The forgotton ones in Guantanamo without rights - Page 4 - 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 10-14-2003, 08:06 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:09 PM
Dreadsox,

"When is it appropriate in your mind to put them on trial? How much longer should they have to wait? In general I am supportive of your position, however, the war on terror, is potentially an never ending war. There is no clear enemy, where in a conventional war there is a begining a middle and an end. Where is the end to the war on terror? Is there an end? If not are we looking at detaining people forever?"

When the results of the trial and the process of the trial will not potentially in anyway interfere with the intelligence that is currently being gained from these individuals, then that should be the time for a trial. I do not know when that will occur, but I know that the safety of the American people is a higher priority over the speed at which any trial occurs for a potential terrorist, in my opinion.

Could we be detaining people forever without a trial? I hope not, but I cannot deny that it is a possibility although I think its remote.

Lets not forget that innocent people over the past two years have been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places as a result of necessary and just actions by members of the international community to insure peace, security, stability and prevent terror. These were accidents and we knew they would happen once military action began. But we also knew that the action had to be taken, otherwise the cost to innocent people around the world in a variety of ways would be far far greater.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-14-2003, 08:38 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:09 PM
Blacksword,

The safety and security of the people of the United States has a higher priority to any interpretation of the technical details of the law involving the trial and prosecution of terrorist. A trial not necessarily needed to prove someone is a terrorist. I have a friend that was involved in the detention and transportation of terrorist in Afghanistan. These individuals were prior to capture engaged in combat against US military personal including my friend. Their uniform was that of any terrorist, one that confuses the disinction between a terrorist and a civilian. What is not confusing is the actions that these individuals were engaged in, the same as any German soldier fighting US troops France in WWII.

The freedom of Americans and others is infringed on when the government fails to properly defend the country, here in the USA and abroad. The inalienable rights of any single individual cannot not be used to infringe upon the rights of millions of others. The values of America, chiefly the right to life, are being defended rather than being undermined.

Without National Security, the values any country holds dear cannot exist.

"If you wan't to prevent another 9/11 have your government cahnge it's policies to reflect the values written in it's charters, not hose of an expansionist stae preoccupied with it's own security to the exclusion of all others. It's is not your democracy and freedom the terroists hate it is the high handedness, autocracy, and general callousness of US foriegn policy they hate. These actions prove the terrorist's point and make wonderful propaganda. All your talk of democracy an d freedom means nothing in the face of Guantanamo."

This is the typical line that US policies cause terrorism. Its simply false. Bin Ladin does not give a shit about anyone in Guantanamo except for their value to his plans which have nothing to do with whether or not the USA has somehow been abusive in its foreign policy. The United States is not an expansionist State. The USA has not annexed any major piece of land since before 1945. The only exception might be land to bury US troops who lost their lives defending freedom and democracy through out the world.

Al Quada, the Taliban, Saddam and other terrorist and dictators, do not like US Foreign Policy, because it is a threat to their existence goals and prevents them from accomplishing their goals which our the opposite of US freedom and democracy.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-14-2003, 09:33 PM   #48
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
BonoVoxSupastar,

The journalist who have actually been to the camp did not describe many of the conditions you cite. If anything, I would say that the environment their currently in is sometimes a little lax.

But if you feel that the conditions and certain rights of these terrorist or prisoners is more important than certain other national security issues such as preventing the next 9/11 and the American's publics right to safety and security, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree. For me, a few potentially wrongful detentions is nothing compared to the death of 3,025 people in 90 minutes.

"But while you argue the point of National Security remember the fact that as we keep and treat more and more brothers and sons in this fashion we're creating more and more enemies."

Where is your evidence for this? How many terrorist attacks have occured inside the USA since 9/11?
Lax? Wow, I'm not sure where you got that from. I've seen the photos and in many articles that I've seen the journalist described it exactly how I stated, in fact I excluded certain items because I felt them to be too biased and somewhat circumstantial.

I also believe you to be putting words in my mouth. I nor anyone else in this thread have stated we believe the rights of these individuals to be more important than the security of others. I'm saying they are not 100% exclusive of each other. I think the government is completly removing and denying certain rights by giving them this new "illegal combatants" title and using National Security as their excuse. How would a fair trial endanger National Security? You haven't answered that question.

Where is the evidence of this?! Look at history. I didn't say any attacks have happened between now and then. But a gross negligence of the international law for human rights is not going to win us any friends. Look at history and tell me you've never seen anyone make enemies due to human rights violations. We've already had issues with Britian over some of there citizens. If you don't think this adds fuel to the fire for those who already do not like us then I think you're sadly mistaken.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-15-2003, 08:08 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:09 PM
BonoVoxSupastar,

"Lax? Wow, I'm not sure where you got that from. I've seen the photos and in many articles that I've seen the journalist described it exactly how I stated, in fact I excluded certain items because I felt them to be too biased and somewhat circumstantial."

The Journalist who went inside the Camp and reported what they saw last week really interested me. I thought it would be far more restrictive considering that at any time, one of these people could attack a guard. But perhaps they have the situation under control by some other means.

"I also believe you to be putting words in my mouth. I nor anyone else in this thread have stated we believe the rights of these individuals to be more important than the security of others. I'm saying they are not 100% exclusive of each other. I think the government is completly removing and denying certain rights by giving them this new "illegal combatants" title and using National Security as their excuse. How would a fair trial endanger National Security? You haven't answered that question."

First, no trial should be conducted while the services are actively getting intelligence from the prisoners which is preventing attacks and saving lives around the world. Just as military commanders would not return prisoners during a war, nor should terrorist be set free or have that potential when there are a part of ongoing intelligence operations which are saving peoples lives.

When the time comes for a trial, the problem is that individuals in which there is borderline evidence could get out, and then conduct more terrorist activities killing thousands of people. Such an event cannot be allowed to happen. National Security is the #1 priority.

"Where is the evidence of this?! Look at history. I didn't say any attacks have happened between now and then. But a gross negligence of the international law for human rights is not going to win us any friends. Look at history and tell me you've never seen anyone make enemies due to human rights violations. We've already had issues with Britian over some of there citizens. If you don't think this adds fuel to the fire for those who already do not like us then I think you're sadly mistaken."

Where is the evidence that the USA has grossly violated international laws and human rights, and that the USA has been attacked specifically because of that?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-15-2003, 10:26 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:09 AM
My problem is that we are not at war with a nation, we are at war with a concept, terrorism. I suppose Al-Qaeda, but the President did not declare War on Al-Qaeda, he said we were at war with terrorism.

I am concerned that this is so vague, we are not going to ever see them put on trial.

Thanks for answering my questions.

PEace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-16-2003, 12:24 AM   #51
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The Journalist who went inside the Camp and reported what they saw last week really interested me. I thought it would be far more restrictive considering that at any time, one of these people could attack a guard. But perhaps they have the situation under control by some other means.
The articles and photos I've seen all show prisoners shackled at hands and ankles with mittens on their hands. Kinda hard to attack a guard this way.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

First, no trial should be conducted while the services are actively getting intelligence from the prisoners which is preventing attacks and saving lives around the world. Just as military commanders would not return prisoners during a war, nor should terrorist be set free or have that potential when there are a part of ongoing intelligence operations which are saving peoples lives.

When the time comes for a trial, the problem is that individuals in which there is borderline evidence could get out, and then conduct more terrorist activities killing thousands of people. Such an event cannot be allowed to happen. National Security is the #1 priority.
So interogating ends once one is found guilty? If there is borderline evidence on an individual and two years hasn't produced any further evidence, than maybe our system has failed or there really isn't any real evidence. What's the time span of holding someone until further evidence comes about?



Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Where is the evidence that the USA has grossly violated international laws and human rights, and that the USA has been attacked specifically because of that?
Not allowing a mechanism of justice is evidence that the US has grossly violated international law. And if you don't think we're pissing off others by keeping these individuals in this fashion than I can't help you.

Dreadsox is right. We're fighting an idea. An idea that may never die. Bush is creating new definitions, definitions that don't work in the real world.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-16-2003, 06:36 AM   #52
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:09 PM
Quote:
The American Prison Camp

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/op...16THU1.html?th

The International Committee of the Red Cross recently took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the United States over the confinement of the roughly 660 detainees at the Guantánamo naval base in Cuba. After visiting the base, Red Cross officials said there was a "worrying deterioration" in the mental condition of the detainees, largely because they have no idea how long they will be held or what will happen to them.

Other reports are equally dismaying: there have been 32 suicide attempts by 27 detainees. And while it is true that there have been recent, worrying reports about infiltration — three staff members, a Muslim chaplain and two Arabic interpreters, have been charged with crimes ranging from disobeying orders to espionage — this does not relieve the administration of the obligation to treat the detainees with justice.

Why are the men still without trial, still without rights? The Bush administration has two justifications. One is, in essence, self-defense: in the war on terrorism, in which the security of the United States is in mortal danger, normal rules cannot apply. The other, more narrow, is about legality: the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not combatants in traditional or legal terms, and are therefore not eligible for the protections due to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

Both arguments miss the point. The men held at Guantánamo are prisoners of the United States. While they may not have the same rights as American citizens, they should be treated in the highest tradition of American justice. That means they must be given some forum in which to contest their imprisonment, and there must be reasonable rules and some individualized proof for the detentions to be upheld.

That the Pentagon should be allowed to run this prison camp in total secrecy and in utter disdain of what America stands for should be heavy on the conscience of all Americans, whether libertarian or liberal, Republican or Democrat. For this reason alone, the detainees should be brought to justice or released.

The justifications offered by the administration are equally unpersuasive. The argument that the detainees are not prisoners of war because they are not uniformed members of a regular armed force has no foundation in the Geneva Conventions.

As for the claim of self-defense, it simply cannot be applied indefinitely. We accept that there are extraordinary times — Sept. 11 was one of them — when a government must take extraordinary measures to protect the nation. But with Guantánamo, the administration has gone far beyond the needs of the moment, seeking to ensure in every way possible that the prisoners remain indefinitely beyond the reach of law or scrutiny.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-16-2003, 07:44 AM   #53
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I am concerned that this is so vague, we are not going to ever see them put on trial.
personally it seems to be that it's vague enough that when the trials do take place it will be almost impossible to see whether they really couldn't have taken place earlier

maybe it is a professional dysfunction that I have
but I don't like vague guidelines
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 10-29-2003, 05:05 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
Than please stop thinking that the western moral is better than moslim moral,..

How can someone say that he believe in justice for all humans and put people without any chance of a fair trail in camps. ( 103 people are under 15 years old )
Correction,...3 people under the age of 15
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 11-26-2003, 12:03 PM   #55
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 10:09 AM
Supreme Court will hear first appeals involving Guantanamo detainees
From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, November 11, 2003 Posted: 1:27 AM EST (0627 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the first test of the Bush administration's sweeping anti-terrorism policies, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear two appeals over whether hundreds of terrorist suspects in secret custody are being held unlawfully.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/10/sc...ees/index.html
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-04-2003, 05:59 PM   #56
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:09 AM
An initimate look
Please read it before you make a decision (ie Conserv vs Guardian). A veery interesting look. This is not to say that serious terrorists are not included in Gitmo

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...098604,00.html

People the law forgot

It is almost two years since the Guantanamo prison camp opened. Its purpose is to hold people seized in the 'war on terror' and defined by the Bush administration as enemy combatants - though many appear to have been bystanders to the conflict. Images of Camp Delta's orange-jumpsuited, manacled detainees have provoked international outrage. But the real horror they face isn't physical hardship, it is the threat of infinite confinement, without trial or access to legal representation. James Meek has spent the past month talking to former inmates and some of those involved in operating the Pentagon's Kafkaesque justice system. He has built an unprecedented picture of life on the base, which we present in this special issue

Continued in part two

Wednesday December 3, 2003
The Guardian

One summer's day in Cuba in 2002, a 31-year-old Pakistani teacher of English named Abdul Razaq noticed something unusual in the familiar patterns of movement among the orange-suited figures in the mesh cages on either side of him. Two or three cages along from his own, a fellow Pakistani prisoner, Shah Mohammed, was silently going about trying to hang himself from a sheet lashed to the mesh. He had the cloth around his throat and he was choking.
Other prisoners in neighbouring cells had noticed and, as they usually did when a detainee in the United States prison camp in Guantanamo Bay tried to kill himself, they raised a hue and cry in their many languages.

"First we shouted at Shah Mohammed to stop, but when he didn't, we called the guards," says Razaq, who was released from Guantanamo in July, and returned to his home town in October after three months' detention by the Pakistani authorities. "The guards came in and saved him. It was the first time he attempted this in my block, then he was taken to another place. He appeared to be unconscious."

It was one of four suicide attempts by Mohammed while he was in Guantanamo. He was released in May and lives in the Swat Valley, on the far side of the Malakand Hills from Peshawar, a few dozen miles from Razaq's home. It is a district of God-fearing, conservative, cricket-loving yeomen, who are passionate about their land and liberty, and protective of their right to bear arms; the fields of sugar cane and tobacco are well tended, and prices in the gun shops are more reasonable than their counterparts in America. In the mornings, a crocodile of small boys in black berets, walking to school, stretches for miles.

Mohammed, who is 23 and a baker by trade, is 5ft 3in and light on his feet. He has been having nightmares ever since he came back. His face peers out from behind a lustrous black beard and long hair like a child hiding between the winter coats in a wardrobe. In Kandahar and Guantanamo, he was interrogated 10 times.

His face only lights up when you ask about fishing. He has been doing a lot of it - mostly for trout - since his return. The other day he caught a five-pounder with his Japanese rod. "The biggest damage is to my brain. My physical and mental state isn't right. I'm a changed person," he says. "I don't laugh or enjoy myself much."

Asked why he tried to commit suicide so often, Mohammed is vague. He talks about worries over troubles at home; his mother's health, his brother's business, and "my own problems". But his attempts at self-harm at Guantanamo began after he was confined, without explanation, in a sealed punishment cell for a month - not, it seems, because he had broken camp rules, but because the American authorities had nowhere else to put him while they were finishing new facilities.

In India Block, as the block of punishment cells is known, "there were no windows. There were four walls and a roof made of tin, a light bulb and an air conditioner. They put the air conditioning on and it was extremely cold. They would take away the blanket in the morning and bring it back in the evening. I was kept in this room for one month. We'd ask them: 'Is this a sort of a punishment?' And the translator would say, 'No, this is being done on orders from the general.'"

...
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 12-05-2003, 05:03 PM   #57
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 05:09 PM
You know, it's a good they've got those volleyball courts. I am sure they've got a good round robin going. Are the volleyball rules in Afganistan different from the rules in America? If so, which rules do you think they use, did a journalist ask the players?

Maybe they'd like a curling rink put in.
__________________

__________________
iacrobat 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 11:09 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