Guantanamo: the American Gulag - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-30-2005, 04:17 PM   #91
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:37 AM
I do believe that the Supreme Court, part of our judicial system, which apparently is working.....is on the case.

I am sorry, but while the judicial process sorts it all out, it is acceptable in my opinion to detain them.

And no, the issue is NOT about being on American soil or not. The issue is the war is with a terrorist organization. A group that does not follow the rules of the Geneva conventions. SO I will give you that they are being detained for valid reasons in my opinion.

And again....it is more than was given to the victems of 9/11.

And apparently the American people have faith that the administration was being honest with us about the reasons for going into Iraq, which have nothing to do with the debate.

So lets say they go to court, are found guilty and imprisoned for life. Would you be happy then?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-30-2005, 04:28 PM   #92
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,669
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


So lets say they go to court, are found guilty and imprisoned for life. Would you be happy then?
That would be justice...so yes I would be happy if they all recieved justice.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-30-2005, 06:10 PM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:37 PM
You capture somebody on a battlefield while they are carrying arms you should detain them until their actions can be ascertained. How many lives would you be willing to put at risk by releasing the men that were in Afghanistan at the time but cannot be procecuted because there is not enough evidence to take to court. The calculus shifts, it is better for one innocent man to stay detained than have ten guilty men walk free. Until of course they can be tried, which takes time to establish and a lot of work has been done getting these things setup with a lot of objections over the procedure.

They should be tried, the process should not be expedited to make it quick, it should be done right and made fair.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 05-30-2005, 06:14 PM   #94
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,669
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
You capture somebody on a battlefield while they are carrying arms you should detain them until their actions can be ascertained. How many lives would you be willing to put at risk by releasing the men that were in Afghanistan at the time but cannot be procecuted because there is not enough evidence to take to court. The calculus shifts, it is better for one innocent man to stay detained than have ten guilty men walk free. Until of course they can be tried, which takes time to establish and a lot of work has been done getting these things setup with a lot of objections over the procedure.
And those not carrying arms who were detained???

No one's talking about releasing anyone, but I don't think proof as to why we're holding them is too much to ask.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-30-2005, 06:15 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
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.

you are ridiculing yourself. excuse me, but someone had to make it clear.

SURE they LIED. BASTARDS.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-30-2005, 06:25 PM   #96
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:37 PM
I understand that if you were arrested in the USSR in the 1930's then this happened.
Quote:
May 30, 2005
In Rising Numbers, Lawyers Head for Guantánamo Bay
By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, May 29 - In the last few months, the small commercial air service to the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has been carrying people the military authorities had hoped would never be allowed there: American lawyers.

And they have been arriving in increasing numbers, providing more than a third of about 530 remaining detainees with representation in federal court. Despite considerable obstacles and expenses, other lawyers are lining up to challenge the government's detention of people the military has called enemy combatants and possible terrorists.

A meeting earlier this month in New York City at the law firm Clifford Chance drew dozens of new volunteer lawyers who attended lectures from other lawyers who have been through the rigorous process of getting the government to allow them access to Guantánamo.

The increase in lawyers for Guantánamo detainees was set in motion last June when the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration and said the prisoners there were entitled to challenge their detentions in federal courts.

The rate at which lawyers have stepped forward for the task may be a reflection of the changing public attitudes about Guantánamo Bay and its mission.

"In the beginning, just after 9/11, we couldn't get anybody," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a group based in New York that is coordinating the assigning of lawyers to prisoners. The earliest volunteers, Mr. Ratner said, were those who regularly handled death-penalty clients and were accustomed to representing the reviled in near-hopeless cases.

But in recent months, some of the nation's largest and most prominent firms have enlisted in the effort and devoted considerable resources to it, including Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr; Clifford Chance; Covington & Burling; Dorsey & Whitney; and Allen & Overy.

"People are now eager to take this on," Mr. Ratner said. The law firms are bearing all the expenses, he said.

The influx of defense lawyers at Guantánamo Bay also seems to have had some impact on the character of the detention facility. Some of the lawyers say that it was likely a factor in the authorities' decision to end most of the interrogations in recent months. In addition, some lawyers and human rights officials say that the lawyers' presence has reduced reports of abusive treatment by guards and interrogators that previously were the subject of complaints from the Red Cross and the F.B.I.

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey C. Miller, who was the commander of the base for nearly three years, until August 2003, said during his tenure that the system was designed to make the prisoners as compliant as possible in order to make them thoroughly dependent on their interrogators. An important ingredient in accomplishing that, he and other military officials at the base said, was isolation from the outside world.

The arrival of defense lawyers at Guantánamo is an irreversible disruption of that isolation. The lawyers represent the detainees' access not only to federal courts but also to the international news media; the only other authorized visitors, foreign officials and representatives of the Red Cross, do not generally speak publicly about the detainees.

The lawyers' efforts at Guantánamo Bay have not yet resulted in any detainee gaining freedom, but the prisoners' cases are moving slowly through the courts.

In March, James E. Dorsey and John W. Lundquist, partners at the firm of Fredrikson & Byron in Minneapolis, along with Nicole M. Moen, an associate lawyer, traveled to Guantánamo Bay to meet for the first time with their client, an Algerian named Achene Zemiri. After arriving at the base, they were put in drab quarters on the other side of Guantánamo Bay from the main base and prison camp.

The next morning, they traveled by ferry and van to a small prison compound called Camp Echo, which was constructed to handle lawyer-client meetings and is outside the regular prison camp. Each brightly lighted cell is divided in two, with a table and chairs on one side of a heavy metal grate and the inmate's bed and toilet on the other. Mr. Dorsey said that Mr. Zemiri was at first wary and sat with his arms folded tightly around him. But by the end of two days of meetings, Mr. Dorsey said, Mr. Zemiri thanked them warmly and seemed to accept they were there to help him.

He said Mr. Zemiri's wife, who is Canadian, had given them phrases to establish their credibility. "One was the name of a strange soft drink," he said.

Mr. Dorsey, who practices civil law, said he was eager to help "the effort on the part of the bar to see that there are meaningful and just processes." While the firm agreed to the initial representation, partners balked at taking on a second client, who was a reputed Taliban field commander.

Tina Foster, a lawyer at the constitutional rights center who is coordinating the recruitment effort, said that of the 300 lawyers who have signed up, most have not yet been to Guantánamo Bay because the process of getting security clearance is onerous. "Some of the detainees don't even yet know they have attorneys," Ms. Foster said.

The first detainees to get lawyers are those whose families have made an effort. Sometimes, Ms. Foster said, the center learns of a detainee's wish to be represented through letters from other detainees to their lawyers.

Some lawyers have said that interrogators at Guantánamo Bay have tried to discourage prisoners from trusting them. They have said that some inmates have been sharply questioned after their lawyers depart and that others have been told they should not trust lawyers who are Jewish.

One issue the lawyers have had to deal with is advising their clients whether to participate in tribunals being conducted for each detainee to determine whether he is no longer a threat and could be released.

Douglas Cox, a lawyer with Allen & Overy in New York, which represents 14 Yemenis at Guantánamo Bay, said that he had advised his clients to appear before the three-member panels even though they could not be accompanied by their lawyers. "We think that on balance our clients could be helped if they appear," Mr. Cox said.

He said there was an assumption among lawyers that the intent of the new set of tribunals was to release prisoners and reduce population at the base.

Scott Sullivan, a lawyer with Allen & Overy, said that after reviewing the evidence against one of the Yemenis who was arrested in Pakistan, including classified documents, he concluded that "there was nothing to support the case that he was an enemy combatant."
link
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 05-30-2005, 07:05 PM   #97
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 06:37 AM
'Bout damn time....
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 05-30-2005, 07:06 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


you are ridiculing yourself. excuse me, but someone had to make it clear.

SURE they LIED. BASTARDS.
How am I ridiculing myself? By giving my honest and informed opinion on a particular subject matter?

You've made a particular view point and opinion clear, but the American people feel differently which is why George Bush was re-elected President.

The facts are clear. Saddam failed to comply with resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. The coalition responded with the authorization given to it under those resolutions. Saddam had to be removed and Iraq is on the road to becoming a democracy despite the difficulties at the moment. This is a good thing and the world is far more secure today with Saddam out of power.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 12:41 AM   #99
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,669
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


You've made a particular view point and opinion clear, but the American people feel differently which is why George Bush was re-elected President.
Let's clarify this and be honest and say 51% of the American voting population feel this way. Even that is a stretch because I know many who voted for Bush who didn't support the war but liked his so called moral issues.

So when it comes down to it, I really don't think it's a very large majority in this country that support this war 100%. But this administration has done a damn good job making those that oppose sound unAmerican.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-31-2005, 02:26 AM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


How am I ridiculing myself? By giving my honest and informed opinion on a particular subject matter?

You've made a particular view point and opinion clear, but the American people feel differently which is why George Bush was re-elected President.

The facts are clear. Saddam failed to comply with resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. The coalition responded with the authorization given to it under those resolutions. Saddam had to be removed and Iraq is on the road to becoming a democracy despite the difficulties at the moment. This is a good thing and the world is far more secure today with Saddam out of power.
You are ridiculing yourself because we didn´t even mention the fucking resolutions, authorizations, who had to be removed and why and so on.

We are simply talking about the fact that the Bush and Blair administration lied. Do you have the ability to see that this is another issue. Or do I have to explain it to you like to a 5 y.o.

We ALL watched TV and we saw the pictures Rumsfeld showed us, some satellite photos with wishy washy trucks that were moving around. Apart from that, he could´ve painted them himself.

Please understand we are not discussing about the reasons and if they were right or not. The simple fact is that it was said there are huge stockpiles of WMDs, its a threat to all the world, we have to go and find´em. There WEREN´T any. So that´s why those BASTARDS were intentionally lying. This is not a particular viewpoint. That´s just plain fact. NOBODY bought it when they were BLAMING the intelligence for that (again, Bastards).

STING2, on a personal note I can´t believe you are too stupid to understand that. I think you want to turn the attention away from the fact that some of your favorite politicians were OPENLY BETRAYING the free and democratic world they "intend to spread".

Stop talking like Nixon. Your posts sound like one of his half-hearted dementis.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 03:25 AM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Would the American people have supported going to war over broken resolutions and removal of Saddam without the US spoken threat that he had the capability to injure us and without the implied promise that this would be a piece of cake?

Maybe we would have, I don't know. Were we led by implication that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Were we so disappointed by our inability to get Osama that we were ready to kick some serious butt in a place we were pretty sure we could prevail?
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 03:31 AM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Didn't Tony Blair have to go on national tv and apologise because he lied and said the resolutions gave them legal backing to invade Iraq, when his advise all along was that they didn't?

STING, do you really think the average Joe in Middle America supported the Iraq war because of UN resolutions, or because the Bush Administration did a great job of scaring the bejesus out of tens of millions people who probably can't even locate Iraq on a map?
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 04:59 AM   #103
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
Didn't Tony Blair have to go on national tv and apologise because he lied and said the resolutions gave them legal backing to invade Iraq, when his advise all along was that they didn't?
I'm not aware of Blair having apologised. You may be thinking of the Attorney General's legal advice which was leaked to the media in the run up to the General Election. It appeared to suggest further resolutions were necessary.

The Attorney General has since claimed that interpretation of his memo is wrong and he never said such a thing. The whole thing is about as clear as mud to me at this point.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:08 AM   #104
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 06:37 AM
There's no need to personally insult people here, is there? I believe that's against the "rules"

Dicy Cheney on the other hand, what an idiot..

Cheney offended by Amnesty criticism
Rights group accuses U.S. of violations at Guantanamo Bay

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he was offended by Amnesty International's condemnation of the United States for what it called "serious human rights violations" at Guantanamo Bay.

"For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously," he said in an interview that aired Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

Amnesty International was scathing last week in its criticism of the way the United States has run the detention center at its naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"We have documented that the U.S. government is a leading purveyor and practitioner of the odious human rights violation," William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said Wednesday.

On its Web site, the London, England-based human rights group says: "As evidence of torture and widespread cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment mounts, it is more urgent than ever that the U.S. government bring the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and any other facilities it is operating outside the USA into full compliance with international law and standards. The only alternative is to close them down."

The vice president said the United States has freed millions of people from oppression.

"I think the fact of the matter is, the United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom, has liberated more people from tyranny over the course of the 20th century and up to the present day than any other nation in the history of the world," he said.

"Just in this administration, we've liberated 50 million people from the Taliban in Afghanistan and from Saddam Hussein in Iraq, two terribly repressive regimes that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their own people."

Cheney denied American wrongdoing at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, which Amnesty International compared to a "gulag."

"Guantanamo's been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. ... I think these people have been well treated, treated humanely and decently," Cheney said. "Occasionally there are allegations of mistreatment.

"But if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who has been inside and been released ... to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated."

Schulz responded to Cheney's comments: "It doesn't matter whether he takes Amnesty International seriously.

"He doesn't take torture seriously; he doesn't take the Geneva Convention seriously; he doesn't take due process rights seriously; and he doesn't take international law seriously.

"And that is more important than whether he takes Amnesty International seriously."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:13 AM   #105
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen

Schulz responded to Cheney's comments: "It doesn't matter whether he takes Amnesty International seriously.

"He doesn't take torture seriously; he doesn't take the Geneva Convention seriously; he doesn't take due process rights seriously; and he doesn't take international law seriously.

"And that is more important than whether he takes Amnesty International seriously."
Amen, brother.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com