Guantanamo: the American Gulag

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Headache in a Suitcase said:

i have a hard time not seeing the politics behind AI's slamming the United States 100 times more than any other country, when there are systamatic rapings, beheadings and other atrocities going on throughout other parts of the world.

I'm troubled by the camp at Guantanamo... don't get me wrong. But I just don't see a better solution. If you have one, I'd love to hear it. Complaining about it and not providing a better solution is useless.

AI is not slamming the US any more than any other country doing wrong. How you come to that opinion? Look at their site and at their reports of human rights abuses before of making such unbalanced statements, please.

I´m troubled by the camp, same like you. I got a better solution, AI also got a better soluton. No one is saying let´em terrorists run free. But people have died in Guantanamo - since they were held without trial, no one can say who they were, what they did. I don´t know anything about who is held there and for which specific reason.

Imo a good solution would be

1. to keep them only if its clear they are terrorists
2. not to torture the prisoners
3. allowing fair trials, controlled by NGOs
4. not flush prisoner´s heads in the toilet

The current way of doing raises suspicions for every civilian. With this procedure, theoretically it could happen to ME. That´s what bothers me most. Theoretically, agents could knock at MY door in the night, take me to Guantanamo and slowly kill me there. And spread in the media that I was a terrorist.

How can you guarantee that doesn´t happen? You can´t. And that´s the point.
 
Last edited:
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


AI is not slamming the US any more than any other country doing wrong. How you come to that opinion? Look at their site and at their reports of human rights abuses before of making such unbalanced statements, please.


Sorry to keep coming back to this, but I feel strongly about Amnesty because I am personally invested in AI. There are many, many places in the world that AI "keeps an eye" on. Amnesty is concerned about human rights abuses all over the world, and recognizes that no one's human rights are safe when anyone's are in jeopardy.

So many U2 fans at these concerts, and I went over to the Amnesty booth at both of the Philly concerts...and the petitions they had (which had nothing to do with GITMO--one was for an Uzbek law professor, one was for Aung San Suu Kyi as U2 has "adopted" her, and I think one was for the women of Juarez in Mexico who have been routinely kidnapped, assaulted and raped) reflected the sad state of human rights all over the world. And they had been signed by so few people--maybe a couple of dozen.

AI is NOT an anti-American organization. AI is anti-torture, anti-tyranny, anti-death penalty. Again, as hiphop said, I invite you to peruse

www.amnesty.org

and then ask yourself if you still sincerely believe AI "singles out" the States.
 
Even though I agree with you Pax, regarding AI not being an anti-American organisation, there are reasons why there were no petitions at the U2 shows regarding American cases. It's one of the main rules of being an Amnesty member that you do not take action, in the name of AI, against abuses in your own country. Therefore all the petitions would have been, or should have been, on issues outside of the States. Just want to make that clear although I, again, do strongly agree with you.



btw, i'm not American, I'm Scottish and live in Scotland (UK) so I have no patriotic reason to have to attack this claim that AI is anti-american.
 
Last edited:
BonosSaint said:
I'm not inclined to compare what we do to what someone else does. I would not have made a comparison to a Gulag or to a Nazi concentration camp. We do not reach that level. I think such arguments are simplistic. That being said, I believe as the leader of the free world (for now), our behavior should be above reproach.

I look at what we sometimes do and it is gratuitous to me, for no purpose other than humiliation. I'm not naive, but I want to better than this. What purpose did they really think all this would serve? Was there really much belief that we would get enough information from these people to justify all this? How high level are these prisoners? How much information can they have?
Some of the very first people accused of abuse come from my home. Not only do they represent my country, they represent my part of the country. I've got a dog in this hunt. How do I defend this behavior? How do you? "It's not as bad as...." doesn't cut it for me. That smacks to me of moral relativism.

Yeah.

BonosSaint said:

We are not beyond reproach. But if a country sets itself up as a beacon of freedom, human rights, then it damn well better behave in that manner. I am terribly concerned with what my country does. I would like to proud of it again.

What BonosSaint said.

BonosSaint said:

Yeah. I'm a cynic. Scratch a cynic and underneath you find a frustrated idealist


You and me, baby. :rockon: :applaud:
 
I remember, very clearly, sitting there on 9/11, watching CNN, seeing it all happen, and thinking, literally, "Why couldn't this have happened when we still had Clinton? Why did this have to happen with a Texas Republican in the White House?" The only thing that could have possibly made that day worse....and it did.

It's going to take us years to repair the damage done to civil liberties in this country....and we won't even be able to begin until we get rid of Georgy Jr.

Somehow I am not the least bit surprised that American treatment of prisoners is under question at this time, under this administration.

I wish my country was half as good as it likes to think it is.

And I wish we could refrain from defensively jumping down the throat of anyone who questions our behavior, our policies, our actions on the global stage, (ie., what else would you expect of AI; 'Freedom Fries', et al.)
 
ewen said:
Even though I agree with you Pax, regarding AI not being an anti-American organisation, there are reasons why there were no petitions at the U2 shows regarding American cases. It's one of the main rules of being an Amnesty member that you do not take action, in the name of AI, against abuses in your own country. Therefore all the petitions would have been, or should have been, on issues outside of the States. Just want to make that clear although I, again, do strongly agree with you.



btw, i'm not American, I'm Scottish and live in Scotland (UK) so I have no patriotic reason to have to attack this claim that AI is anti-american.

aye. :up:
 
I am puzzled, sincerely.....

Who has had their civil liberties violated?

Not I. Not any of my friends. I can still speak out agains the governement.

And, finally, if Bill Clinton had done ANYTHING serious to fight terrorism....9/11 would not have happened.
 
interesting perspective....

I would think that after the FIRST TRADE center bombing....

and the bombing of the cole.....

We would have done more.....

more than waiting until the video was released with the " it depends on what is is" comment to bomb an asprin factory.
 
Dreadsox said:

And, finally, if Bill Clinton had done ANYTHING serious to fight terrorism....9/11 would not have happened.

We don't know that. We can guess, we can hope, but we will never know. We can't rewrite history. I agree he should have done more, but then again so does he. But Bush also could have done a lot more, I mean we do know that there were warnings of 9/11 during his administration.
 
Dreadsox said:


Who has had their civil liberties violated?

Not I. Not any of my friends. I can still speak out agains the governement.

But the prisoners had their human rights violated! First, it´s about them, not about you!

If you spoke out against the government, you would be unsure of possible repercussions you would have to face. You fellow countrymen who engage in such suspicious behavior often are unsure if they will have problems in the future. For example, two young Americans who I met in Costa Rica told me they are organizing peace marches. And sure enough they know that probably they´re monitored. Sure enough they know that in 20 years, an asshole can still damage their future careeer. But even if they are afraid, they continue their protest.

So if you think that anyway everything is ok, those prisoners are far off so what does it matter, its not our business, and everyone can speak out freely in your country without fear, wake up. This might be your reality, but it´s not the reality of millions of Americans.

Apart from that, this thread is about Guantanamo, where people are held without trial. Not only their civil liberties (or what we define as such) are violated, also their human rights.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


But the prisoners had their human rights violated! First, it´s about them, not about you!

If you spoke out against the government, you would be unsure of possible repercussions you would have to face. You fellow countrymen who engage in such suspicious behavior often are unsure if they will have problems in the future. For example, two young Americans who I met in Costa Rica told me they are organizing peace marches. And sure enough they know that probably they´re monitored. Sure enough they know that in 20 years, an asshole can still damage their future careeer. But even if they are afraid, they continue their protest.


I do not believe that there will be any repercussions, unless they do something over the top and illegal.

[Q]So if you think that anyway everything is ok, those prisoners are far off so what does it matter, its not our business, and everyone can speak out freely in your country without fear, wake up. This might be your reality, but it´s not the reality of millions of Americans.[/Q]

Somewhere in this forum, I have taken both sides on this issue. The prisoners deserve a trial, and if I am not mistaken, the American Judicial system (One that may not move fast enough for you) is going to decide what the legal status is of these people.


Apart from that, this thread is about Guantanamo, where people are held without trial. Not only their civil liberties (or what we define as such) are violated, also their human rights.
Sorry felt compelled to respond to a post about the damage Bush has done to civil liberties in America. I will slink back out.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


We don't know that. We can guess, we can hope, but we will never know. We can't rewrite history. I agree he should have done more, but then again so does he. But Bush also could have done a lot more, I mean we do know that there were warnings of 9/11 during his administration.

Are you seriously saying that if Bill Clinton had not gone after Al-Qaeda you believe 9/11 would have happened. I am talking gone after him after the 1st trade center bombing.

And I am equally as pissed at the people in the White House that missed this as well. But I was indeed responding to the championing of Bill Clinton, the man whose administration threatened careers when he wanted that factory bombed.
 
Dreadsox said:


Are you seriously saying that if Bill Clinton had not gone after Al-Qaeda you believe 9/11 would have happened. I am talking gone after him after the 1st trade center bombing.

I'm just saying we can't predict absolutes. We could have gone after Al-Qaeda and it could have spurred a quicker attack it could have aided other movements with recruiting etc.

I think what some forget, and a reason that I don't believe we're doing any good with this "war on terror" is that one; Al-Qauda is not the only terrorist group and two; it doesn't take an army to plan and execute an attack like 9/11. It takes one rich backer and less than 50 men to plan and execute an attack like that. So yes it still could have happened. We will never rid this world of terrorism.
 
I guess we can agree to disagree.

They will get their day in court. Until then, they should be thankful that we are not giving them the justice given to the civilians on 9/11
 
Major Question:

WHEN?

Hmmm? When the almighty US judicial system gets its collective head out of its collective butt? Oh, and that will be toot-sweet, I expect.

Yeah, right, in what reality....Right now, those people are in limbo, and their status is going to be dictated at the speed of bureaucracy, which approximately equals the speed of molasses in January.

Wasn't there something in our Constitution about the right to a speedy trial? Somewhere....in there...we do have a Constitution don't we...I didn't just dream that?
 
ImOuttaControl said:



Does our constitution apply to non-Americans?

This here is where the problem lies. The constitution doesn't apply to them, but now with this adminstration's new definition of enemy combatants the Geneva code doesn't apply either. So nothing applies to them and I haven't seen any movement by this administration to define anything that does. Therefore they will probably rot without any protection and those that were merely at the wrong place at the wrong time will die innocently in prison and this adminstration will have to answer, if not in this life definately another.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


So nothing applies to them and I haven't seen any movement by this administration to define anything that does. Therefore they will probably rot without any protection and those that were merely at the wrong place at the wrong time will die innocently in prison and this adminstration will have to answer, if not in this life definately another.

I quoted you, but it's just a broad general response to the whole thread.

What protection does an individual deserve who can't differentiate himself from a terrorist?

"Wrong place and wrong time" detainees, assumes that our soldiers and intelligent officials are either dumbasses or have evil intent. We have already released, what? 200 of them.

I mean, if I were being held for three years and I wasn't a terrorist supporter or sympathizer, I would be denouncing Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda at the top of my lungs every day, making sure that the American soldiers heard me.

Something tells me they aren't doing that.

Something tells me that a good honest American soldier, would hear that and try to get that person at least heard, if not some sort of interview or "trial". Are we to assume that these cries are being ignored? I am not buying it.

Maybe it's just not happening because these detainees actually do sympathize with Al Qaeda. And if that's the case then they gave up any protection or rights they had long ago.

Oh, I am all for basic human rights for anyone who doesn't cowardly and actively participate or at least attempt mass murder of innocent people. I am all for the Geneva code for proud men who wear uniforms and even if they try to kill me, they have the dignity to kill opposing soldiers and not innocent men, women and children.

Somehow the sympathy inside me is vacant for these Gitmo detainees. And it doesn't take some video footage of smoldering twin towers to remind me that the only difference between the terrorists in the camp and the terrorists on the plane was sheer opportunity.

I think about human rights violations in Sudan, and I think we are bogged down in Iraq when we could be helping them. That is something that rings true to me. Not sympathy for terrorists. I don't beleive that our American soldiers knowingly detain innocent people and defy the basic will and rights of an individual. I think they have basically figured out that these guys are bad bad people. If not, you explain to me why we would detain someone knowingly and willfully when it is not just. We've made mistakes, I think they have been admitted, we have released detainees already and there may be more.

While I think Bush and his cabinet are more or less incompetent idealistic fools, I don't think there is some evil dark hand telling them to torture innocent people down in Cuba. I think there are evil men down at Gitmo, that the rules simply don't and shouldn't apply to. Charge them with a crime, give them a trial, let them rot in a cell, all the same to me. Because at some point and time you have to choose to beleive that the American soldiers are doing what needs to be done down there. And if you don't, you probably choose to believe they are up to bad things, ill-intentioned mechanisms of torture against innocent people.

Do you really beleive any good person, much less well trained American soldiers, but just a good person with a good soul, would do this? Or would it be a lot easier to beleive that maybe it happens, but it is happening to the fucking scum of the earth?
 
U2DMfan said:


I quoted you, but it's just a broad general response to the whole thread.

What protection does an individual deserve who can't differentiate himself from a terrorist?

"Wrong place and wrong time" detainees, assumes that our soldiers and intelligent officials are either dumbasses or have evil intent. We have already released, what? 200 of them.

I mean, if I were being held for three years and I wasn't a terrorist supporter or sympathizer, I would be denouncing Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda at the top of my lungs every day, making sure that the American soldiers heard me.

Something tells me they aren't doing that.

Something tells me that a good honest American soldier, would hear that and try to get that person at least heard, if not some sort of interview or "trial". Are we to assume that these cries are being ignored? I am not buying it.

Maybe it's just not happening because these detainees actually do sympathize with Al Qaeda. And if that's the case then they gave up any protection or rights they had long ago.

Oh, I am all for basic human rights for anyone who doesn't cowardly and actively participate or at least attempt mass murder of innocent people. I am all for the Geneva code for proud men who wear uniforms and even if they try to kill me, they have the dignity to kill opposing soldiers and not innocent men, women and children.

Somehow the sympathy inside me is vacant for these Gitmo detainees. And it doesn't take some video footage of smoldering twin towers to remind me that the only difference between the terrorists in the camp and the terrorists on the plane was sheer opportunity.

I think about human rights violations in Sudan, and I think we are bogged down in Iraq when we could be helping them. That is something that rings true to me. Not sympathy for terrorists. I don't beleive that our American soldiers knowingly detain innocent people and defy the basic will and rights of an individual. I think they have basically figured out that these guys are bad bad people. If not, you explain to me why we would detain someone knowingly and willfully when it is not just. We've made mistakes, I think they have been admitted, we have released detainees already and there may be more.

While I think Bush and his cabinet are more or less incompetent idealistic fools, I don't think there is some evil dark hand telling them to torture innocent people down in Cuba. I think there are evil men down at Gitmo, that the rules simply don't and shouldn't apply to. Charge them with a crime, give them a trial, let them rot in a cell, all the same to me. Because at some point and time you have to choose to beleive that the American soldiers are doing what needs to be done down there. And if you don't, you probably choose to believe they are up to bad things, ill-intentioned mechanisms of torture against innocent people.

Do you really beleive any good person, much less well trained American soldiers, but just a good person with a good soul, would do this? Or would it be a lot easier to beleive that maybe it happens, but it is happening to the fucking scum of the earth?

How are you to differentiate yourself from terrorist when proof hasn't been or doesn't need to be given? I mean come on!!!

There were children under the age of 14 being held prisoner for a time, so yes I do believe our well intention soldiers would hold innocent beings. Not because they wanted to, not because they could, maybe not out of malice but because the definition of who or who is not a terrorist is about as clear as mud.

Do terrorist hold a membership card? Do they have a certain haircut? How is it you determine?

Maybe you had evidence this person was part of a certain terrorist group. Well then damnitt use this evidence to put them on trial. If you have no such evidence, then sorry you have no fucking reason to hold these individuals prisoner. Why is this so hard to realize?
 
They are not entitled to the same rights as US citizens or POW's, the simple reason being that they were violating the rules of war and they are often associated with terrorist organisations.

Trials take time on all levels, firstly there is gathering evidence to go to trial with, then there is the legal challenges to the admissibility of that evidence, then there is the structure of the trial (apparently the US millitary court which worked perfectly well in the past is unsuitable for mixed up Muslim men who decided to bacpack with the Taliban using Kalashnikovs in December 2001), then the legal challenges to get the rights of appeal sorted out.

In the meantime, however many years that may be many of these men will be in limbo in Guantanamo, some will be released or handed over to their home countries. Considering the risk posed by Islamist terrorists and the circumstances that these men were caught under I think that keeping them locked up until their nature can be found is the best course of action. If this administration released all who are in Guantanamo that could not be procecuted with the evidence at hand then they really would be responsible for the damage done.

No quarter for Jihadists.
 
A_Wanderer said:
They are not entitled to the same rights as US citizens or POW's, the simple reason being that they were violating the rules of war and they are often associated with terrorist organisations.

See but you are blinded. Without evidence how are we to prove that these individuals were apprehended under the fact that they did anything that violated rules of war or that they were associated with a terrorist group? See it's the same shit over and over, I ask this question, they pocess no membership card, yet since the US administration found them guilty then they are. It's BULLSHIT!

You nor the government has given any reason as to why these individuals are being held.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


See but you are blinded. Without evidence how are we to prove that these individuals were apprehended under the fact that they did anything that violated rules of war or that they were associated with a terrorist group? See it's the same shit over and over, I ask this question, they pocess no membership card, yet since the US administration found them guilty then they are. It's BULLSHIT!

You nor the government has given any reason as to why these individuals are being held.
They have not found them guilty, they have not gone to trial yet and their guilt or innocence in regards to fighting against the US and it's allies without uniforms and with concealed arms or their association to Islamist terrorist networks is not yet ascertained.

Of course they could be presumed innocent until proven guilty and let go, but is that the best course of action considering the ideology of the groups that they may have been associating with and the documented history of Afghanistan as a base for Al Qaeda operatives.

What of those who were captured during operations while bearing arms? if their actions in Afghanistan prior to capture cannot be properly reconstructed should they be let go?
 
A_Wanderer said:
They have not found them guilty, they have not gone to trial yet and their guilt or innocence in regards to fighting against the US and it's allies without uniforms and with concealed arms or their association to Islamist terrorist networks is not yet ascertained.
And after almost 4 years that's just sad and pathetic for a developed country that feels privelaged enough to spread democracy.
A_Wanderer said:

Of course they could be presumed innocent until proven guilty and let go, but is that the best course of action considering the ideology of the groups that they may have been associating with and the documented history of Afghanistan as a base for Al Qaeda operatives.
Why speak in idiotic presumptions? They were presumed guilty from the beginning. You only inprison someone based on evidence. Why hasn't this evidence shown up in a court? Because of idealogy, if that's the case half of this planet needs to imprisoned. Where do you suggest we start?
A_Wanderer said:

What of those who were captured during operations while bearing arms? if their actions in Afghanistan prior to capture cannot be properly reconstructed should they be let go?
How is it that you capture them with arms(improper) without documentation? Please tell me how the US army of today can do that, please.

If there actions prior to capture are in question then there needs to be evidence of that behavior. Obviously you had enough to tip you off then get enough to put on trial. It seems pretty easy to me.
 
If you happen to be a foreign national, a tourist in the good ol' US, and you are accused of committing a crime, arrested, etc., you have the right to a fair and speedy trial by jury.

Why do we not apply the same standard to the people being held at Gitmo?

Why can we not practice what we preach?

Why do we have to be such f***ing hypocrites?

And please DON'T tell me that it is all right to treat people that way because they were not in fact on US soil when they were taken into custody.

Okay, I'm getting a little ticked (well, more than a little, and more than 'ticked') at people who think it's all right to think that OUR common standards don't have to be applied by OURSELVES to anybody we don't want them to. THAT is hypocracy.

And yes, I am SHOUTING! Sorry, little frustated here.... :banghead:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

And after almost 4 years that's just sad and pathetic for a developed country that feels privelaged enough to spread democracy.

Why speak in idiotic presumptions? They were presumed guilty from the beginning. You only inprison someone based on evidence. Why hasn't this evidence shown up in a court? Because of idealogy, if that's the case half of this planet needs to imprisoned. Where do you suggest we start?

How is it that you capture them with arms(improper) without documentation? Please tell me how the US army of today can do that, please.

If there actions prior to capture are in question then there needs to be evidence of that behavior. Obviously you had enough to tip you off then get enough to put on trial. It seems pretty easy to me.

Very well thought and said, Bono Supastar.

A_Wanderer: think logically. You can´t presume someone is terrorist if you have no evidence. If you have evidence or can prove it, you go in front of a court. It´s very simple - they are not, so there is no public evidence. That´s also what AI is lobbying for. Tell me everyone in Guantanamo is a top terrorist - no problem. But the US administation and army don´t give any specific information.

Anyway, since Rumsfeld, Bush and Blair LIED about the EVIDENCE re: nuclear arms in Iraq, no one with HALF a brain trusts that group of governmental gangsters.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


Very well thought and said, Bono Supastar.

A_Wanderer: think logically. You can´t presume someone is terrorist if you have no evidence. If you have evidence or can prove it, you go in front of a court. It´s very simple - they are not, so there is no public evidence. That´s also what AI is lobbying for. Tell me everyone in Guantanamo is a top terrorist - no problem. But the US administation and army don´t give any specific information.

Anyway, since Rumsfeld, Bush and Blair LIED about the EVIDENCE re: nuclear arms in Iraq, no one with HALF a brain trusts that group of governmental gangsters.

No one lied about ANYTHING. SADDAM was required to Verifiably Disarm of all WMD and he didn't. Multiple UN resolutions authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to comply with the resolutions and ceacefire agreement that occured as a result of Saddam's illegal and brutal occupation of Kuwait.

In a war, one does not have to go in front of a court when the enemy is captured. It would be a waste of resources to simply detain people who have nothing to do with terrorism. Mistakes are made for sure because nothing is 100% fool proof, but the vast majority of people in Guantanamo are terrorist and the military has vital mission of getting as much intelligence information out of them as this intelligence has the potential to save thousands of lives.
 
Back
Top Bottom