Jump to content

Home

Why are GITMO detainees given a presumption of guilt?


TK-8252
 Share

Recommended Posts

What ever happened to American values? What ever happened to due process of law? What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rA_UrLl_vhU

 

Watch that clip; it's Stephen Colbert debating... himself... on the issue of GITMO. Sums up the debate very well.

 

To be honest I'm not so worried about the issues of sleep deprivation and extreme temperatures as I am about the chance of innocent people being locked up. I don't trust the government to know who's a terrorist. I really don't. Government is incompetent as hell, and that's why there have to be checks and balances. If government was a perfect system then an authoritarian dictatorship would be ideal... but government is flawed and couldn't be farther from perfection.

 

It must be accepted that if you want to live in a free society, you cannot also live in a safe society. If you want to live in an authoritarian society that gives the state the authority to lock up whoever it wants to, then move to Cuba. But we give people the presumption of innocence... no matter if they were found in Afghanistan or in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ever happened to American values? What ever happened to due process of law? What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rA_UrLl_vhU

 

Watch that clip; it's Stephen Colbert debating... himself... on the issue of GITMO. Sums up the debate very well.

 

To be honest I'm not so worried about the issues of sleep deprivation and extreme temperatures as I am about the chance of innocent people being locked up. I don't trust the government to know who's a terrorist. I really don't. Government is incompetent as hell, and that's why there have to be checks and balances. If government was a perfect system then an authoritarian dictatorship would be ideal... but government is flawed and couldn't be farther from perfection.

 

It must be accepted that if you want to live in a free society, you cannot also live in a safe society. If you want to live in an authoritarian society that gives the state the authority to lock up whoever it wants to, then move to Cuba. But we give people the presumption of innocence... no matter if they were found in Afghanistan or in the U.S.

 

First shouldn't this be in the Gitmo thread where it belongs?

 

My reasons for not caring are these --->

 

1. When you have a loved one serving in Afganistan, it's hard to care for their well being..let alone petition for their fair treatment.

 

2. They are not soldiers from a recognized military, they are not combatants from a Geneva signatory, they do not have papers and they did not have a uniform.

 

3. I don't think they're being tortured like other people are being tortured around the world so again it's a little hard to care.

 

 

 

 

Also they released this little Canadian punk that killed a US Army Medic with a hand grenade. So they didn't have all the proof in the world, it's a battlefield after all.... but the Canadians will release him soon as their Muslim population is all up in arms.

 

So again I couldn't care less about them, even if there are mistakes there.

 

You also have to look at your definition of torture, everyone has a different perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you're certain that every single one of the detainees are terrorists, why not give them trials and sentence them? If they're all certainly terrorists, surely it would not be difficult to convict them!

 

You seem to be certain that every single detainee is a terrorist, and not say, an innocent taxi driver at the wrong place at the wrong time, and therefore subject to indefinite confinement and even mistreatment or torture.

 

There's no point in torturing people... all it does is make terrorist attacks on the U.S. more likely. GITMO is a major recruiting tool for terrorists... if we cleaned up GITMO then we would take away a tool of al-Qaeda. Sounds good to me.

 

GITMO is only working against America and for al-Qaeda. Not to mention how un-American it is, holding people at the mercy of the state without trials... pfft. That's how things run in China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First shouldn't this be in the Gitmo thread where it belongs?
Shouldn't you address the things in that thread instead of dodgingly accusing us of "relativism", "terrorist-loving", or of posting in the wrong thread:rolleyes:?

 

What ever happened to American values?
I'm wondering about this, too. Three years ago there seemed to be a concensus among people that torture was wrong - then Bush does it and suddenly it's OK.

 

A year ago it was wrong to kill innocent civilians - then Israel does it and it's OK (and don't give me the Hizbollah fighter excuse - if someone blew up a bus in the USA with a rocket because they thought there were Michigan Militiamen aboard, you'd still call that terrorism).

 

Don't worry, the US made it out of the McCarthy-era, they'll make it out of the Bush II-era as well.

 

You also have to look at your definition of torture [...]
I don't have a personal definition of torture. I use Amnesty's definition, which is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person." This includes torturing someone to obtain information or a confession, to punish, intimidate or coerce, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind".

 

As SkinWalker wrote: "Calling a sphere a cube presents no corners." You can re-define things all you want, it won't change that it is torture. I can call a beach ball a hat all I want, it won't make the colourful spherical little thing will magically turn into a piece of attire. You can claim it's midnight during noon all you want, but it won't make it any darker.

 

To be honest I'm not so worried about the issues of sleep deprivation and extreme temperatures [...]
You should be. It's torture, and it can litteraly drive a person insane from pain (so yes, it hurts). It sounds mild, but trust me, it's horrific.

 

To strike a rough analogy, the Chinese water torture of old (unless those dang Commies are still using it, you never know) sounds pretty mild, too. "Just water dripping on your forehead, come on, what's so wrong with water, haven't you ever taken showers?!". But it's still recognized by many as the most painful and horrific method of torture ever to be devised.

 

1. When you have a loved one serving in Afganistan, it's hard to care for their well being..let alone petition for their fair treatment.
Tough luck. I've got five friends who've gotten raped, and trust me, I hate rapists. But I don't want to see people get tortured for rape, not to mention dragged off and imprisoned without fair trial just because someone suspects they've penetrated someone without consent.

 

Of course I wouldn't get off my butt campaign for their fair treatment myself, but I would want them to be treated fairly [unlike you, who stalls whenever someone tries to defend these detainees].

 

2. They are not soldiers from a recognized military, they are not combatants from a Geneva signatory, they do not have papers and they did not have a uniform.

 

3. I don't think they're being tortured like other people are being tortured around the world so again it's a little hard to care.

:eek:

 

Today, children, we're learning how to count! Won't that be fun! As an aid, let's count all the time Good Sir Knight and rccar have used the "they have no rights"-cliché! Come on, children, let's count with me!

 

One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight :rolleyes:.

 

If you would stop spamming this disucssion with the same arguments over and over again, ignoring that they've actually been replied to, I'd be very happy.

 

The UN Declaration of Human Rights proves you wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My guess would be that many of them may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time or were named by others as some kind of co-conspirators or such by other tangos. Many of them may also be guilty, not that that might occur to some of you. Gitmo is not a civillian prison, nor is the "war on terror" a criminal justice issue. It's well known that Geneva doesn't apply to terrorists, but to uniformed combatants of opposing sides. Any American who fought in civies against a foreign foe would no doubt be shot as a spy by the other side.

 

I wonder how aware some of you are about how the Occupation authorities dealt with such people after WW2. The Werewolves, most likely Hitler youth and other nazis, were often summarily executed for commiting acts of terrorism and other assaults vs their conquerers. Imagine the hue and cry today if Coalition forces had done that. It's obvious to me, and others, that liberals (not necessarily dems) have no clue how to conduct a war (Bush's fault is that he didn't use ENOUGH force, not that he used any force at all) or deal with America's enemies. Sadly, people are not going to be nice to you b/c you're nice to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be a little off on a tangent, maybe not, but relates to the detainees.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S. 3930) does not say they're assumed guilty. Granted, it doesn't say they're presumed innocent, either. I'm not seeing anywhere in this bill that says torture is specifically allowed, unless I'm really missing something. In fact, statements made under torture are inadmissible, and an amendment was put in place to make sure it stayed in compliance with Geneva conventions.

 

Detainees, specifically alien unlawful enemy combattants, are given a trial, it just happens to be in a military commission rather than in a civilian court. Lawful combattants and resident aliens/citizens are not included.

 

I'm all for exposing wrongdoing, but it's wise to make sure to read the bill itself instead of a website's or journalist's interpretation of the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Guantamino Bay treats it's prisoners very well, above even standered criminals in American prisons, so you cannot bitch about them being mistreated.

 

As for them not being prosecuted or being unfairly prosecuted, the courts should pull their finger out their ass and do something or let them go. It's possible they detainees are going to be made an example of but that'd be a waste. Save it for Bin Laden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of them may also be guilty, not that that might occur to some of you.
Of course it "occurs to some of us". Just like some of my victims would be guilty of rape, murder, or whatever else if I was to round up random neighbourhoods in the USA.

 

Of course, not all detainees were randomly rounded up like the Tipton Three. There are prisoners of war in Guantánamo and elsewhere. Not that it matters. You could be guilty of dropping an atomic bomb on Beijing and you would still be entitled to the same rights as the Tipton Three, whose horrific crime was being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

Gitmo is not a civillian prison, nor is the "war on terror" a criminal justice issue.
It is a justice issue. All detention facilities are.

 

It's well-known widely believed that Geneva doesn't apply to terrorists [...]
The Conventions do apply to many of the detainees, and even if they didn't, the Declaration of Human Rights certainly does. They have the right to a fair trial and the right to not be tortured. Not that Bush cares, but that's how it is.

 

Any American who fought in civies against a foreign foe would no doubt be shot as a spy by the other side.
Perhaps. But that does not justify anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Remember how upset the Americans were when the Chinese detained a crew of spies that'd been caught when their AWACS went down over Chinese territory? So it seems to me that Americans caught spying should be swiftly released, but foreigners caught by Americans "spying" (which in neo-conish seems to consist of not gathering information, but staying in certain mosques like the Tipton Three, or shooting at an occupying force) can be tortured. That sound you hear is the glass house breaking apart from the barrage of neo-con rocks.

 

I wonder how aware some of you are about how the Occupation authorities dealt with such people after WW2. The Werewolves, most likely Hitler youth and other nazis, were often summarily executed for commiting acts of terrorism and other assaults vs their conquerers. Imagine the hue and cry today if Coalition forces had done that.
As a resident of Norway, which was occupied by the Germans, I know it very well. There was just about zero justice to German soldiers, civilians, and children of Germans after World War II. That's irrelevant, though: The fact that you didn't shoot them doesn't justify torture.

 

It's obvious to me, and others, that liberals (not necessarily dems) have no clue how to conduct a war [...]
Because I don't support torture?

 

Bush's fault is that he didn't use ENOUGH force, not that he used any force at all [...]
The civilian victims of cluster bombing and white phosphorous beg to differ.

 

[...] or deal with America's enemies.
And apparently, judging by how the War on Terror was abandoned by Iraq, neither does ole Dubya.

 

Sadly, people are not going to be nice to you b/c you're nice to them.
Right. If we're mean to them, on the other hand... [/sarcasm]

 

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S. 3930) does not say they're assumed guilty.
The fact that none of them are given trials, however, says they are.

 

Granted, it doesn't say they're presumed innocent, either. I'm not seeing anywhere in this bill that says torture is specifically allowed, unless I'm really missing something. In fact, statements made under torture are inadmissible, and an amendment was put in place to make sure it stayed in compliance with Geneva conventions.
If you read the Guantánamo thread, we posted several links to authorizations of torture from the Republican Party.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citing that a few people locked up in Gitmo may end up being innocent is apparently reason to disband such facilities is about as valid as saying no one should be executed or even recieve a life sentence in prison b/c someone might be innocent, never mind banning jail altogether. Sometimes people get caught in those situations and I would agree it's tragic if they're truly innocent. That would apply whether that luckless sob were you or me.

 

So, since POW camps are detention facilities, should I infer that you're saying that POWs should be given a lawyer, as it would only apparently be just that no one that could somehow be proven a noncombatant should have to stay there? Terrorists in a war zone are not covered by normal peacetime civilian rules. Normally, the practice, barbaric as it seems, is to summarily execute all combatants in civilian garb. I know of no provision in the Geneva Convention that specifically grants such combatants the same rights as uniformed soldiers. Perhaps you can provide the provision you're referring to in this case.

 

The example from WW2 was pointedly relevant. The coalition forces could justifiably execute all nonuniformed combatants it captured as it did the nazi terrorists of postwar Germany. The fact that they don't belies the claim made by people that the Americans et al are little more than criminals and inhumane. It is extremely unlikely that you could provide any proof of official policies by the US government that soldiers are to indiscriminately, or with malice aforethought, target innocent civilians.

 

I've got to say your definition of torture is quite expansive. Rather reminds me of how loose the laws on sexual harassment and hate crimes are or are becoming when the alleged victim gets to define the scope of the "crime". So, how do you get information from people whose only wish is to kill you? I could understand if you were talking about gouging out eyes, flaying people alive or pulling out their fingernails, but sleep deprivation is rarely fatal. What's the point of trying to assert you're somehow morally superior b/c you didn't sweat your enemy, only to be destroyed by him?

 

Unfortunately, when you go to war, the gloves come off. That doesn't mean, as Kurgan put it, that the military gets carte blanche to do as it will. However, neither can one afford to fight with one hand tied behind their back. It isn't a question of being nice or mean. Frankly, when you're at war, the last thing you worry about is how you fair in your opponent's public opinion polls. You fight to win and sometimes the cost can be high.

 

Technically, using your example, the US and China were not at war. You can check the history books, but I'm willing to bet that Nazi spies and sabatouers were most likely executed. On top of which, assuming the PRC honored the Geneva Convention, that aircrew would have ended up as POWS in a wartime setting, not spies. So, I guess those neocon rocks merely bounced off that glass house.

 

American libs (probably even eurolibs as well) are poorly equipped to handle national security issues. Thier main approach to solving a crisis is to indulge in appeasement and self-blame. Perfect recent example is NK. The Clinton administration abetted KJI by providing him all manner of concessions while doing nothing to make sure that the NKs were abiding by their agreement. Thanks to "peaceniks" like Carter and the half- baked fool Albright, NK was able to set up it's secret nuke program. During the 8 year terror called the Clinton administration, the PRC racked up all kinds of US military secrets courtesy of Bubba. Paging Mr. Chamberlain, paging Mr. Chamberlain... Even now, libs in congress make it as difficult as possible for Bush to conduct the war in Iraq. Not to mention that had Clinton NOT gutted the US military to finance his years of "prosperity", America would have been in an even stronger position to deal with the threats it now faces.

 

I suspect, in closing, that if you found a civilian that exploded a nuke in Beijing, he/she would probably get an EXTREMELY speedy trial (maybe) and be executed. Unless of course that civilian were the head of a state and the victor in wartime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citing that a few people locked up in Gitmo may end up being innocent is apparently reason to disband such facilities [...]
I don't recall asking for them to be closed. I asked for them to be given fair trials.

 

And no, it's not like asking jails to be closed. The rapists responsible for 1:4 of American females and 1:6 of American males getting their lives ruined do get fair trials. So do the murderers who kill tens of thousands of Ameircans each year. It's only the enormous threat of the evil Arabic terrorists which's resulted in as many as 3000 deaths in the States this last half-a-decade that are not being given fair trials.

 

Apples and organges

 

Sometimes people get caught in those situations and I would agree it's tragic if they're truly innocent.
Then give them a fair trial. Just like rapists in jail.

 

So, since POW camps are detention facilities, should I infer that you're saying that POWs should be given a lawyer, as it would only apparently be just that no one that could somehow be proven a noncombatant should have to stay there?
"Just" so?

 

Yes, "just" so that no one gets their lives ruined by being imprisoned and tortured without having done anything. "Just" for that reason.

 

Terrorists in a war zone are not covered by normal peacetime civilian rules.
Did you read my post?
  1. Many of those in Guantánamo are not terrorists.
  2. You don't know if they're terrorists before you give them a trial and find them guilty. Just like with murderers and rapists and arsonists at home.
  3. The Geneva Convention does cover many cases of combat thought to not be covered by the neo-cons. Reading it is advised.
  4. Even if it did not apply, the Declaration of Human Rights does, unless you can prove that the people in Guantánamo are not "members of the human family".
  5. And either way, it's irrelevant as neo-cons have proven to plow ahead despite rules anyhow. So why do I care:rolleyes:?

 

Normally, the practice, barbaric as it seems, is to summarily execute all combatants in civilian garb.
Just that it's the normal practice does not make it right.

 

Oh, and the reason it's moral practice is that most of these plaincloth combatants fight oppressive regimes that kill all hostiles, plaincloth or uniformed. The uniforms never helped MILORG much in their fight against the Nazis.

 

I know of no provision in the Geneva Convention that specifically grants such combatants the same rights as uniformed soldiers. Perhaps you can provide the provision you're referring to in this case.
I will. Until then, however, there's the Declaration of Human Rights, which applies to all members of the human family, be they plaincloth, uniformed, nudists, transvestites, dressed up in animal costumes or Burkha or other. If you want to override that one, you have to find yourself a pseudo-scientists to prove you Arabs and Iraqis aren't humans.

 

But then again, the "they ain't humans"-reasoning worked for the Europeans when they messed up Africa. Maybe I shouldn't give you ideas...

 

The example from WW2 was pointedly relevant. The coalition forces could justifiably execute all nonuniformed combatants it captured as it did the nazi terrorists of postwar Germany.
And I said it's irrelevant.

 

So what if you're better than group x? Yes, you cold've shot them. But you could also have given them a fair trial and let the innocent ones go.

 

The fact that they don't belies the claim made by people that the Americans et al are little more than criminals and inhumane.
I do not. I know what you're like after having lived in beautiful, friendly, hospitable Houston for three years:).
It is extremely unlikely that you could provide any proof of official policies by the US government that soldiers are to indiscriminately, or with malice aforethought, target innocent civilians.
Are you joking?

 

Google:

White phosphorous over Fallujah.

Cluster bombs (which, like land-mines, ).

Pakistani village full of innocents bombed to kill one Al-Q'aida official.

 

ShadowTemplar undoubtedly has more.

 

I've got to say your definition of torture is quite expansive.
Do you know what's happening at Guantánamo? Sleep deprivation, forcing people to stand for a full day holding a heavy object, being made to sit on a chair, bent slightly forward, with a cloak over your head... It all sounds harmless enough, but so does Chinese water torture - recognized as perhaps the #1 worst method of torture ever in human history.

 

Rather reminds me of how loose the laws on sexual harassment and hate crimes are or are becoming when the alleged victim gets to define the scope of the "crime".
They're becoming looser because they need to be. But that's for another thread.

 

So, how do you get information from people whose only wish is to kill you?

 

What's the point of trying to assert you're somehow morally superior b/c you didn't sweat your enemy, only to be destroyed by him?
Do I smell the ticking time-bomb scenario myth? You really should read the Road to Guantanamo thread.

 

Unfortunately, when you go to war, the gloves come off.
"It happens, so it's OK". Brilliant argument:rolleyes:.

 

That doesn't mean, as Kurgan put it, that the military gets carte blanche to do as it will.
Yes, apparently it does. In the USA's case, at least. You can carpet-bomb and use white phosphorous and napalm over civilian targets, declare war on soveriegn nations based on lies, and in general do whatever you damn please.

 

However, neither can one afford to fight with one hand tied behind their back.
Tell the civilians that.

 

Technically, using your example, the US and China were not at war.
You said that spies could be summarily executed. You said nothing about the case being war-time or peace-time. Nice ad hoc argument.

 

You can check the history books, but I'm willing to bet that Nazi spies and sabatouers were most likely executed.
I heard you the first time. Pity you didn't hear me.

 

On top of which, assuming the PRC honored the Geneva Convention, that aircrew would have ended up as POWS in a wartime setting, not spies.
I don't follow.

 

American libs (probably even eurolibs as well) are poorly equipped to handle national security issues. Thier main approach to solving a crisis is to indulge in appeasement and self-blame.
I agree, war as a last resort is so childish! Just look at how horrible the Cuban Missile Crisis went:eek:!

 

How many liberals were against the war in Afghanistan? Next to none. Why? Because it was justified and neccessary.

 

How many suppoted Iraq? None, for obvious reasons.

 

Perfect recent example is NK.
OH yes. We all know that Kim Jong-Il becomes more determined the more Bush rattles his sabre, so Bush... Rattles his sabre.

 

It's like me provoking a lion that threatens you and you going, "hey, if you keep trying to kick that lion, he's never gonna back down". "No", say I, "he's a monster and I need to act tough!". Growl. Dead me.

 

Remember the Cuban missile crisis? Recall how Washington DC ended up in ruins because those pansy pacifists refused to bomb the Hell out of Cuba?

 

No, wait... It wasn't. Huh, seems the rockets are gone from Cuba. And all we had to do was remove our rockets from the Russian border.

 

My, my.

 

Even now, libs in congress make it as difficult as possible for Bush to conduct the war in Iraq.
Evil liberals. Now we can't even wage 300 billion-dollar war pre-emptively based on lies, in violation of international laws, creating massive anti-Americanism, losing 3000 coalition soldiers, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents...

 

What's next, that we can't torture people? ...What? The libs are after that, too? Gawd!

 

Not to mention that had Clinton NOT gutted the US military to finance his years of "prosperity", America would have been in an even stronger position to deal with the threats it now faces.
Bull****. You had more than enough hardware to attack the threats you faced. Which was Afghanistan. Hardly Clinton's fault Bush wanted economic control of Iraq.

 

I suspect, in closing, that if you found a civilian that exploded a nuke in Beijing, he/she would probably get an EXTREMELY speedy trial (maybe) and be executed.
I thought we were discussing the people in Guantánamo, none of which, to my knowledge, have set off any atomic bombs, nor planned to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, what is/was MILORG? A Norwegian partisan group? I don't understand what you mean by: "Oh, and the reason it's moral practice..". I don't discuss anywhere whether battlefield executions are in fact moral or not.

 

While you're looking for the provision in question in the Geneva Convention, perhaps you might as well provide your cite for the Declaration of Human Rights and show specifically how it's being violated w/o resorting to vague generalizations. Statements like "even if..." tend to tell someone you're not really sure of your facts.

 

Well, the abortion industry still gets a lot of milage out of the expression "they ain't humans". :redskul:

 

I'm pretty sure, no offense, that you have little or no grasp on how military operations are planned. You are essentially claiming that the US government is ordering it's troops to indiscriminately target civilians for what, fun I suppose? I'd like to see the proof beyond conjecture and wild sounding allegations. Mind you, the critical word here is target. Civilian casualties have often been the regretable side affect of any modern war. Sometimes they were specifically targeted for effect, as during WW1 and WW2. Sometimes they are what are euphemistically called collateral damage. Sometimes, as in guerilla style conflicts (as many claim Iraq is now), civilains are not in fact inncoent at all but supporting the enemy or are forced to act as shields for them.

 

"To strike a rough analogy, the Chinese water torture of old (unless those dang Commies are still using it, you never know) sounds pretty mild, too. "Just water dripping on your forehead, come on, what's so wrong with water, haven't you ever taken showers?!". But it's still recognized by many as the most painful and horrific method of torture ever to be devised." I'm sorry, but of whom do you speak? Looks to me like the last part of that statement is rather ludicrous. Seems to me that taking a red hot poker to someones privates, or even hooking them(genitals) to a source of electricity is even more diabolical. I'm sure there are more insidious forms of torture than the Chinese H2O method. :lightning

 

"Remember how upset the Americans were when the Chinese detained a crew of spies that'd been caught when their AWACS went down over Chinese territory? So it seems to me that Americans caught spying should be swiftly released, but foreigners caught by Americans "spying" (which in neo-conish seems to consist of not gathering information, but staying in certain mosques like the Tipton Three, or shooting at an occupying force) can be tortured." What exactly is your point here? Comparing these two is apples and oranges.

 

Just since you're not clear on the subject, spies are people that disguise themselves in the uniform of their opponents or in civilian garb. Since the aircrew in question was in military uniform, they do not fall under the classification of spies. Nice try. This goes for peacetime or wartime.

 

I can pretty much sum up your position. Appeasement is the only way to deal with intractable opponents. Of course, that didn't really work in '38 did it? Oh, and also, you cannot hurt anyone anywhere, even if you suffer a death of 1000 cuts, b/c the rest of the world will get squeamish and hate you. :nut:

 

Also, a lot of your claims read like the jacket of a michael moore movie. The fact remains that there were multiple reasons for going back into Iraq that were cited, but that opponents of the renewed conflict (a cease fire agreement means that the war never offically ended, hence no vioaltion of international law) like to fixate stictly on the nuclear component b/c no such weapons have apparently been found yet. Sadam was in constant violation of the cease fire agreement, which allowed us to resume the conflict, which was sanctioned by the UN in the first place back in '90/91.

 

"You could be guilty of dropping an atomic bomb on Beijing..." was actually your scenario, not mine.

 

NK is actually the man kicking the lion in your scenario, b/c KJI is incapable of destroying (hence "dead me" as you put it) the US. Besides, Clinton ultimately gave NK it's nuclear sabre to rattle. But seriously, KJI has nothing to lose by bluffing and blustering. His people aren't going to rise up against him even if he is faced down. He's like a child that keeps using the same tactics to get his way b/c overly indulgent adults don't put their feet down.

 

Hate to burst your bubble, but Afghanistan wasn't the only place harboring islamic terrorist networks seeking to harm America and even Europe for that matter. Frankly, you're incorrect about the status of US military might vis-a-vis our threats. Clinton's castration of the US military over 8 years puts us in a weaker position to confront our enemies. Less of course you mean that we just nuke everyone that threatens us. I guess we still have enough bombs to do that. :blast5:

 

What does the ticking time bomb myth have to do with anything? I didn't necessarily stipulate that the situation was a scenario right out of the series 24. :confused:

 

Your comment about the necessity of further widening the rules about sexual harassment and such is illuminating and nonsensical. But then maybe your referring to Norwegian law, or perhaps the EU. Though, as you said, grist for another mill. :headbump

 

Given that we don't know the particulars about many/all the detainees at gitmo, it's rather hard to answer such a question. The presumption of guilt could be due to their being caught in the act, named as part of a conspiracy by another party or victims of mistaken identity or caught up in a sweep due to intelligence collected at home or from abroad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, what is/was MILORG? A Norwegian partisan group?
Yes.

 

I don't understand what you mean by: "Oh, and the reason it's moral practice..".
Of course you didn't. I meant "normal". Silly me.

 

While you're looking for the provision in question in the Geneva Convention, perhaps you might as well provide your cite for the Declaration of Human Rights and show specifically how it's being violated w/o resorting to vague generalizations. Statements like "even if..." tend to tell someone you're not really sure of your facts.
Article 5 prohibits torture.
Article 5.

 

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Specific enough?

 

Well, the abortion industry still gets a lot of milage out of the expression "they ain't humans".
True, that.

 

I'm pretty sure, no offense, that you have little or no grasp on how military operations are planned. You are essentially claiming that the US government is ordering it's troops to indiscriminately target civilians for what, fun I suppose?
I don't know why exactly, they use cluster bombs and white phosphorous, or why they bomb a resturant full of civilians to kill a single Al-Q'aida official. I'm merely saying that it's a fact that they do.

 

I'd like to see the proof beyond conjecture and wild sounding allegations.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10901.htm

 

I'm sorry, but of whom do you speak?
I speak of everyone who recognizes it as perhaps the most horrific method of torture of all time.

 

Looks to me like the last part of that statement is rather ludicrous. Seems to me that taking a red hot poker to someones privates, or even hooking them(genitals) to a source of electricity is even more diabolical. I'm sure there are more insidious forms of torture than the Chinese H2O method.
Not to me.

 

Just since you're not clear on the subject, spies are people that disguise themselves in the uniform of their opponents or in civilian garb.
Please quote your sources for that.

 

I can pretty much sum up your position. Appeasement is the only way to deal with intractable opponents.
Try again.

 

Oh, and also, you cannot hurt anyone anywhere, even if you suffer a death of 1000 cuts, b/c the rest of the world will get squeamish and hate you.
Didn't I write above that I supported the war on Afghanistan because of 9/11?

 

The fact remains that there were multiple reasons for going back into Iraq that were cited, but that opponents of the renewed conflict (a cease fire agreement means that the war never offically ended, hence no vioaltion of international law) like to fixate stictly on the nuclear component b/c no such weapons have apparently been found yet. Sadam was in constant violation of the cease fire agreement, which allowed us to resume the conflict, which was sanctioned by the UN in the first place back in '90/91.
You know what, let's keep all that to a thread on Iraq.

 

What does the ticking time bomb myth have to do with anything? I didn't necessarily stipulate that the situation was a scenario right out of the series 24.
Good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, frankly, if you're gonna be sarcastic, I don't mind, but at least get your setup straight. I know a lot of sarcastic people, myself included, so it's no skin off my teeth.

In this instance I'm referring to your discussion of moral practice. I think we seem to be "talking" at cross purposes in several places. For instance, execution of spies, partisans, etc.... I simply don't address it from a moral perspective. In fact, most actions in wartime could be fairly described as amoral or possible immoral (as long as your not a relativist). So, yeah, silly you. :flamethro

 

"I speak of everyone who recognizes it as perhaps the most horrific method of torture of all time." Really, pray tell, who are they? You, AI and HRW? Maybe some of your friends? I wonder if in fact they've done much research on torture or just complain b/c it's one of the methods cited as being used in the "war on terror".

 

Just since you're not clear on the subject, spies are people that disguise themselves in the uniform of their opponents or in civilian garb. I don't actually need to cite a source. You might as well ask me to cite a source if I side the sun often looks yellow or the sea looks blue when hit by sunlight or viewed from a certain angle. You DO realize, I hope, that spies can't operate effectively if the walk around in the military uniform of the side they belong to, don't you? That LOGICALLY leaves only two alternatives, the other side's uniform or civies. In military parlance, if nothing else, what you're suggesting is called recon, not spies. In a hostile environment, they may indeed be killed, but usually in combat, not by a formal firing squad...like a spy. :tng1:

 

So, had the mullahs of Iran or Assad in Syria had OBL, you'd have supported an invasion of those countries? Likewise for Sadam? It's irrelevant to this question whetther any of them actually did, b/c I'm only trying to make sure I understand your position clearly. One could logically conclude from your assertion that the US would have been justified in attacking ANY country that harbored OBL (including some of our "allies" should they've chosen NOT to hand him over and let him run freely about). And I only bring up Iraq in response to your allegations in this thread about that decision.

 

I looked at your article postings, but they fail to back up your claim that the US was INTENTIONALLY TARGETING civilians. This begins to sound more like the debate in the hiroshima/nagasaki thread about the nature of what type of weapons should ever be allowed to be used vs a MILITARY target, lest ANY civilians be hurt or killed. Do you condemn the Allies from WW2 b/c there were civilian casualties during the Normandy landings?

 

Was that aticle 5 of the GC or DHR? I ask b/c you claim it's in both, but don't say which one you're citing in your post. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Requesting that this thread be merged with the Road to Guantánamo thread.

 

Well, frankly, if you're gonna be sarcastic, I don't mind, but at least get your setup straight. I know a lot of sarcastic people, myself included, so it's no skin off my teeth.
Fine to me.

 

"I speak of everyone who recognizes it as perhaps the most horrific method of torture of all time." Really, pray tell, who are they? You, AI and HRW? Maybe some of your friends?
Scandinavian Science Illustrated, for one.

 

Chinese Water torture (should've specified "Chinese") is extremely brutal for two reasons:

 

First, have you ever noticed how little drops of water dripping over the same spot on the asphalt will eventually dig holes (about one cm deep) in the asphalt? Water is a rather painful affair, if applied correctly. Imagine it slowly drilling a one centimeter-deep hole in your forehead.

 

Second, due to the way you're tied up, you see every drop coming, and can do nothing to stop it. You can't retreat into yourself, as your concentration is fully on the drops.

 

An extremely painful and brutal method of torture. Yes, I'd rather fry my testicles with electrodes in Abu Grahib than have Cheng or some other ancient leader in Cathai subject me to the dripping bucket of certain doom.

 

I wonder if in fact they've done much research on torture or just complain b/c it's one of the methods cited as being used in the "war on terror".
It is? I knew about the sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, beatings, attack dogs, sexual abuse, and what the Heck not, but not water torture. Source, please.

 

Just since you're not clear on the subject, spies are people that disguise themselves in the uniform of their opponents or in civilian garb.
Spies are people that spy on their opponents, no matter what the Heck they're wearing.

 

Just like you're a combatant when you enter combat. You don't lay a land-mine in front the path of a Humvee to spy on it, you do it to blow the thing to Holy Hell.

 

I don't actually need to cite a source.
How convenient.

 

You DO realize, I hope, that spies can't operate effectively if the walk around in the military uniform of the side they belong to, don't you? That LOGICALLY leaves only two alternatives, the other side's uniform or civies.
Nice logical reasoning. It does not change, however, the fact that the spies in that AWACS plane were wearing American uniforms.

 

So, had the mullahs of Iran or Assad in Syria had OBL, you'd have supported an invasion of those countries?
Yes.

 

I looked at your article postings, but they fail to back up your claim that the US was INTENTIONALLY TARGETING civilians.
Dropping cluster bombs and white phosphorous over a city full of civilians isn't targetting civilians? That's like saying that you were not targetting civilians when you nuked Hiroshima.

 

If you order a strike on a city with munitions with a large blast radius, or munitions that represent a threat long after being used (cluster bombs), you are targetting civilians. Not to mention that White Phosphorous is not even, in fact, legal (United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III). Just goes to show that the USA doesn't care about rules of engagement in the first place, which renders the whole "they're not protected by this or that!"-argument void, regardless of its validity.

 

This begins to sound more like the debate in the hiroshima/nagasaki thread about the nature of what type of weapons should ever be allowed to be used vs a MILITARY target, lest ANY civilians be hurt or killed. Do you condemn the Allies from WW2 b/c there were civilian casualties during the Normandy landings?
Strawman fallacy. You're pulling my words and the words of the opponents of the atomic bombing of Japan completely out of proportion.

 

Was that aticle 5 of the GC or DHR? I ask b/c you claim it's in both, but don't say which one you're citing in your post.
You know, it is possible for you to Google the thing and read it yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you're making the claims, the burden is on you to provide the evidence. Afterall, you keep demanding sources but could do your own google search. Besides, I merely asked which document you were specifically citing. Is that too hard for you perhaps?

 

I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the finer points of espionage. I don't need to cite sources for my argument, but perhaps you should actually do more extensive reading on the subject yourself.

 

"First, have you ever noticed how little drops of water dripping over the same spot on the asphalt will eventually dig holes (about one cm deep) in the asphalt? Water is a rather painful affair, if applied correctly. Imagine it slowly drilling a one centimeter-deep hole in your forehead. Second, due to the way you're tied up, you see every drop coming, and can do nothing to stop it. You can't retreat into yourself, as your concentration is fully on the drops."

 

This no doubt explains why people in asia walk around with multiple multicentimeter holes on their body because of all the rain in monsoon season. Hypothetical extrapolations like your scenario are laughable. Show me the bodies of people who've been subjected to Chinese water torture that demonstrate your point. I guess it's a good thing you don't have testicles to test your theory.

 

Also, pleae define, if you can, what you mean about entering combat. If you mean becoming a participant by picking up arms or even just being in a combat zone.

 

" 'I wonder if in fact they've done much research on torture or just complain b/c it's one of the methods cited as being used in the "war on terror".'

 

It is? I knew about the sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, beatings, attack dogs, sexual abuse, and what the Heck not, but not water torture. Source, please."

 

If you're saying Chinese H2O torture is not being used, then why bring up the subject at all? I was wondering what all the fuss was about unless they (the "anti Chinese H20 torture people")were citing that it was actually being used. If it's not being used, then the point is in fact moot and I'm not clear why you brought it up at all.

 

On the surface, your argument about innocent civilians is that so far some have died in US attacks vs the terrorists and "insurgents". You have yet to demonstrate, in spite of your claims to the contrary, that the US is deliberately targeting civilians with no concern as to if there are enemies in the designated target zone. The thrust of your argument has in essence been that the US was purposefully targeting civilains just to kill civilians. As I recall from the news coverage, it was well known that the Marines were going in and that "innocent civilians" had time to be evacuated and there were concentrations of "fighters" content and intent to turn the city into a killing zone. I don't contest that civilians may have been/were killed in the city fighting, but find your claim to be baseless that said civilians were killed just for the sake of killing them. If taken to it's logical conclusion, you argument would also condemn the allies in WW2 for allowing innocent french civilians to die in the invasion.

 

Your thinking on this issue can reasonably lead one to conclude that you believe in peace at any price, lest any civilians be hurt. It's not a straw man argument b/c you don't like it's implications. Simply put, both you and them are focusing exclusively on the idea that there were civilians in/near the target zones and that that should have exempted those targets from being hit despite their legitimate military value. That doesn't cut it anywhere in the real world and is actually very dangerous thinking in a wartime situation.

 

I think that we should refrain from further discussion w/one another on this topic as we'll probably never agree on anything. Let's just agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...