Torturing of the captives

[Knute Rockne]

How come the resident liberals haven't commented on the US's treatment of the detainees in Cuba?

I was hoping to respond....

Maybe this post will incite some debate.

-Knute

 

[Lemonite]

Hahahaha.. I'm just sitting here shitting in my pants as I read this.. I too have been waiting for the resident liberals to chime in on this topic,

I think they know that there's no issue for them to actually step in on without looking like a fully ignorant jackass..

There's no torture going on in Cuba... There's a column in the Chicago Tribune about how good they're being treated.

Or better yet.. Acknowledging, by their 'Oh Poor Prisoners' sentiments, their own liberalness.. Which they hate.

Seriously.. Also Have you read anything on Enron in regards to the Bush Administration?.. Nooooooo.. They know there's nothing there either.

Waiting for the Day Clifford Jefferson Graduates,

L.Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-23-2002).]

 

[Zoomerang96]

well i really dont get why lemonite posted what he did. i dont fall into any political group, sue me.

torturing people is bullshit.

perhaps u2 should drop any ties with amnesty international because they are against it. oh but wait, those prisoners are sub-human! theyre not really pow (i tried to say this ironically, but in fact, the us wont even call them that!) so they dont deserve anything!

clearly, this is sickening. i believe in detainment, but what they are doing is rediculous.

i want to know why on earth those people are in cuba, when the us clearly has no use for that "communist-barbaric society." would the us allow cuba to do the same thing? i doubt it.

my point has been made, though it is unlikely that i came across clear, as i never know how to express myself.

 

[Knute Rockne]

Originally posted by Zoomerang96:
well i really dont get why lemonite posted what he did. i dont fall into any political group, sue me.

torturing people is bullshit.

perhaps u2 should drop any ties with amnesty international because they are against it. oh but wait, those prisoners are sub-human! theyre not really pow (i tried to say this ironically, but in fact, the us wont even call them that!) so they dont deserve anything!

clearly, this is sickening. i believe in detainment, but what they are doing is rediculous.

i want to know why on earth those people are in cuba, when the us clearly has no use for that "communist-barbaric society." would the us allow cuba to do the same thing? i doubt it.

my point has been made, though it is unlikely that i came across clear, as i never know how to express myself.

Re-read your post and tell me what the hell you are talking about.

It reminds me of your capitalism post. Are you sure you said goodbye to the teenage years?

-Knute

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Zoomerang96:
clearly, this is sickening. i believe in detainment, but what they are doing is rediculous.

What, exactly, are U.S. forces doing that qualifies as sickening, ridiculous torture?

 

[Kieran McConville]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
Hahahaha.. I'm just sitting here shitting in my pants as I read this.. I too have been waiting for the resident liberals to chime in on this topic,

I think they know that there's no issue for them to actually step in on without looking like a fully ignorant jackass..

There's no torture going on in Cuba... There's a column in the Chicago Tribune about how good they're being treated.

Or better yet.. Acknowledging, by their 'Oh Poor Prisoners' sentiments, their own liberalness.. Which they hate.

Seriously.. Also Have you read anything on Enron in regards to the Bush Administration?.. Nooooooo.. They know there's nothing there either.

Waiting for the Day Clifford Jefferson Graduates,

L.Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-23-2002).]

What the hell is this supposed to even mean?

You clearly know what everybody is going to say already, so why even drop in. Except to rabble-rouse, of course.

 

[wolfwill23]

What I find interesting about the debate of how these prisoners are being treated is that no one talks about what life would be like for them back home. In a US prison, they get three meals a day, state of the art medical attention (a couple are even being treated for TB), and they get a safe place to rest their American hating heads every night. I doubt that they would have ANY of the three in Afganistan.

 

[Holy John]

Me, I didn't post because there's nothing more we can do. Here, it's not worthy. Real life is not being played in this forum.

------------------
United Nations : www.un.org - UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) : www.unicef.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) : www.unesco.org

Ej?rcito Zapatista de Liberaci?n Nacional (EZLN) : www.ezln.org
"The one who governs with weapons is surely poor in ideas" - Marcos

Solidarit?s : <A HREF="http://www.solidarites.org

Parti" TARGET=_blank>www.solidarites.org

Parti</A> pour une Alternative Progressiste : www.parti-rap.org

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

considering the inflamatory nature of Lemonite's post, and the potential for some kind of explosion, I hesitate to push this issue any further. But I will hesitate no longer and just light the fuse.

I know Holy John doesn't want to post here because he feels it's futile. But I would like to be educated on this matter. I have heard snippets on the news that some people don't like how these prisoners are being treated, but that's about all I've heard. Have there been legitimate reports of torture? Is it just that we are holding them prisoner that is a problem? I truly don't know and would just like to get the scoop. I know death bear said something sickening is happening. What is it?

Thanks.

-Spiral Suitcase

------------------
"The Edge is a great singer. Let's get the Edge up here." - Bono, 9/23/97, Sarajevo

"Brian Eno. Edge." - Bono, 09/12/95, Modena

"Edge." - Bono, 05/01/2001, Minneapolis

"You made my day, now you have to sleep in it." - TMBG

 

[Lemonite]

Spiral.. Allow me to educate you for a bit.. With some explanation So I don't have to post twice.

About a week ago, a few pictures came out showing the detainees under the custody of America.

These pictures started a huuuge uproar in the media and in Britain... Here's why...

1. They were wearing what the media reported as hoods..
Actually these were snow caps.. woolies.. schnuggies.. whatever you call them, because it was cold on the plane

2. They were wearing earmuffs...
Again, because it was cold, and America didn't want them to freeze, but you couldn't tell what they were from the picture.

3. They were on their knees..
There's no circumstances surrounding this issue.. Perhaps they were praying, but again, there's nothing wrong even if they were on their knees

4. They were chained, Handcuffs or what not...
The liberal Media jumped on this as some sort of extraordinary treatment.. When in actuality, these detainees had already tried to attack the MP's, bitten one of them on their arm, and Threatened to kill the Americans...

Britain executives went into the prison camp the other day and talked to a few British detainees about their conditions, and they said there were no complaints.

Here is a little quote from our extremely geniusical Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,"

____________

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the United States is treating the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay "humanely," and in accordance with Geneva Conventions.

"No detainee has been harmed. No detainee has been mistreated in any way," the defense secretary said in Washington.

The detainees are receiving "warm showers, toiletries, water, clean clothes, blankets, regular, culturally appropriate meals, prayer mats, and the right to practice their religions," in addition to medical care, writing materials and visits from the International Red Cross, Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld said critics were not taking into account the danger detainees pose to military guards. He said that one detainee at Guantanamo has threatened to kill Americans, and another has bitten a U.S. military guard.

____________________________

I think what people don't understand is just how mean, evil, and well.. shitty these people are.. they want to kill each and every one of us.. Whether it be by smashing a baseball bat over our head.. slamming a plane into your house, or blow a puff of anthrax into your face.. They are being treated accordingly..

They have their basic human rights, they have their dignity... Chain link fences are present so as to keep the Americans safe.. And that is the first priority.. they are being more than accomodated due to the danger they present our men.

Someone above posted how that 'Real life doesnt occur in this forum'.. I think we all realize that.. This is just a place to discuss it.. talk about what's happening in the real world.. I'm expecting to see a petition up soon headlined by you to Get rid of this forum..cuz Apparently.. .this forum is worthless.


L. Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-24-2002).]

 

[melon]

You know, the trouble with this is that the U.S. wishes to carry this out in secret. What the fuck do you expect? Do you really think the world is going to trust someone who carries out secret trials? And that, somehow, if Dubya's administration states that they're being treated well, on the basis of his words alone without showing evidence, that people are just going to shut up?

Sorry, life doesn't work that way. If Bush wishes to run this war like a Stalinist puppet trial, then he had better be ready for the repercussions.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[U2Bama]

Melon:

Do you suggest he run it like the O.J. Simpson trial, with Court TV and all that on hand? Maybe it would give the detainees a chance to "beat the system" despite their guilt as O.J. did.

~U2Alabama

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

Lemonite, thanks for the info.
Melon, I understand that secrecy begets suspicion. But what I was referring to (and what this thread is about) is not concerns about secret trials, but about how the prisoners are being treated. If there's nothing beyond what Lemonite described, I don't see any problems. And if the British have been to the prison camp and spoken to detainees...it doesn't sound that secret to me. It certainly doesn't sound "sickening" or "ridiculous". Am I missing something. Is Lemonite deceiving me??

The trials are a whole other bowl of soup. I hope we can strike some kind of balance between "Stalinist puppet trial" and internationally televised court-room entertainment.

[This message has been edited by Spiral_Staircase (edited 01-24-2002).]

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by Diamond The U2 Patriot:
And there accommadations were a bitmore meager then they had anticipated..

Dilbert would kill for an 8' by 8' outdoor cell.

 

[nintendan]

The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions, the laws governing the treatment of persons captured during armed conflict. Every captured fighter is entitled to humane treatment, understood at a minimum to include basic shelter, clothing, food and medical attention. In addition, no detainee - even if suspected of war crimes such as the murder of civilians - may be subjected to torture, corporal punishment, or humiliating or degrading treatment. If they are tried for crimes, the trials must satisfy certain basic fair trial guarantees.

Prisoners of war are entitled to further protections, commensurate with respect for their military status as soldiers. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions provide that prisoners of war must be quartered in conditions that meet the same general standards as the quarters available to the captor's forces, e.g. the U.S. armed forces.

Not all of the detainees shipped to Cuba are considered POWs. Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are POWs if they are members of an adversary state's armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war.

Most members of al-Qaida, wearing no insignia or abiding by the laws of war, would probably not qualify as prisoners of war. But Taliban soldiers, whether Afghan or foreign, comprised the armed forces of Afghanistan and should be entitled to POW status. If there is doubt about anyone's status as a prisoner of war, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise. To our knowledge, no tribunals have made any such determinations.

Which brings us back to the cages in Cuba. The United States would never house members of its armed forces in chain-link cages, nor would it accept such treatment for any of its soldiers captured by enemy forces. Such conditions are simply unacceptable for anyone, much less people entitled to be treated as POWs.

It may be difficult for Americans who have lived through the horror of Sept. 11 and its aftermath to accept the idea that anyone captured during the fighting in Afghanistan has basic rights that must be respected. But to think otherwise is to accept the values of terrorism. Those who were willing to send airplanes into office buildings deny the fundamental dignity and human rights possessed by every human being -even one's enemy.

In fighting terrorism, the United States must show that it operates with a different set of values, the values affirmed by international human rights and humanitarian law.

 

[sv]

As usual, the people who profess themselves to be the most outraged at any challenge to "the American way", are the least bothered by the complete denial of very basic (and what in my former naivety I used to consider very American) protections for foreigners and people they think (based on their complete review of the evidence from 1000 miles away from an 8th-hand source) are guilty: innocence until guilt is proven, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, entitlement to a fair trial (so we should have just shot O.J. without a trial, U2Bama?), the right to legal representation.

Regarding the 2000 immigrants who have been "disappeared" indefinitely (apparently)by the U.S. government without legal representation (a separate issue), it seems to me that jailing someone arbitratily upon the whim of the government is what the Bill of Rights was trying to prevent. It's hard to believe that all 2000 were jailed under any realistic suspicion of terrorism.

As a side issue, I think people need to quit calling themselves "conservatives" and "liberals". Those are very simplistic categories that don't do justice to anyone's beliefs.

If you want to be simplistic, try this: either you believe everyone (yes, including non-whites, Muslims, Arabs, football players, defendants not yet proven to have committed any crime, everyone) should receive basic human rights or you don't. I do.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Mark Steyn wrote an excellent article in reply to the British who are whining and moaning over the "torture" of U.S. detainees:

"How ridiculous can you guys get"

An excerpt? I thought you'd never ask!

So take it from me, Don Rumsfeld?s Club Fed huts are cool in the day and balmy at night. They?re a lot more comfortable than the windowless ?concrete coffins? of Belmarsh in which your terrorist suspects are banged up 22 hours a day. True, it?s a shame they have to have wraparound wire mesh to spoil the view, and there are no banana daiquiris from room service, but the idea is (in case you?ve forgotten) that they?re meant to be prisoners. And, unlike the three-to-a-cell arrangements in, say, Barlinnie, the Talebannies each have a room of their own, so they won?t be taking it up the keister from Butch every night. They get three square meals a day, thrice-daily opportunities for showers, calls to prayer, copies of the Koran, a prayer mat ? all part of a regime the Mirror calls ?a sick attempt to appeal to the worst redneck prejudices?.

It?s correct that, for hygiene purposes, they were shaved, which was ?culturally inappropriate?. But then, if the US wanted to be culturally appropriate, they?d herd ?em on to a soccer pitch and stone ?em to death as half-time entertainment. As to whether or not they are prisoners of war, there is a legitimate difference of opinion on their status: you can?t ask them for name, rank and serial number, because the last two they lack and, if Richard Reid is anything to go by, they keep a handy stack of spare monikers. This is new territory. But surely the Fleet Street whingers must know, if only from the testimony of their fellow Britons among the inmates, that there is no ?torture? (the Mail on Sunday), not even by the weather.

 

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by sv:
entitlement to a fair trial (so we should have just shot O.J. without a trial, U2Bama?)

DO NOT put words in my mouth, sv. NOWHERE did I imply that O.J. should have been shot for his murder of 2 people; I merely asked melon if he thought an alternate approach to potential trials of the detainees would be a media spectacle like the O.J. Simpson trial. If you cannot see that trial for the media spectacle that it was, then you must not have been around when it occurred.

How does the lack of a media spectacle automatically mean that the accused will be shot without a trial? Can you point out to me where I implied this or suggested it for O.J., or did you just drop that in there as a show of YOUR IGNORANCE?

 

[wolfwill23]

To the people who think these people are being mistreated, answer one question for me. Would these people be living this good in their own country?

This is probably like a vacation for them. Hot, running water, three meals a day, and free medical care.

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by sv:

Regarding the 2000 immigrants who have been "disappeared" indefinitely (apparently)by the U.S. government without legal representation (a separate issue), it seems to me that jailing someone arbitratily upon the whim of the government is what the Bill of Rights was trying to prevent. It's hard to believe that all 2000 were jailed under any realistic suspicion of terrorism.

Granted a large number of them probably did not have Arabic flight manuals and box cutters on their persons when they were apprehended, but it isn't too hard to imagine them being arrested for things like illegal passports and such.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 01-24-2002).]

 

[Anthony]

I hate to sound cold-blooded, but what on Earth is the big deal? Is there really any actual proof of what is going on? There seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding this, and I can remember the British government being distressed about it, until we sent in a team or something that said everything was alright. Maybe someone can prove me wrong, but things simply don't look so bad over there.

Ant.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Who here has actual evidence that any detainess are being mistreated? Perhaps the same people who thought that Australia was defying every human rights act since Eve ate the apple I reckon.

Very interesting comaprisons.

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase:


The trials are a whole other bowl of soup. I hope we can strike some kind of balance between "Stalinist puppet trial" and internationally televised court-room entertainment.

Such a balance is not easily achieved.

There is no need for the public to know all the particulars of these trials, and it is quite possible that some of the US's evidence, were it to be released to the public, would create a security hazard.

On the other hand, the public needs some assurance that the trials are being conducted fairly.

Perhaps the trials should be conducted in secret by a neutral country. Just a thought.

 

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

Heard thru my sources some of the detainees DID NOT like their Fruit Loops they were having for breakfast and their Ensure Power Bars for lunch.

And there accommadations were a bitmore meager then they had anticipated..

Late-
DB9

------------------
"...The big guy is made of STEEL." - Bono as we stood together on stage at Boston #4, June 9th, 2001.

---
-curious? click
links for
Bono/Dimon-
Bos.4 Story
Pics..

http://www.arizonaautoweb.com/bono/

http://members.aol.com/diamondbruno9/

 

[Klodomir]

I haven't heard anything shocking, but it's fair enough that the allies are asking questions.

Btw, may I remind everybody that this thread was started not by the usual bleeding-heart suspects but by someone who wanted an argument?

It really is a non-issue at the moment.

 

[sv]

U2Bama -

If you calm down long enough to read what I wrote, you will see that actually I asked you a question (hence the question mark). I didn't attribute any statement to you.

Here's your quote verbatim: "Do you suggest he run it like the O.J. Simpson trial, with Court TV and all that on hand? Maybe it would give the detainees a chance to 'beat the system' despite their guilt as O.J. did."

Clearly there's an implication (to put it mildly) here that the U.S. court system would be insufficient to try the detainees, as even guilty ones might be able to "beat the system". But (and as before, the question mark at the end of this following phrase means this is a question, not a putting-words-in-your-mouth offense) is the proper solution to deny these people a fair trial based upon a presumption of innocence? I would say no.

As for my "not being around" for the O.J. trial, as it turns out I lived in Brentwood, CA at the time. Nicole's condo was 2 1/2 blocks from my place. Which doesn't make me an expert but at least we can dispense with the suggestion that I wasn't around.

I would argue that a media spectacle trial is a hell of a lot more likely to be FAIR than a secret trial or no trial, with no legal representation for the defendant.

As for why the O.J. trial ended up in a verdict which appears to many people incorrect, I have a few things to say. 1) Despite what the media has presented to us, we really don't know for 100% sure that O.J. did it, though I agree it's pretty damned likely; 2) The reason we don't know is that much of the key evidence was provided by LAPD officers of very questionable credibility - in fact, the tendency of these officers to "convict" people (especially black people) they arrest is EXACTLY WHAT THE U.S. IS DOING, and is a large reason why the jury was biased towards acquitting O.J.; and 3) And basically a contributing factor to O.J. getting off was the fact that in our rather unfair system, the quality of one's court representation is determined by how much money one has. O.J. was able to buy the best lawyers with the best contacts, to hire independent entities to examine and challenge every single piece of evidence, and to use every legal procedural maneuver to his benefit. When all you need is the tiniest bit of doubt to acquit, that makes a big difference. I think it's safe to say that Joe Schmo from South Central wouldn't have had these opportunities to defend himself.

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by sv:


As for why the O.J. trial ended up in a verdict which appears to many people incorrect, I have a few things to say. 1) Despite what the media has presented to us, we really don't know for 100% sure that O.J. did it, though I agree it's pretty damned likely; 2) The reason we don't know is that much of the key evidence was provided by LAPD officers of very questionable credibility - in fact, the tendency of these officers to "convict" people (especially black people) they arrest is EXACTLY WHAT THE U.S. IS DOING, and is a large reason why the jury was biased towards acquitting O.J.;

Really? Perhaps my memory is hazy, but there was plenty of blood (OJ's and the victims', IIRC) splattered around the inside of OJ's car and clothes. The only piece of evidence OJ managed to lose was the actual weapon, and a shopkeeper did testify that OJ bought a huge knife shortly before the murders occurred. I thought the reason OJ won was because (1) Mark Fuhrman is a racist idiot and (2) Christopher Darden completely botched the glove demonstration (he should have known that the moisture-shrunken glove would have been too small when fitted over a safety glove fitted over OJ's hand). Also remember that OJ lost the civil "wrongful death" lawsuit.

3) And basically a contributing factor to O.J. getting off was the fact that in our rather unfair system, the quality of one's court representation is determined by how much money one has. O.J. was able to buy the best lawyers with the best contacts, to hire independent entities to examine and challenge every single piece of evidence, and to use every legal procedural maneuver to his benefit. When all you need is the tiniest bit of doubt to acquit, that makes a big difference. I think it's safe to say that Joe Schmo from South Central wouldn't have had these opportunities to defend himself.

Are you arguing that lack of quality legal representation makes it harder for an innocent defendant to be acquitted? I would instead argue the inverse--superstar legal representation makes it easier for a guilty defendant to be acquitted. In theory, neither OJ Simpson nor Joe Schmo gets arrested *and* sent to trial by a grand jury unless there's some pretty compelling evidence.

I have no idea how this will all translate to the trials of captured Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, though. It's worth pointing out that there is very little precedent for how such trials should be conducted, since al-Qaeda is an independent organization and the Taliban is/was a government that n-2 of the countries of the world do not recognize as legitimate.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 01-25-2002).]

 

[sv]

Speedracer -

I agree OJ was probably (99%) guilty. But when you're on a jury and a man's life is in your hands, possibly you require more than 99% to convict. I'd say there's definitely 1% doubt that OJ did it, given that much of the seemingly hard evidence could have been doctored (and the LAPD, in particular, has a distinguished history of doing so). That's what I meant when I said we really don't know FOR SURE if he did it.

I'm arguing that both cases are true: people with court-appointed defenders are much more likely to be convicted than those with private attorneys, whether they are innocent or guilty in truth. Also, those with outstanding legal representation and more importantly the financial resources to use it properly are much more likely to be acquitted.

Interesting: when we want to justify the bombing of Afghani civilians, we say that the Taliban were their government so it's OK. But when we want to deny Taliban members Geneva convention POW/human rights, it was an illegitimate government and so the detainees have no legal status. Neato.

 

[sv]

WildHoneyAlways, I agree that there is a difference between human rights and the rights of American citizens. But my understanding was that the U.S. believes that the right to a fair trial with legal representation was something that should be applied to all. Certainly the U.S. uses this as diplomatic ammunition against its enemies all the time - but apparently talking the talk and walking the walk are very different things.

The problem is that you just cannot assume someone is guilty because the U.S. military,or the President, or U.S. intelligence agencies say so. They lie. All the time. They have everything in the world to gain by acting like they are bringing the culprits of 9-11 to justice - politically, economically, militarily.

People are innocent until PROVEN guilty - not until someone stronger than them says they're guilty.

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by sv:


Interesting: when we want to justify the bombing of Afghani civilians, we say that the Taliban were their government so it's OK. But when we want to deny Taliban members Geneva convention POW/human rights, it was an illegitimate government and so the detainees have no legal status. Neato.

I must have pointed this out to you before, but I'll say it again.

Nobody that I know has argued here that killing Afghanistani civilians is justified because they were complicit in the crimes of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

I and others have argued that it is justified because it is an inevitable side effect of the military campaign to remove the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and that the good that will come from removing the Taliban and al-Qaeda makes the killing of these civilians acceptable.

Now you and others have argued that these military objectives can be accomplished without killing Afghanistani civilians, or that these military objectives do not justify killing civilians. Fine.

But this is at least the third time that you have misrepresented my views on the matter. Please stop.

That is all.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 01-25-2002).]