

[ewok mercenary]

Can you prove they weren't? Can you prove that they weren't masterminding attacks, or planning them, instead of the narrow "attacking at the time" view? I thought not.

 

Can you give me irrefutable proof that you aren't planning a terrorist attack against a US target at this very moment? No? Right, off to Guantanamo with you then.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Of course, we are also holding everyone we can hostage, and treating everyone like that movie... right, we're just a bunch of Christian Fascists.

Edited and quoted for truth

[toms]

Look at what you're making a big deal of. Sleep depravation, maybe bathroom denial. That's not very pretty, but it's far from inhumane. I want to get one point through the skulls of you lot: We are *NOT* putting these people on the rack! We are *NOT* cutting them with sharp knives! We are *NOT* shocking them! Until you can find indisputable proof the contrary (and you won't), I refuse to believe what we're putting them through is torture.

Sleep deprivation causes the neurones in the brain to overheat and suffer damage. Minor sleep deprivation can be recovered from relatively quickly, however major sleep deprivation can cause dementia or developent of permanent personality changes within the first few weeks. Sleep deprivation of several months is fatal.

 

 

I don't know what the law (international or otherwise) in the USA says about illegal immigrants.. but i can't imagine that if police lined a group up and shot them.. or if a mob decided to firebomb their houses and kill them then it wouldn't be considered murder.

 

And POWs DO have rights under international law.. that is the point AL was making.. they have rights under one law or another.

 

Oh, and yes, if you illegally immigrated and commited petty theft, you'd likely just get deported for illegal immigration. If you legally immigrated, well, I'm too lazy ATM to look up the penalty for petty theft, but it's small -- not that you care. After all, punishing you is inhumane.

Illegal immigrants who commit crimes are often still jailed as the crimes fall under the US juristiction.. then deported once they serve their sentence.

 

But supposed crimes commited in a country outside the US don't fall under US juristiction..

 

They are. Enemy combatents are interrogated, and sometimes it takes more that the politically correct "ask really really nicely" to get information.

Which is illegal under international law because enemy combatants DO fall under the geneva convention... which is also the only thing protecting your soldiers when they are captured.

Though if you are arguing that because the bad guys don't always adhere

to the geneva convention then you should pull out of it too then that is a seperate issue.

 

Can you prove they weren't? Can you prove that they weren't masterminding attacks, or planning them, instead of the narrow "attacking at the time" view? I thought not.

 

: *staffsaberist loses 100 respect points*

 

Killing of Unarmed prisoners -> The B.S. meter is at a 95/100 level, at this point...

 

ok, here goes:

Four soldiers accused of smothering an Iraqi general during an interrogation last fall have been charged with murder, bringing the total number of U.S. troops charged with murder in Iraq to at least 10.

The Army gave no details on what the soldiers are alleged to have done. But The Denver Post, citing unidentified military documents, reported earlier this year that Chief Warrant Officers Lewis E. Welshofer Jr. and Jefferson L. Williams slid a sleeping bag over Mowhoush's head and rolled him from his back to his stomach while asking questions. Also charged in the death were Sgt. 1st Class William J. Sommer and Spc. Jerry L. Loper.

Four soldiers from Fort Riley, Kan., were charged last month with murder in the deaths of four Iraqi civilians in two incidents. A soldier from 1st Armored Division in Germany has been charged with murder in the fatal shooting of a badly wounded driver for militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

 

Another soldier was sentenced to 25 years in prison last month after pleading guilty to murder in the death of an Iraqi National Guard member. His unit was not identified.

 

Two other Fort Carson soldiers face courts-martial on manslaughter charges in connection with an unrelated death in Iraq — that of the drowning of an Iraqi civilian in the Tigris River.

 

Seven members of a separate military police unit face charges in the Abu Ghraib cases, including Pfc. Lynndie England — the female soldier seen in several of the infamous photographs —l who will be court-martialed in January.

 

In addition to the suspicious deaths in Iraq, the U.S. military is investigating several detainee deaths in Afghanistan.

 

An official said in September that the military was probing whether American soldiers abused an Afghan detainee so badly that he died last year at a special forces base in southeastern Afghanistan.

 

The military was already looking into at least three deaths in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, dating back to December 2003. It has yet to release the results of any of the investigations.

 

But a CIA contractor has been charged in the United States with using a flashlight to beat a prisoner who later died in the eastern town of Asadabad in June 2003.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/25/iraq/main645601.shtml

(and thats just the ones they know about/have charged. )

I think this one is different to the ones mentioned above:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/15/content_409155.htm

more on the drowning one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24325-2004Jul2.html

and i'm sure a couple of british soldiers have also been charged with murders.

 

bs meter ok now?

 

of course, they are also abducting german citizens from abroad and taking them to afganistan to interogate:

http://indiamonitor.com/news/readNews.jsp?ni=11651

[ET Warrior]

I refuse to believe what we're putting them through is torture.

Excellent, so now as long as we don't BELIEVE that it's torture, it isn't? "Yes, I am aware you may think we're torturing you by putting these elctrodes on your testicles, but we don't think so, and we want a confession"

 

Isn't this whole thing about, basically, what rights POW's have? Such things are granted by the Constitution and it's amendments over here, last time I checked. POW's are exempt from this. So are illegal aliens.

Never heard of the Geneva conventions? Or are we exempt from those because we're the US of frickin' A?

 

Can you prove they weren't? Can you prove that they weren't masterminding attacks, or planning them, instead of the narrow "attacking at the time" view? I thought not.

Not a big fan of the "Innocent until proven guilty" idea then? Or is that a right only US citizens deserve? The rest of the world is guilty of SOMETHING at this very moment, unless we can absolutely prove otherwise? I'll be sure to inform my friends in other countries that they are currently guilty of crimes against the United States, and should act accordingly.

 

your incorrect views are understandable

I wish I could say the same about yours.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Can you prove they weren't? Can you prove that they weren't masterminding attacks, or planning them, instead of the narrow "attacking at the time" view? I thought not.

There was a case in Norway a long time ago regarding a kid who was put in isolation for 24 hours for carrying a spray can in his backpack. This was during an anti-tagging campaign.

 

Can you prove he wasn't going to go at some wall with that can? Nope. Should he be put in that cell he was put in? No.

 

Why not? Because democracy is about proving people guilty, not innocent.

 

If I carry a knife around in my backpack, maybe I'm going to kill someone - arrest and torture me !

 

And you still haven't answered my question: Is it OK to apply the same techniques ("guilty until proven innocent", "torture", and "no trial") to alleged rapists, murderers, robbers, and other non-terrorists suspected of having done something seriously wrong?

 

Never heard of the Geneva conventions? Or are we exempt from those because we're the US of frickin' A?

It appears so:rolleyes:.

 

It annoys me no end how the apologists of the Guantanamo torture defend themselves by saying what they're doing is "legal", for then to blatantly disregard the laws and Geneva Conventions in other cases (the bombing of a Pakistani village full of innocents for the sake of killing one single person, for example).

 

Spider Al: Killing of unarmed prisoners

StaffSaberist: BS level is at 95% now

Not at all. Remember the wounded POWs shot in that mosque some time ago?

 

And you can say that "it wasn't sanctioned or ordered by officers, so what's the point"?

 

1. US troops frequently does some very nasty things on this level with orders from above.

2. It is highly suspicious and disgraceful that you hear of atrocities from US troops all the time, and nearly never from those of, say Britain, France, Germany, or the UK. It's the same way person after person in the Republican Party is arrested or outed for some kind of corruption. Maybe Bush isn't behind it, but isn't it slightly alarming when a certain party - any party - has a high level of corruption? Especially when said party has a well-deserved reputation for disregarding civil rights, laws, and the Geneva Conventions?

[Mike Windu]

I love how no torture-apologists addressed Spider Al's "moral law higher than the Constitution" bit...

 

Excellent, so now as long as we don't BELIEVE that it's torture, it isn't? "Yes, I am aware you may think we're torturing you by putting these elctrodes on your testicles, but we don't think so, and we want a confession"

 

Wasn't there somethingn about women interrogators smearing "menstrual blood" onto the prisoners to make them confess... something that the Islamic faith finds most offensive?

 

Let me predict a response to this beforehand: "It's not inhumane."

 

Right. Let me "defecate" and "piss" on you, then. (Sorry, I'm a dude, no menstrual blood available)

 

Never heard of the Geneva conventions? Or are we exempt from those because we're the US of frickin' A?

 

Amen.

 

Isn't this whole thing about, basically, what rights POW's have? Such things are granted by the Constitution and it's amendments over here, last time I checked. POW's are exempt from this. So are illegal aliens.

 

I love this logic.

 

OMG YOU'RE NOT AN AMERICAN! FREE FOR TORTURING! Schweet.

 

Sleep deprivation causes the neurones in the brain to overheat and suffer damage. Minor sleep deprivation can be recovered from relatively quickly, however major sleep deprivation can cause dementia or developent of permanent personality changes within the first few weeks. Sleep deprivation of several months is fatal.

 

Quoted for truth. A man recently stayed awake for 11 days. On the fourth day he began experiencing delirium and hallucinations.

 

The body cannot function without sleep, specifically REM sleep. If you don't dream, you go blah, to put it simply. Grouchiness in the first few days, leads to anger, outbreaks, yes permanent personality changes as toms stated, and eventually your brain goes bonk.

 

By the by...In litigiation regarding the availability of fundamental rights to those imprisoned at the base, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the detainees "have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control."[1] Therefore, the detainees have the fundamental right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.

 

In 2004, the Supreme Court rejected this argument in the case Rasul v. Bush brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, with the majority decision and ruled that prisoners in Guantánamo have access to American courts to challenge the legality of their detention, citing the fact that the U.S. has exclusive control over Guantánamo Bay.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_control.political_cartoon.jpg

[toms]

The US constitution explicitly states that it isn't a comprehensive list of all rights, and that there are other rights that exist in addition to those mentioned in the constitution.

 

Usually foreign citizens are subject to the laws of a country they are in. A US citizen who killed someone int he UK would still be charged with murder.. and if a US citizen came to the UK (legally or illegally) and was killed his killer would still be charged with murder.

 

I agree completely with the courts that Guantanamo is US territory and therefore subject to US laws. To argue otherwise is plainly using weasly words and technicalities to deny the blatant truth.

US army bases and consulates are considered US territory... its onlybecaue the US base in guantanamo is an illegal occupation that they can claim it isn't. That is using one illegality to justify another.

 

It strikes me that if Russia or China (or saddam!) was abducting foriegn nationals, imprisoning people in inhumane conditions for questioning, holding people for 5 years without chargin them, keeping people in cages and so on then everyone would be up in arms... but because its the US and you are the "good guys" you find spurious ways to justify it.

I bet the Russians, Chinese and Bath party considered themselves the good guys just doing what had to be done to maintain stability and security as well...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I bet the Russians, Chinese and Bath party considered themselves the good guys just doing what had to be done to maintain stability and security as well...

...and let's not forget that according to Soviet/Iraqi/Chinese law, torture was/is "humane" and legal.

[Good Sir Knight]

...Prisoners with makeshift weapons battled guards trying to save a detainee pretending to commit suicide at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba....

 

Once again... I find it really hard to care and I think the UN's time would better be spent unlocking the thousands of political prisoners around the world, not a bunch of people captured on a battlefield without their papers or uniform.

 

I hope they're real uncomfortable right now as the guards try to find out who planned it.... real uncomfortable. We really should let them have their hunger strikes but instead we treat enemy combatants better than our homeless.

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/guantanamo_detainees

[StaffSaberist]

Oh yeah. We try to save somebody from killing themselves (how could they know he was pretending?) and we get attacked. I suppose that makes us the SS...

[Mike Windu]

What the ?

 

Irrelevant straw man and red herring fallacies?

 

(reference)

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

 

 

Topic A is under discussion.

Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

 

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

 

Person A has position X.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

Person B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

~nizkor.org

[toms]

I tell you what, if i had been stuck in there for four years I'd certainly be trying to hit the guards as hard as i could. Good for them.

 

I'm sure prisoners in chisese gulags occasionally revolt over their treatment.. that doesn't justify their treatment in any way.

 

Sorry, what was your point again???