The Guantánamo “Suicides”

[Casanova[OCAU]]

The Guantánamo ?Suicides?: A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle?By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine)

This a long but fascinating read into what pretty much appears (if all what is said holds up to be true) to be the covered up homicides of three prisoners at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay at the hands of government or military officials.

It occurred to me whilst reading this it would be pretty much be a version of the movie "A few good men" if it was made in post September 11 era.

Gott mit Uns...... sorry, I mean, God Bless America

I'd love to see how Sasquatch will jump and defend this. I'm sure there's a perfectly viable, rational, ethical reason for it all.

[Rocky]

If they're a prisoner, then they have done something to break the law, which is doing something wrong. They tried to break the rules, now they are in a situation where they have the rules taken away from them. I don't feel sorry for the covered up suicides because the prisoners should have been following the law like everyone else. If you break the rules, you're gonna pay the price. How hard is it to follow the law? Billions of people do it every day. Maybe it will be an "eye opening experience" for people that have future ideas of going off doing crazy things like taking over airplanes and crashing them into buildings, amirite?

EDIT: Your post made it sound like you're trying to flamebait another forum member, you know that that kind of stuff is against the rules right? So maybe after all following the law may be more difficult for you then others, and if that is the case I feel sorry for you.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

Mmmmm... I'll tell you what flame baiting or trolling is. Replying to a topic without even pretending to have read the article or atleast pretending to have even a basic understanding of the topic discused.

Some of the men in question have been taken away in extraordinary rendition, basically, random people from another country come to your house one day and take you away.

They have not been tried in a court of law, and last I checked, it's innocent until proven guilty. So, what do you call it when an innocent man is killed by another?

Yes they have been sent to jail.. For years... Without conviction... Which only highlights the patheticness of the situation. Allow me to break it down. You are in your yard playing and suddenly some random people crash in, take you away, send you to a jail and torture you and accuse you of all this stuff. Then eventually they kill you. Because 'they heard somewhere that you may be bad'.

Do you know what the irony is? (other than the elephant in the room which is that the soldiers themselves have broken the law by killing the men..) Doing that is against the law. Its clear enough that the people who sanctioned this have a problem
with the law. What are you suggesting we do?

Edit: I'm a little shocked... Your profile says you're 21... Anyway, since you chose to indulge in a personal attack, if I ever get convicted of breaking the law, it's most likely going to be for insder trading than anything.

[Pete]

Ok, I'll contextualize this a little bit.

If my people flew planes into your buildings, killing thousands of innocent people, and you suspected I was somewhat involved, what would you do?

Now, I may not have been with the people who flew the planes, but maybe I had plenty of friends who were part of their group. Or maybe I fully supported it and would be more than happy to offer any support I could. If I were a person of interest in your investigation, what would you do?

I for one would full go and bury my foot in every ass responsible. The thing is, there people aren't wearing uniforms. They literally could be anyone. If someone is suspected of collaborating with the people who flew planes into the buildings of MY city, and almost killed people in MY family, you can bet your ass that I would want them to pay. For all I know, there could be a sleeper cell just hanging out down the block from me. I mean, one of the dudes makes his wife dress like a Jawa. I for one can't say he's your average guy, but what if he was trying to get his hands on some plutonium. Even if he was looking it up on google, I would feel much safer if he were six feet under than 600 feet away.

In times like these, we can't always give people the benefit of the doubt, because when you start overlooking the little things, they eventually add up.

Can I say for sure there were suicides or murders? No, I wasn't there. Does it look fishy? You betcha. Will I lose sleep over it? Probably not.

The way I look at it is that we're playing their game. If they want to terrorize us, we'll do whatever we can and have to in order to stop it. There has been information gathered from Guantanamo, even if it has been from torture. I'm sure some of it has also helped us to capture or kill terrorist leaders and probably delay or prevent attacks. And to me, that's the endgame.

[smurphy]

I wholeheartedly agree with Pete. Theres no smoke without fire. If those that were killed were terrorists that fate was too good for them but if not an unfortunate mistake. But justified. Let me offer this scenario.

5 out of 20 people in a room are terrorists, you dont know which ones but they are definitely in that group. If not arrested they will murder hundreds of innocents. What do you do? That is the predicament faced today.

The article reeks of sensationalism anyway.

[Che]

Ok, I'll contextualize this a little bit.

If my people flew planes into your buildings, killing thousands of innocent people, and you suspected I was somewhat involved, what would you do?

Now, I may not have been with the people who flew the planes, but maybe I had plenty of friends who were part of their group. Or maybe I fully supported it and would be more than happy to offer any support I could. If I were a person of interest in your investigation, what would you do?

I for one would full go and bury my foot in every ass responsible. The thing is, there people aren't wearing uniforms. They literally could be anyone. If someone is suspected of collaborating with the people who flew planes into the buildings of MY city, and almost killed people in MY family, you can bet your ass that I would want them to pay. For all I know, there could be a sleeper cell just hanging out down the block from me. I mean, one of the dudes makes his wife dress like a Jawa. I for one can't say he's your average guy, but what if he was trying to get his hands on some plutonium. Even if he was looking it up on google, I would feel much safer if he were six feet under than 600 feet away.

In times like these, we can't always give people the benefit of the doubt, because when you start overlooking the little things, they eventually add up.

Can I say for sure there were suicides or murders? No, I wasn't there. Does it look fishy? You betcha. Will I lose sleep over it? Probably not.

The way I look at it is that we're playing their game. If they want to terrorize us, we'll do whatever we can and have to in order to stop it. There has been information gathered from Guantanamo, even if it has been from torture. I'm sure some of it has also helped us to capture or kill terrorist leaders and probably delay or prevent attacks. And to me, that's the endgame.

Okay, now look at it from another angle. What if you were accused of being friends with whoever flew the planes into the buildings, but you absolutely weren't. However, these Virginia farm boys come out of no where and capture you because they're obviously ****ing pissed about what happened. Keep in mind you had nothing to do with it. Are they gonna lose sleep over it? No. Are you going to get assraped and have your entire life taken away for something you weren't even a part of? Yes.

Not every prisoner has broken a law. This is why I'm against the death penalty. I'm all for it if it was 100% proven to be true without a doubt that a person commited a crime worthy of the death penalty. But for those we aren't sure about, you can't just kill these people because you suspect they did it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all about revenge and justice, but getting revenge and justice on the wrong people wouldn't feel as great.

[SOLDIER #819]

Didn't read all of the article, but... what some of you guys are saying really depresses me. They had no formal trial, but because they were suspected they can die and you won't even bat an eye? You don't think this sort of mentality doesn't ring of medieval prejudice?

I know Americans are angry. I know they want revenge. But just because our country was attacked doesn't give us the right to do whatever we like to whomever we feel is responsible. No doubt this is the mindset that caused the attacks to begin with. What we call an attack they may call retaliation. That was their "justice" for the things our country had a hand in in the past. It was wrong when they did it, and it's just wrong when we do it.

We keep saying it's "us" or "them", throwing out all these convenient words in an attempt to put distance between people and demonize them. The fact is that an innocent human being may have been cruelly murdered. How the hell is this justice? At this point it doesn't matter whether the article is right or wrong. The attitudes some you put up are just... they make me sad. Some may say, "well, that's just reality," but that's just an excuse that helps fuel this sick cycle of our's.

You may have your doubts about these people, but can you really not feel anything at all? They may have been as innocent as any one of us.

[Sasquatch]

It occurred to me whilst reading this it would be pretty much be a version of the movie "A few good men" if it was made in post September 11 era.

Have you ever seen "A Few Good Men"? It was about the death of a Marine that couldn't hack it -- not about any terrorists or detainees.

I'd love to see how Sasquatch will jump and defend this. I'm sure there's a perfectly viable, rational, ethical reason for it all.

And the best evidence for a perfectly viable, rational, and ethical reason for it has proven to be your jumping to accusations against America and its servicemembers. But please, go on denying your hatred. And your flamebaiting.

Some of the men in question have been taken away in extraordinary rendition, basically, random people from another country come to your house one day and take you away.

Not one case of those bullshit accusations has been proven, yet people like you continue to spew them. The idea that Gitmo prisoners are innocent kidnapping victims is simply foolish and ignorant, at best.

They have not been tried in a court of law ...

... nor is it their right to be, when the United States Constitution does not apply to non-citizens (including those who have voluntarily relinquished their citizenship by taking up arms against the United States), and these people are neither civilians nor Prisoners of War, as they are not a part of any official military force.

... and last I checked, it's innocent until proven guilty.

Where? In Afghanistan? In Iraq? Iran? Saudi? Prettymuch any Arab Muslim nation? No, it's not. Besides, there are plenty of ways that guilt can be proven without spending time and resources on trials. You ever gotten a speeding ticket?

Yes they have been sent to jail.. For years... Without conviction... Which only highlights the patheticness of the situation.

Kid, there's nothing "pathetic" about detaining terrorists. Never has been, never will be.

Allow me to break it down. You are in your yard playing and suddenly some random people crash in, take you away, send you to a jail and torture you and accuse you of all this stuff. Then eventually they kill you. Because 'they heard somewhere that you may be bad'.

And let's forget anything FACTUAL that relates to this little "story", why don't we? Or we could just go with what actually happens.

You are either a terrorist/"insurgent" who fights by hiding yourself amongst civilians, usually women and children, because you know that your enemies are civilized enough to not attack women and children. Even if it may not be while you are in the process of attacking or aiding an attack, you are arrested, not by "some random people", but by government-sanctioned police forces and/or military. They detain you, and only keep you because you are a probable source of information or are an enemy of their country (including the innocent, unarmed civilians of their country, or even of their religion) -- you know why they keep you because others have been released, once these police/military discover that there is no value in holding them. They treat you badly, and though you and some liberal pansies might call it "torture", the only things they are allowed to do are no worse then (indeed, much of the same) the training that those police and military men and women have voluntarily put themselves through, and nowhere near the type of torture that you yourself have supported or performed on people who have done much, much less. Eventually, you may perhaps be released -- probably because a bunch of morons believed exaggerated or bogus claims of torture or murder and raised a stink in Washington about it -- or you may die while in detainment, receiving a mere fraction of the pain and torment that you have caused, and a fraction less of the miserable eternal life that you deserve for your crimes.

Just figured we might as well have an accurate story, if we're going to have a story at all.

Do you know what the irony is?

You mean other than somebody whose freedom has been guaranteed and protected by the military of the United States bitching about the manner in which the military of the United States provides and protects the freedom of millions upon millions of other people?

(other than the elephant in the room which is that the soldiers themselves have broken the law by killing the men..) Doing that is against the law.

Which is why nearly every American, Iraqi, Pakistani, British, or Afghan servicemember who has had anything at all to do with the capture and detainment of enemy combatants has been tried in international court and convicted, right?

Oh, wait. Things are only illegal when you say so, when they're things done by people you aren't fond of. Disregard.

The article reeks of sensationalism anyway.

Quoted for truth. The most honest comment in this topic.

You may have your doubts about these people, but can you really not feel anything at all?

Other than recoil, you mean?

...

EDIT: It's been almost a week, and nothing has been posted in response to this? C'mon, there's got to be SOMEBODY* that will insist that everything I say is a lie because I'm a bloodthirsty, warmongering American.

* HINT HINT

[Alpha]

EDIT: It's been almost a week, and nothing has been posted in response to this? C'mon, there's got to be SOMEBODY* that will insist that everything I say is a lie because I'm a bloodthirsty, warmongering American.

* HINT HINT

*Wakes up*

It's funny, I get the feeling that you will insist that everything I say is a lie because I'm a humanitarian, peace-loving New Zealander.

I don't know who that was addressed to, but I'll take it

... nor is it their right to be, when the United States Constitution does not apply to non-citizens (including those who have voluntarily relinquished their citizenship by taking up arms against the United States), and these people are neither civilians nor Prisoners of War, as they are not a part of any official military force.

Therein lies the problem. By declaring war on such an abstract concept as a 'terrorist' (who's the terrorist, from their perspective?), they have no rights. They can never be part of 'any official military force' because they do not subscribe to statism. I do not support their actions, in any way, though I do acknowledge their legitimacy.

Human rights belong to every member of the human family. Despite which atrocities one may or may not have committed, we remain human, and as such, are entitled to a number of unalienable rights.

Let's look at a few articles of the UDHR.

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

In this case, each 'side' looks after it's own. Neither 'side' is fulfilling Article One, as they lack a 'spirit of brotherhood' in waging war to begin with.

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

So, just because these insurgents do not belong to any particular state, this does not limit their human rights. This is important in analysing Guantanamo.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

If these are homicides, then this has been broken. If torture takes place in Guantanamo, this has been broken.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This doesn't even warrant explanation.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

And yet they are denied trial?

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Whether suspicion of terrorism actually equates to an arbitrary decision is a point of contention, but the potential for this human right to be broken is there.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

This must be getting awkward now. If not, then...

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

This is an Article of the UDHR that is actually being followed. Naturally, it also happens to be in the interests of the West.

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

I include this to acknowledge and accept that the 'enemies' of many Western states (including my own) are contrary to the principles and aims of the UDHR. However, this does not mean that we too can simply violate these fundamental principles.

Besides, there are plenty of ways that guilt can be proven without spending time and resources on trials. You ever gotten a speeding ticket?

Being accused of terrorism and mass murder is not akin to receiving a speeding ticket. Accusation of a crime of such magnitude deserves a trial, not indefinite detention.

Kid, there's nothing "pathetic" about detaining terrorists. Never has been, never will be.

OK, but it's certainly "horrific" when it violates human rights.

And let's forget anything FACTUAL that relates to this little "story", why don't we? Or we could just go with what actually happens.

You are either a terrorist/"insurgent" who fights by hiding yourself amongst civilians, usually women and children, because you know that your enemies are civilized enough to not attack women and children. Even if it may not be while you are in the process of attacking or aiding an attack, you are arrested, not by "some random people", but by government-sanctioned police forces and/or military. They detain you, and only keep you because you are a probable source of information or are an enemy of their country (including the innocent, unarmed civilians of their country, or even of their religion) -- you know why they keep you because others have been released, once these police/military discover that there is no value in holding them. They treat you badly, and though you and some liberal pansies might call it "torture", the only things they are allowed to do are no worse then (indeed, much of the same) the training that those police and military men and women have voluntarily put themselves through, and nowhere near the type of torture that you yourself have supported or performed on people who have done much, much less.

While I'm sure your version of events has application, if it were possible to prove this was the case for every detainee of this type (not just in Guantanamo), then we wouldn't have such a problem on our hands.

I know Americans are angry. I know they want revenge. But just because our country was attacked doesn't give us the right to do whatever we like to whomever we feel is responsible. No doubt this is the mindset that caused the attacks to begin with. What we call an attack they may call retaliation. That was their "justice" for the things our country had a hand in in the past. It was wrong when they did it, and it's just wrong when we do it.

The only act of terrorism my country has received was committed by the French government, but I lived through the day of September 11. It is my most vivid memory.

But the important thing to remember is that this event which predicated the foreign affairs of a decade was not committed by any state. It was committed by a small group of Islamic extremists. Yes, there are more groups of Islamic extremists. But what makes more sense: getting your hands dirty (inflaming terrorism) and then trying to clean up (going to war), even when the dirt is heavily ingrained (define 'terrorist') and impossible to completely remove (no one's ever beat the Taleban; kill one insurgent, another will replace them, as that is why they are fighting)? Or to simply never get your hands dirty? Osama is a nationalist. His major concern, prior to 9/11, was the presence of US and other foreign troops in Saudi Arabia. His religious convictions are supplementary, albeit dangerous. I do not support his actions, as I've said. However, I believe he and his organisation are more than religious fanatics and ideologues. The solution is not simple, but does not require the violation of human rights. That would be to stoop to his level.

Now to directly confront the article at hand. It sounds suspicious, yes, but nothing can be proven. Was it suicide, or homicide? Both are equally plausible. But it had to be one or the other. Both are signs of the nature of such imprisonment: inhuman.

[Zargabaath]

First off, I'll keep this short because I'm am currently under the guidance (influence) of some Manga and Green Apple vodka courtesy of Three Olives.

Therein lies the problem. By declaring war on such an abstract concept as a 'terrorist' (who's the terrorist, from their perspective?), they have no rights. They can never be part of 'any official military force' because they do not subscribe to statism. I do not support their actions, in any way, though I do acknowledge their legitimacy.

I would like to say, in regards to America's stance, we are not officially at war; it takes an act of Congress to legally declare war which has not been done since WWII - so everything after that has been a "conflict".

What exactly do you mean by "acknowledging their legitimacy?

Human rights belong to every member of the human family. Despite which atrocities one may or may not have committed, we remain human, and as such, are entitled to a number of unalienable rights.

When a government violates the rights of its people - the rights that every human has - that government has no moral or legal right to exist and can be disposed of without second-thought; I would say that this would apply to the terrorists. They may not be a "state" but their goals are to disregard the rights of humanity for their own, often times religious reasons.

That does not mean I support just killing those who get captured out right, but that they have a military tribunal and not be sent to the "public courts**" to face trial at the expense of those they have attacked (I'm sure the people who were affected on 9/11 are not too happy about paying for the terrorists defense/trial).

Let's look at a few articles of the UDHR.

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

In this case, each 'side' looks after it's own. Neither 'side' is fulfilling Article One, as they lack a 'spirit of brotherhood' in waging war to begin with.

And who since the 70s have repeatedly attacked western, western allies, or other countries? The terrorists. The U.S is acting in defense of against those who have repeatedly attacked them. It is well within a country's rights to defend itself from those who would wish lethal harm.

Also, the "spirit of brotherhood" should not be confused with appeasing all instigators so that the "world" can avoid a conflict - England and France did a great job at appeasing Hitler and look how that turned out - all sugah and rainbowz (Thanks Sazh).

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

If these are homicides, then this has been broken. If torture takes place in Guantanamo, this has been broken.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This doesn't even warrant explanation.

Though what is or isn't torture is debatable.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

And yet they are denied trial?

Because they do have concrete evidence that they did "M". But they must look at it from a certain angle - if they released suspected terrorist "V" and once released attacks America in a lethal way the people would be in an uproar that the government let him go. When the government says that they're there to protect the people and let something like that happen it causes more distrust towards the government.

But the important thing to remember is that this event which predicated the foreign affairs of a decade was not committed by any state. It was committed by a small group of Islamic extremists. Yes, there are more groups of Islamic extremists. But what makes more sense: getting your hands dirty (inflaming terrorism) and then trying to clean up (going to war), even when the dirt is heavily ingrained (define 'terrorist') and impossible to completely remove (no one's ever beat the Taleban; kill one insurgent, another will replace them, as that is why they are fighting)? Or to simply never get your hands dirty? Osama is a nationalist. His major concern, prior to 9/11, was the presence of US and other foreign troops in Saudi Arabia. His religious convictions are supplementary, albeit dangerous. I do not support his actions, as I've said. However, I believe he and his organisation are more than religious fanatics and ideologues. The solution is not simple, but does not require the violation of human rights. That would be to stoop to his level.

The islamic terrorists hate the west and its ideals - if the U.S left that would not stop them from attacking the west/America. It is difficult to completely wipe out the extremists however there is a thing called principle - the U.S will not tolerate terrorists acts not those who support terrorists and will bring the "conflict" to them, to suppress terrorists activities, and defer others from joining or aiding terrorists.




As to the article, I read a few weeks ago and it felt to me just liberal spin or a liberal lie to bring the attention to Bush instead of Obama so the latter may get some respite - of course I didn't hear MSNBC talk about this article, and the are the first defense for Obama ( you know "real" journalism) so I doubt this has any validity. In closing I would like to say... ... ... Xenogears.

[Sasquatch]

I don't know who that was addressed to, but I'll take it

It was actually addressed to the thread starter, as I'm waiting for more -- should I say, waiting for credible -- evidence of any wrongdoing. But you'll do.

And while this thread was originally intended to discuss the specific supposed crimes at Gitmo, I suppose the discussion of general supposed crimes at Gitmo would fit into the same topic.

Therein lies the problem. By declaring war on such an abstract concept as a 'terrorist' (who's the terrorist, from their perspective?), they have no rights.

First: As has been pointed out, the United States has not declared war since 1942. So no war was declared. Even so, the fight is against terrorism, not just terrorists. Hearts and minds, and all that crap -- if we were only fighting terrorists, we wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on training and equipment specifically designed to cut down on civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. And we wouldn't be teaching Afghans and Iraqis to govern and defend themselves.

They can never be part of 'any official military force' because they do not subscribe to statism. I do not support their actions, in any way, though I do acknowledge their legitimacy.

Of course -- just like the Crips and the Bloods are legitimate gangs. That doesn't mean that they get the same rights attributed to city, county, state, or federal governments.

Human rights belong to every member of the human family. Despite which atrocities one may or may not have committed, we remain human, and as such, are entitled to a number of unalienable rights.

None of which are being encroached, but go on.

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

In this case, each 'side' looks after it's own. Neither 'side' is fulfilling Article One, as they lack a 'spirit of brotherhood' in waging war to begin with.

First, it doesn't say, "all humans are free and equal in dignity and rights," does it? There are way to lose your freedom, dignity, and rights.

Second, how is "their side" looking after their own? Who are they "looking after"? It's certainly not the population of their home countries, considering the fact that most of the people we're fighting would rather pick up arms against civilians of so-thought opposing countries or religions than help out their own country or lead a regular, civil, peaceful life.

And third, I'd say that waging war and giving the lives of your own country's soldiers and spending billions of dollars to secure and protect the freedom of fifty million people ten thousand miles away is exactly a "spirit of brotherhood".

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

So, just because these insurgents do not belong to any particular state, this does not limit their human rights. This is important in analysing Guantanamo.

No, it does not limit their human rights. However, it does limit the rights that go along with being an enemy combatant, or the rights that come with being a citizen of the United States.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

If these are homicides, then this has been broken. If torture takes place in Guantanamo, this has been broken.

These rights can be forfeited. Unless you're claiming that nobody should ever have their liberty restricted, no matter what they do -- in which case, I'd like to see you on a political docket claiming that the world is bound by a United Nations charter to release every prisoner or detainee, civilian or otherwise.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This doesn't even warrant explanation.

Two issues here. First, as has been pointed out, "torture" is relative.

Unless you're especially bitching about "degrading treatment or punishment", in which case every convict has faced degrading treatment by having a public trial.

It is true that some prisoners -- mostly in Abu Ghraib, not Gitmo -- actually did have their human rights violated. But if you didn't notice, heads rolled over that shit.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

And yet they are denied trial?

This has nothing to do with trials. What it means is that nobody can say that somebody else -- based on skin color, disability, origin, etc. -- isn't "really a person". Now if we could just get abortion activists to follow this.

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Whether suspicion of terrorism actually equates to an arbitrary decision is a point of contention, but the potential for this human right to be broken is there.

And the potential for every human right to be broken is everywhere. Next?

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

This must be getting awkward now. If not, then...

It must be -- unless you are simply ignorant of the hearings and tribunals that all detainees go through ...

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

You know, it's a good thing that detainees are provided lawyers and interpreters and face hearings and tribunals to determine their guilt, and that those lacking evidence of guilt are released, or else you might actually have a point here.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Since the interference isn't arbitrary, there's no issue here.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

This is an Article of the UDHR that is actually being followed. Naturally, it also happens to be in the interests of the West.

It happens to be in the interests of innocent civilians, who happen to be in the interests of the West.

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

I include this to acknowledge and accept that the 'enemies' of many Western states (including my own) are contrary to the principles and aims of the UDHR. However, this does not mean that we too can simply violate these fundamental principles.

Nobody has argued, "well they do it, so we can too". The few times it's happened were isolated incidents and were dealt with swiftly and harshly.

Being accused of terrorism and mass murder is not akin to receiving a speeding ticket. Accusation of a crime of such magnitude deserves a trial, not indefinite detention.

So now rights depend on how bad the criminal act was? Do speeding tickets -- hell, we'll go with parking tickets -- require a jury, lawyers, and hours upon hours of court time determining guilt, or are their simpler ways? It's a yes-or-no question here.

OK, but it's certainly "horrific" when it violates human rights.

Yes, if it violated human rights, it would be horrific.

While I'm sure your version of events has application, if it were possible to prove this was the case for every detainee of this type (not just in Guantanamo), then we wouldn't have such a problem on our hands.

Yes, we would. And we do. Because we have anti-U.S. liberals -- in our own country and, obviously, around the world -- that will jump at the chance to attack America. Even if it means being completely ignorant of a situation and still making assumptions and accusations based on hearsay, rumors, or simple hatred.

The only act of terrorism my country has received was committed by the French government, but I lived through the day of September 11. It is my most vivid memory.

If you're talking about the Rainbow Warrior, that wasn't against your country -- and it took the life of one person, not four thousand.

But the important thing to remember is that this event which predicated the foreign affairs of a decade was not committed by any state.

That's why the conflict is not against any state.

It was committed by a small group of Islamic extremists. Yes, there are more groups of Islamic extremists.

That's why the conflict is against Islamic extremism. How is this not simple to understand?

But what makes more sense: getting your hands dirty (inflaming terrorism) and then trying to clean up (going to war), even when the dirt is heavily ingrained (define 'terrorist') and impossible to completely remove (no one's ever beat the Taleban; kill one insurgent, another will replace them, as that is why they are fighting)? Or to simply never get your hands dirty?

When "getting our hands dirty" means "existing, not living under Shari'a Law, supporting innocent Israeli and Jewish civilians, and backing the freedom of millions of Arabs", yes, it's better to "get our hands dirty" and deal with the SOBs that go against us. I'd rather be hated for doing what's right than liked for letting Islamic extremism slaughter millions and rule billions.

Osama is a nationalist. His major concern, prior to 9/11, was the presence of US and other foreign troops in Saudi Arabia.

And the fact that Israel exists. But for some reason, some people don't want to admit that ... wonder why ...

His religious convictions are supplementary, albeit dangerous.

Hahahahahah, right. Let me guess -- bin Laden wouldn't work with Hussein because Hussein was too secular, but Osama's religious convictions are only "supplementary"?

I do not support his actions, as I've said. However, I believe he and his organisation are more than religious fanatics and ideologues.

Of course they are. There are a lot of religious fanatics that don't try to slaughter millions of innocent civilians.

The solution is not simple, but does not require the violation of human rights. That would be to stoop to his level.

Then it's a good thing that we're not doing that, isn't it?

Now to directly confront the article at hand. It sounds suspicious, yes, but nothing can be proven. Was it suicide, or homicide? Both are equally plausible. But it had to be one or the other. Both are signs of the nature of such imprisonment: inhuman.

I love this kind of thing. "Even if it was suicide and the United States wasn't directly at fault, the United States is still at fault for making them commit suicide!"

I'm still waiting for the international court transcripts. You know, from all the trials in which Bush, Cheney, Powell, Petraeus, and nearly every MP or combat soldier who served in Iraq or Afghanistan was convicted of violating human rights. Oh wait, those transcripts don't exist? Those trials never happened?

[Alpha]

First: As has been pointed out, the United States has not declared war since 1942. So no war was declared. Even so, the fight is against terrorism, not just terrorists. Hearts and minds, and all that crap -- if we were only fighting terrorists, we wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on training and equipment specifically designed to cut down on civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. And we wouldn't be teaching Afghans and Iraqis to govern and defend themselves.

If it isn't war, what is it? Is it a conflict? Isn't conflict synonymous with war? I mean, to define the word 'war', one would use the word 'conflict'. It's war in a modern sense. However, when war/conflict is fought - but not against a state - then the enemies are terribly hard to determine. So mistakes will be made. Mistakes which can result in the human rights of many being stripped away - even when it is unwarranted. The problem is camps like Guantanamo. Guantanamo was determined by the Bush administration to be outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions. Here is Article Four of that to which they are not entitled:

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

Note the last word. If war isn't happening, then "parties to the conflict" may not "take measures of control and security." Therefore, if the USA is not in a war, then it's detainees must be held in accord of the Geneva Conventions. But they aren't.

However, the "enemy combatants" are held in accord with the minimal rights of Common Article 3 of the GC. This Article applies to "conflicts" that are not state-state, but which take place within a single state. So if one is hunting international terrorists, then this surely cannot apply on an international level?

Of course -- just like the Crips and the Bloods are legitimate gangs. That doesn't mean that they get the same rights attributed to city, county, state, or federal governments.

The Crips and the Bloods still have human rights. They still get trials. That is legitimacy. To deny these principles to a group of people is to completely ignore any kind of legitimacy. The rights attributed to states don't translate precisely to non-state organisations, sure, but that does not mean they are devoid of rights/legitimacy. Say a member of Greenpeace committed a crime - perhaps in the Southern Ocean, in a "conflict" with a Japanese whaling ship - they would still be entitled to their rights; protection from cruel and unusual punishment; access to a defence counsel, etc.

None of which are being encroached, but go on.

Every person captured by their enemy is entitled to some status under international law. Guantanamo detainees are not declared "prisoners of war", and as such are not covered by the Third Geneva Convention; a civilian would be covered by the Fourth Convention - but they're not classified as civilians: that's who we are supposedly (and rightly) protecting. They could be medics, and covered by the First Convention - but again, they're not.

There is nothing in-between, in a legal sense. This of course, exists in Guantanamo - and thus, their status is illegal.

First, it doesn't say, "all humans are free and equal in dignity and rights," does it? There are way to lose your freedom, dignity, and rights.

Yes, after you've had a good chance to contest any charges levelled against you. This could include habeas corpus, and access to the evidence used against a defendant - neither of which exist to Guantanamo detainees.

Second, how is "their side" looking after their own? Who are they "looking after"? It's certainly not the population of their home countries, considering the fact that most of the people we're fighting would rather pick up arms against civilians of so-thought opposing countries or religions than help out their own country or lead a regular, civil, peaceful life.

And third, I'd say that waging war and giving the lives of your own country's soldiers and spending billions of dollars to secure and protect the freedom of fifty million people ten thousand miles away is exactly a "spirit of brotherhood".

No, it does not limit their human rights. However, it does limit the rights that go along with being an enemy combatant, or the rights that come with being a citizen of the United States.

These rights can be forfeited. Unless you're claiming that nobody should ever have their liberty restricted, no matter what they do -- in which case, I'd like to see you on a political docket claiming that the world is bound by a United Nations charter to release every prisoner or detainee, civilian or otherwise.

You actually make very good points here.

Two issues here. First, as has been pointed out, "torture" is relative.

Unless you're especially bitching about "degrading treatment or punishment", in which case every convict has faced degrading treatment by having a public trial.

Relative to what? Torture is when illicit means are employed to garner information. Sitting in a cell, with proper medical care, food, access to counsel, and exercise, is not torture. Torture is torture, relative to not torture. There's no grey area.

How's this, from The Washington Post:

In April 2003, the Defense Department approved interrogation techniques for use at the Guantanamo Bay prison that permit reversing the normal sleep patterns of detainees and exposing them to heat, cold and "sensory assault," including loud music and bright lights, according to defense officials.

The classified list of about 20 techniques was approved at the highest levels of the Pentagon and the Justice Department, and represents the first publicly known documentation of an official policy permitting interrogators to use physically and psychologically stressful methods during questioning.

It is true that some prisoners -- mostly in Abu Ghraib, not Gitmo -- actually did have their human rights violated. But if you didn't notice, heads rolled over that shit.

And they will over Guantanamo, too.

It must be -- unless you are simply ignorant of the hearings and tribunals that all detainees go through ...

You know, it's a good thing that detainees are provided lawyers and interpreters and face hearings and tribunals to determine their guilt, and that those lacking evidence of guilt are released, or else you might actually have a point here.

Yes, trails where the military (the enemy of the legitimate prisoners) acts as jailers, interrogators, prosecutors, defence, judges and executioners. Trials are held without public presence. These trials do happen - but they are in no way fair.

It happens to be in the interests of innocent civilians, who happen to be in the interests of the West.

Point conceded.

Nobody has argued, "well they do it, so we can too". The few times it's happened were isolated incidents and were dealt with swiftly and harshly.

The few times? America should be an example to human rights, not an enemy of them.

So now rights depend on how bad the criminal act was? Do speeding tickets -- hell, we'll go with parking tickets -- require a jury, lawyers, and hours upon hours of court time determining guilt, or are their simpler ways? It's a yes-or-no question here.

That's.. my point? Bigger crimes need more court time/lawyers/evidence/etc. Look at war crimes tribunals - they are an excellent example. Now one would expect that being suspected/charged with terrorism/genocide/being an 'enemy combatant' would actually require independent analyses, public trials, etc. Turns out that, no, it's only as bad as a parking ticket.

Yes, if it violated human rights, it would be horrific.

So you agree?

Yes, we would. And we do. Because we have anti-U.S. liberals -- in our own country and, obviously, around the world -- that will jump at the chance to attack America. Even if it means being completely ignorant of a situation and still making assumptions and accusations based on hearsay, rumors, or simple hatred.

'Liberals' aren't anti-US. I'm not anti-US. I'm against actions that go squarely against my principles. Detention in camps like Guantanamo is one of these. I reserve my right to voice criticism.

If you're talking about the Rainbow Warrior, that wasn't against your country -- and it took the life of one person, not four thousand.

It was 'against my country', as most of my country supported the actions of the Rainbow Warrior in protesting nuclear testing in the Pacific. That's why my government has never allowed nuclear-armed or powered ships into it's territorial waters.

If a bunch of American was to say that 9-11 was a good thing (as I'm sure a minority of NZers approved of nuclear testing), would it still be a terrorist attack against your country? Of course it would.

That's why the conflict is against Islamic extremism. How is this not simple to understand?

So anyone who identifies as an Islamic extremist is automatically an enemy - irrespective of whether they actually commit acts of terror/war? That seems pretty hard to understand.

When "getting our hands dirty" means "existing, not living under Shari'a Law, supporting innocent Israeli and Jewish civilians, and backing the freedom of millions of Arabs", yes, it's better to "get our hands dirty" and deal with the SOBs that go against us. I'd rather be hated for doing what's right than liked for letting Islamic extremism slaughter millions and rule billions.

That doesn't mean we have the right to barge in and do what we please. I'm sure the West is unanimous in supporting greater human rights for those in these troubled regions. However, when the West doesn't follow these principles, then we become hypocrites. What's the use in fighting for something we don't do ourselves?

And the fact that Israel exists. But for some reason, some people don't want to admit that ... wonder why ...

Sure, he doesn't support Israel. There's a confluence of factors there. This one is religious. But it's not the only one.

Hahahahahah, right. Let me guess -- bin Laden wouldn't work with Hussein because Hussein was too secular, but Osama's religious convictions are only "supplementary"?

Supplementary to being a nationalist, yes. Not unimportant, however.

I would like to say, in regards to America's stance, we are not officially at war; it takes an act of Congress to legally declare war which has not been done since WWII - so everything after that has been a "conflict".

What difference does it make - except to grant the 'enemy' fewer rights? It's awfully convenient. If they did 'declare war', the nature of the conflict wouldn't change, but the way the 'enemy' is handled would have to, assuming America respects the conventions of international law.

What exactly do you mean by "acknowledging their legitimacy?

That they are more than mere targets. That, while they are non-state, still have an international status. This in no way is meant to take away from the nature of their actions.

When a government violates the rights of its people - the rights that every human has - that government has no moral or legal right to exist and can be disposed of without second-thought; I would say that this would apply to the terrorists. They may not be a "state" but their goals are to disregard the rights of humanity for their own, often times religious reasons.

The problem is determining what rights the people have. But I agree for the fundamental - and especially human - rights. However, when a government does not protect the rights of people which are not it's own, what is the appropriate action? But yes, I accept that the 'terrorists' violate human rights. I don't deny that. But, as a citizen of 'the West', I am far more outraged by our own violation of human rights.

That does not mean I support just killing those who get captured out right, but that they have a military tribunal and not be sent to the "public courts**" to face trial at the expense of those they have attacked (I'm sure the people who were affected on 9/11 are not too happy about paying for the terrorists defense/trial).

Why can't they face public courts, like every other criminal? If you're not at war, then they aren't soldiers, playing the game of war. They are criminals, right?

And who since the 70s have repeatedly attacked western, western allies, or other countries? The terrorists. The U.S is acting in defense of against those who have repeatedly attacked them. It is well within a country's rights to defend itself from those who would wish lethal harm.

Does defence equate to invasion?

Also, the "spirit of brotherhood" should not be confused with appeasing all instigators so that the "world" can avoid a conflict - England and France did a great job at appeasing Hitler and look how that turned out - all sugah and rainbowz (Thanks Sazh).

Fair point.

Though what is or isn't torture is debatable.

No it's not.

Because they do have concrete evidence that they did "M". But they must look at it from a certain angle - if they released suspected terrorist "V" and once released attacks America in a lethal way the people would be in an uproar that the government let him go. When the government says that they're there to protect the people and let something like that happen it causes more distrust towards the government.

People can't be kept on suspicion alone. How much of an uproar would that cause if that happened to US citizens on US soil?

The islamic terrorists hate the west and its ideals - if the U.S left that would not stop them from attacking the west/America. It is difficult to completely wipe out the extremists however there is a thing called principle - the U.S will not tolerate terrorists acts not those who support terrorists and will bring the "conflict" to them, to suppress terrorists activities, and defer others from joining or aiding terrorists.

"Terrorist" /= "Islamic extremist". It is not illegal to practice a religion.

As to the article, I read a few weeks ago and it felt to me just liberal spin or a liberal lie to bring the attention to Bush instead of Obama so the latter may get some respite - of course I didn't hear MSNBC talk about this article, and the are the first defense for Obama ( you know "real" journalism) so I doubt this has any validity. In closing I would like to say... ... ... Xenogears.

I know. We 'Liberals' always lie.

[Sasquatch]

If it isn't war, what is it? Is it a conflict? Isn't conflict synonymous with war? I mean, to define the word 'war', one would use the word 'conflict'. It's war in a modern sense.

If you'd like to play with semantics, go ahead. Either way, the fact remains that the United States is not at war, and there is no state to declare war against the United States, thus, detainees are not POWs.

However, when war/conflict is fought - but not against a state - then the enemies are terribly hard to determine.

Especially when the enemies go out of their way to make themselves look like civilians, or to hide behind civilians.

So mistakes will be made. Mistakes which can result in the human rights of many being stripped away - even when it is unwarranted.

Can, sure. Like in Abu Ghraib. That's a lot different than any U.S. policy or what's happening in Gitmo.

The problem is camps like Guantanamo. Guantanamo was determined by the Bush administration to be outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions.

Do you have a credible source for that?

Guantanimo has never been labeled as "outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions". The prisoners, however, are. They are not civilians, and they are not military.

However, the "enemy combatants" are held in accord with the minimal rights of Common Article 3 of the GC. This Article applies to "conflicts" that are not state-state, but which take place within a single state. So if one is hunting international terrorists, then this surely cannot apply on an international level?

Common Article III applies to conflicts which are not state-to-state -- not necessarily only conflicts which take place within a single state. Since there is no opposing state, the current conflict falls under Common Article III.

The Crips and the Bloods still have human rights. They still get trials. That is legitimacy.

That's because they're United States citizens. If they pick up arms against the United States military, their citizenship is automatically revoked. So Crips and Bloods have more rights than terrorists and detainees.

To deny these principles to a group of people is to completely ignore any kind of legitimacy.

Detainees are not being denied human rights. The only "rights" being denied are the rights attributed to civilians, POWs, and American citizens. Since they are not civilians, POWs, or American citizens, they don't deserve the rights afforded to those groups. Which is why they fall under Common Article III.

The rights attributed to states don't translate precisely to non-state organisations, sure, but that does not mean they are devoid of rights/legitimacy. Say a member of Greenpeace committed a crime - perhaps in the Southern Ocean, in a "conflict" with a Japanese whaling ship - they would still be entitled to their rights; protection from cruel and unusual punishment; access to a defence counsel, etc.

And when was the United States convicted in international court of cruel and unusual punishment, and who was punished?

Every person captured by their enemy is entitled to some status under international law.

Yes. And those who are not POWs, not medics, and not civilians fall under Common Article III. How is this difficult to understand?

There is nothing in-between, in a legal sense. This of course, exists in Guantanamo - and thus, their status is illegal.

Who says there's nothing in-between? You? What court are you in charge of?

Yes, after you've had a good chance to contest any charges levelled against you.

So it's illegal to arrest somebody until they've been convicted?

This could include habeas corpus, and access to the evidence used against a defendant - neither of which exist to Guantanamo detainees.

No Gitmo detainee has a lawyer who has access to the evidence used to hold them? And no Gitmo detainee has stood before a trial or hearing to determine their guilt? You sure about that?

Relative to what? Torture is when illicit means are employed to garner information.

And "illicit" is relative. Unless you go by the definition of "not legally permitted or authorized; unlicensed; unlawful" -- in which case, since the United States has not been convicted (or even charged) in any "international court" for its policies concerning Gitmo, by the definition of "illicit", illicit means are not employed to garner information. Or for any other purpose.

By the way, here's a dictionary definition of "torture: the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

There has been no inflicting of excruciating pain, and thus, there is no torture.

Unless you would prefer to use your own personal definition of "torture", contrary to what most dictionaries or anybody else would say ... which would, of course, prove that "torture" is relative. Thanks for agreeing.

Sitting in a cell, with proper medical care, food, access to counsel, and exercise, is not torture.

Then I guess it's a good thing that Gitmo prisoners get proper medical care, food, access to counsel, and exercise, isn't it?

Torture is torture, relative to not torture. There's no grey area.

No, but people like you will still insist that actions that are clearly on the legal side of the fence are not legal, simply because you disagree with the people doing those actions.

How's this, from The Washington Post:

In April 2003, the Defense Department approved interrogation techniques for use at the Guantanamo Bay prison that permit reversing the normal sleep patterns of detainees and exposing them to heat, cold and "sensory assault," including loud music and bright lights, according to defense officials.

The classified list of about 20 techniques was approved at the highest levels of the Pentagon and the Justice Department, and represents the first publicly known documentation of an official policy permitting interrogators to use physically and psychologically stressful methods during questioning.

Thanks again. Reversing sleep patterns, being exposed to heat or cold or loud music or bright lights ... none of those are "illicit", and none of them inflict excruciating pain. Is there any other evidence you'd like to provide against your own opinions?

And they will over Guantanamo, too.

It's been running since 2002, within the international public eye, with no convictions of those who determine interrogation techniques. That'd be a hell of a crime spree.

Yes, trails where the military (the enemy of the legitimate prisoners) acts as jailers, interrogators, prosecutors, defence, judges and executioners. Trials are held without public presence. These trials do happen - but they are in no way fair.

Without public presence -- even media? Are you telling me that you have never seen a media report on the trial of a Gitmo prisoner?

If I break a law within my own country, the government handles jailing, interrogation, prosecution, judging, and execution of sentence. And if I don't have the money to pay for an attorney, the government handles defense, too. Is that unfair?

The few times? America should be an example to human rights, not an enemy of them.

Yes, the few times. The select isolated incidents undertaken by individual citizens that have been prosecuted to the fullest extent.

That's.. my point? Bigger crimes need more court time/lawyers/evidence/etc.

And who says what the "big crimes" are? You? What makes the most difference -- how "big" the crimes are, or how obvious they are?

Look at war crimes tribunals - they are an excellent example. Now one would expect that being suspected/charged with terrorism/genocide/being an 'enemy combatant' would actually require independent analyses, public trials, etc. Turns out that, no, it's only as bad as a parking ticket.

Not when they catch you in an act of terrorism/genocide/combat. It's pretty open-and-shut. Or do you really believe that Gitmo prisoners were just snatched out of their homes while they were assembling care packages for orphans and finding cures for cancer?

So you agree?

Yes. (Hence, when I said "yes".) IF the detention of terrorists in any way violated human rights, then it would be horrific. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't violate human rights, and therefore is not horrific. Understood?

'Liberals' aren't anti-US. I'm not anti-US. I'm against actions that go squarely against my principles.

And it just so happens that you, and other liberals, support actions and policies that go against the U.S., and are against actions that the U.S. undertakes because you wrongly assume that they go against your princibles -- unless you are unsure of your principles (possible), unsure of the actions (obvious), and/or your principles go against the U.S. (probable).

Detention in camps like Guantanamo is one of these. I reserve my right to voice criticism.

And you do indeed have the right to do just that. Just don't be surprised when others reserve the right to correct you on what you criticize.

It was 'against my country', as most of my country supported the actions of the Rainbow Warrior in protesting nuclear testing in the Pacific.

Your country was not attacked. One ship in a port belonging to your country was. Not the port itself, not your country -- the ship. It wasn't meant to target civilians, but despite the plan to avoid casualties, one photographer was killed. Who wasn't even from New Zealand, but The Netherlands.

That's why my government has never allowed nuclear-armed or powered ships into it's territorial waters.

And what a great idea -- give up a mutual protection pact with the most powerful country in the world because your country doesn't like one of the most efficient, cheapest, and cleanest forms of energy in the world.

If a bunch of American was to say that 9-11 was a good thing (as I'm sure a minority of NZers approved of nuclear testing), would it still be a terrorist attack against your country? Of course it would.

9/11 was a terrorist attack against the United States, targetting United States civilians on United States land. The Rainbow Warrior incident was an attack against Greenpeace, targetting one ship in a way designed to avoid civilian casualties, while in a New Zealand port. You honestly aren't comparing the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior to the 9/11 attacks, are you?

So anyone who identifies as an Islamic extremist is automatically an enemy - irrespective of whether they actually commit acts of terror/war? That seems pretty hard to understand.

Were all Nazis enemies, or only the ones with weapons in their hand? Granted, the United States and other countries contributing to the Coalition do not targets people because of their beliefs but because of their actions. As they should.

That doesn't mean we have the right to barge in and do what we please.

If "what we please" is to live without having to deal with people slaughtering civilian women and children, yeah, it does.

I'm sure the West is unanimous in supporting greater human rights for those in these troubled regions. However, when the West doesn't follow these principles, then we become hypocrites. What's the use in fighting for something we don't do ourselves?

If and when the West doesn't follow those principles, you will have a point. Until then, bitch about Abu Ghraib all you want, but don't be ignorant enough to accuse United States policy of violating human rights until you have something credible to back you up.

Especially when you're more vocal in your disagreement with United States policies that you disagree with than in response to the policies of the people we're fighting.

Sure, he doesn't support Israel. There's a confluence of factors there. This one is religious. But it's not the only one.

It just happens to be the one he talks about more than any others.

Supplementary to being a nationalist, yes. Not unimportant, however.

That must be why he was in Saudi Arabia leading Saudis and launching attacks from there instead of hiding in Afghanistan. Wait ...

That they are more than mere targets. That, while they are non-state, still have an international status. This in no way is meant to take away from the nature of their actions.

They have no more of an "international status" than any other group of thugs.

Does defence equate to invasion?

At times, yes. If I keep throwing bricks out of a thirty-story apartment window, how are you going to get me to stop, short of climbing the stairs and busting my door down?

People can't be kept on suspicion alone. How much of an uproar would that cause if that happened to US citizens on US soil?

United States citizens have rights granted to them by the United States Constitution. There's a difference.

I know. We 'Liberals' always lie.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't true." -Ronald Reagan

[Zargabaath]

I surprised people think that if the prisoners of Gitmo are sent to that prison in Illinois that it would be better.

Illinois has very cold winters compared to the nice weather all year, weather that is more like their home country's.

In the Illinois prison they would be able to spend only an hour outside each day compared to the many hours at Gitmo (i.e., exercise, fresh air).

They have cable television at Gitmo compared to not having television at the Illinois prison (less etertainment).

There is a Red Cross facility stationed on site at Gitmo, not at the Illinois prison.

They have signs at Gitmo pointing to Mecca and there are no signs at the Illinois prison.

From the looks of it I would say that moving away from Gitmo is worse and possibly "torturous". They have all these great amenities and wonderful perks at Gitmo but people won't them sent to places that aren't as great. Ask a prison-mate of the Illinois prison if they would like the same things, that suit them, as the Gitmo detainees are receiving; I'm sure they would pass it up to stay in the frigid, no cable, lock-down for 23 hours place.

[GHOSTED]

5 out of 20 people in a room are terrorists, you dont know which ones but they are definitely in that group. If not arrested they will murder hundreds of innocents. What do you do? That is the predicament faced today.

.

Let's take that 5 out of 20. That's a pretty Fancy percentage we're looking at. Imagine taking your concept and going global with it.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

If you'd like to play with semantics, go ahead. Either way, the fact remains that the United States is not at war, and there is no state to declare war against the United States, thus, detainees are not POWs.

Pot meet kettle.

Especially when the enemies go out of their way to make themselves look like civilians, or to hide behind civilians.

Like this?

Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians (guardian.co.uk)




The classified video released by Wikileaks is on this website. Transcript (with audio)


On Youtube:
Full, uncut video - Warning: NSFW

Short, concise version with annotations


UPDATE: New background information video released by Wikileaks

More photographs here (including the last two photographs taken by Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen before he was shot by American airmen during the 2007 incident)

I heard you once say something along the lines of "you mean other than recoil? nothing" when I asked you what it feels like to go around killing people. Don't think I believed you then. Now I do. Kind of puts your comments in context. If your comments and the above actions are to be representative of the culture in the US armed forces, I'd be incredibly surprised if threats to national transparency.. I mean security aren't more common.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't true." -Ronald Reagan

That's great. One idiot listening to advice form another.

[Furore]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't it not entirely uncommon to have a few incidents that seem uncalled for comitted by pretty much any larger scale militia/mercenary force? I remember going over a few of them in History class in highschool and while some seemed either very cold or very barbaric, our history teacher was quick to point out that most sides had been noted doing it and it was often because of a few people rather than the group as a whole. When it was the group as a whole it was seen as very barbaric and the biggest examples I can remember were a few countries and their POWs around WW2, but that wasn't the US (even if conditions in their concentration camps were also hard). They weren't called concentration camps officially, but those ones where the Japs were held. This is opposed to the Japs (being one of the countries I was originally referring to) who loved working POWs to death on a railway.

As long as there's large scale conflict, there will be shit like this. But it ain't just America and it would do people well to realise this.

[Sasquatch]

Pot meet kettle.

Casanova, meet dictionary. And Geneva Conventions Article III, which I explained two months ago. Since there is no war going on, those detained in this conflict are not prisoners of war. Duh.

Like this?

Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians (guardian.co.uk)

Yes, like that -- terrorists with weapons trying to blend in with civilians. In doing so, they do one of two things: Either their presence is allowed without retaliation because of the fear of collateral damage; or they attract enough attention to draw contact, thus leading anti-American crybabies all over the world to bitch and moan about how Americans might have hurt civilians that shouldn't have been having anything to do with terrorism in the first place.

Apparently, this specific situation falls into the second category.

More photographs here (including the last two photographs taken by Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen before he was shot by American airmen during the 2007 incident)

Yes -- since you don't have facts to back up your claim (only the claims of other anti-American conspiracists), you must rely on pulling heart-strings.

I heard you once say something along the lines of "you mean other than recoil? nothing" when I asked you what it feels like to go around killing people.

Yeah ... no, no, sorry bear. First, your quote is wrong. Second, that question was raised by another member -- not by you. And third, it wasn't about "go[ing] around killing people" -- it was a general question about feelings towards the terrorists that have been detained at Gitmo.

Don't think I believed you then. Now I do. Kind of puts your comments in context.

Oh, shucks -- some anonymous kid on an internet message board thinks I'm some type of soulless robot without feelings towards enemies of the United States? I think I'm gonna cry.

If your comments and the above actions are to be representative of the culture in the US armed forces, I'd be incredibly surprised if threats to national transparency.. I mean security aren't more common.

You go ahead and be surprised. Take one manipulated incident that you have no knowledge or understanding of -- besides the interpretation of others who have no knowledge or understanding of it, besides "Americans shot people, so they're evil" -- and one manipulated quote, and base whatever opinions you'd like to base on them.

That's great. One idiot listening to advice form another.

Haven't you learned by now not to insult your betters? Ah, who am I kidding. Of course you haven't learned.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't it not entirely uncommon to have a few incidents that seem uncalled for comitted by pretty much any larger scale militia/mercenary force?

But American troops are accused of doing it, and for some people, that's all that's important. The American military has spent hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions, developing weapons that hurt instead of kill, or target specific areas instead of entire cities. But if some ignorant schmuck thinks that United States servicemembers should sacrifice their lives and their mission so that nobody with whom the United States Congress has not passed a declaration of war against is ever injured ... then we're all bloodthirsty warmongers.

They weren't called concentration camps officially, but those ones where the Japs were held.

All too many people don't know about that -- some are too busy focusing on the fabricated accusations of American mistreatment to realize the true ones. Unfortunately, it was almost a necessity -- with the way the United States entered the war (after Pearl Harbor), many Americans of Japanese decent weren't safe from their own neighbors, and their protection was necessary. Of course, this was an effect, and not a cause, of their imprisonment. As James Bond said of the British handing Cossacks over to the Soviet Union: "Not exactly our finest hour ..."

[Meier Link]

Stop with the insulting other peoples intelegence. This goes for both Sassy and Casanova. If you can not play nice then don't play at all. Debates can be had with out the insults. Consider yourselves verbaly warned.