Five years on

[el Chi]

Yes kids, it's five years since Camp X-Ray was started in Guantanamo Bay.
Amnesty International made this protest at the US embassy in London today.

For five years, basic human and legal rights have been torn up and thrown out the window and we have to ask: What has it achieved?
Is it better to be safe than sorry, no matter what the cost?
If so, why bother having rights in the first place?

Maybe the flagrant ignorance of international law has actually prevented some terrorist action.
Maybe many innocent people have had their lives destroyed for no reason at all.

 

[JNightshade]

Or maybe our government is just a corrupt cesspool... :/
EDIT: my government, that is. Dunno about you Brits.

 

[gick]

Or maybe our government is just a corrupt cesspool... :/
EDIT: my government, that is. Dunno about you Brits.

I'd say we have the same problem. Just to a lesser extent.

 

[15357]

legal rights

Wrong. Geneva doesn't count towards spies and ununiformed combatants.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Though i disagree with Guantanamo Bay, and consider it one of the shames of the West, the discussion isnt as Black&White.
Lets not forget Human Rights, Geneva convention etc are all thrown out the door when it comes to the opponents of the US and its allies.
Aren't we just a tad naive to be thinking if 1 side totally butt ****s the human rights law, in time the other will 2? Strategically there's little other way to go, but it sadly only contributes to a spiral that will only cause more violence.

Again, I'm not justifying it, i just think its an interesting debate, since this situation is frustrating.

 

[Solaris]

Though i disagree with Guantanamo Bay, and consider it one of the shames of the West, the discussion isnt as Black&White.
Lets not forget Human Rights, Geneva convention etc are all thrown out the door when it comes to the opponents of the US and its allies.
Aren't we just a tad naive to be thinking if 1 side totally butt ****s the human rights law, in time the other will 2? Strategically there's little other way to go, but it sadly only contributes to a spiral that will only cause more violence.

Again, I'm not justifying it, i just think its an interesting debate, since this situation is frustrating.

???

 

[el Chi]

Wrong. Geneva doesn't count towards spies and ununiformed combatants.

They are held for an indefinite period of time without trial, uninformed of the specific suspicions those who are holding them have.
That is a contravention of basic legal rights, maybe not under the Geneva convention but certainly under UK law (eight prisoners at X-Ray are Brits) and, I would imagine, most other democracies.
Or at least they were.
Also

Strategically there's little other way to go, but it sadly only contributes to a spiral that will only cause more violence.

I wouldn't say there's no other way to go, as such.
I understand why they've done it, but I don't agree with it.
I fear it probably fosters as much contempt as it does prevent danger.
It certainly does not

 

[15357]

They are held for an indefinite period of time without trial, uninformed of the specific suspicions those who are holding them have.
That is a contravention of basic legal rights, maybe not under the Geneva convention but certainly under UK law (eight prisoners at X-Ray are Brits) and, I would imagine, most other democracies.
Or at least they were.
Also

I don't know much about the UK constitution, but I'd suspect that, like most nations, it excepts those legal rights in wartime.

 

[Ome_Vince]

???

Doesn't surprise me you dont understand that post.
Try re-reading it an X couple of times -> it might help.

 

[el Chi]

I don't know much about the UK constitution, but I'd suspect that, like most nations, it excepts those legal rights in wartime.

1. We don't have a formal constitution as such.
2. We're talking about Guantanamo Bay, which is in US territory in Cuba, not the UK.
3. Are you genuinely sure that every democracy throws out all its basic legal statutes during wartime? I know the rules must change with the circumstances, but this is something entirely different.

 

[Solaris]

Doesn't surprise me you dont understand that post.
Try re-reading it an X couple of times -> it might help.

The post doesn't make any sense.

 

[Stigmata]

It really doesn't, Vince. Only the first two sentences make sense, but then you go on and contradict yourself two or three times.

 

[CptStern]

Wrong. Geneva doesn't count towards spies and ununiformed combatants.

you are wrong ..the geneva accords covers all detainees regardless of standing ..even the bush admin has admitted as much (whether they choose to ignore international laws and treaties is another matter all together)

 

[Ome_Vince]

@Solaris and Stigmata
heh, well let me clarify the post then: What I'm saying is the situation is not black&white, and theres a pretty interesting discussion tied to how you could fight this. What i said was:
-I disagree with Guantanamo Bay and think its the shame of the Western World.
-Its not black&white, that we shouldn't be surprised or naive to think that if 1 side starts shitting all over the Geneva convention and every human rights the other soon will follow.
-Strategically there's little else you can do in such a situation, so the response doesn't surprise me, because clearly 1 side is using the rules against you. You start responding by shitting on the rules yourself, and in some cases it seems to "work" for a littler bit (short term).
-Nevertheless, Sad but true, this response only leads to further spiraling of violence and even more "Terrorists".

So in short: 1 side starts using the rules against you, naturally you start thrashing the rules as well in an attempt to counter this. Result, certain populations start hating you more = more violence.

Its not contradicting, and everybody knows this, what I'm trying to see is what people think on a global scale how you could fight these tactics without spiraling it further, which is pretty dam hard to do => there's no clearcut answer, since thats the strength of 4th generation warfare.

 

[CptStern]

reading some of the replies here you'd think that the use of torture by the US started with gitmo when it couldnt be further from the truth ..the US has always used torture as a means of interogation ..the "war on terror" (how ironic) is the first time it's been institutionalised on a massive scale but it's been used throughout the 20th century and beyond

I mean come on guys they have a school for teaching torture/terrorism in Fort Benning Georgia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas


there's even a few formerly classified field manuals for operatives
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/#hre
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/#kubark


...surely you dont believe in that hollywood nonsense where the US are always the good guys ...

 

[Ome_Vince]

rightfully so, but surely some CIA or Green Beret handbooks didn't spawn this shithole we're in today...
And I'm not just referring to 9/11, all over the world there's 4th generation warfare for whatever reason.

 

[CptStern]

no but the dogma/ideology that has been around for over half a century certainly helped create this current situation

 

[Solaris]

Ome_Vince, how are the other side shitting on the rules exactly?

And strategically, wouldn't it make sense just to have all suspects shot on site? Why bother sending them to gitmo, just have em shot.

 

[Ome_Vince]

How? You have to actually ask how?
jeez, for starters, read international law, Geneva convention very carefully, then look at the actions and strategies (in general 4th generation warfare) of "the other side".
Amazing you'd even have the balls to ask "how".

@Stern,
9/11 and its aftermath happened due to the US support of Israel and its actions in the MidEast, not whether or not some US Green Berrets or CIA operative use torture to get information.
Though now indeed Guantanamo Bay is doing its part in generating a lot of terrorism, because its organized, larger in scale, and pretty much "out in the open" and the media loves it.

 

[Solaris]

That's the thing though isn't it.

There is no other side, the enemys of the occupation are very diverse, employing different tactics with different aims it's impossible to group them all under 'the enemy' and then say 'the enemy do this... '

 

[Ome_Vince]

Thats right, they are not all bound as one or even to 1 specific faith or cause, its groups of guerrillas fighting for either wacky religious causes or territorial ones.
Yet their effects are great, and their tactics more than illegal in every sense.
Funny you would mention occupation, while its true in a lot of terrorism/freedom fighter cases its certain groups fighting for separation or end of an occupation, there are also plenty of border disputes, spreading of Sharia/other religious and/or political matters that are attempted to be solved through this tactic.
Just open up a history book and read. The only thing thats changed is the current hype and mass effect in the media, making this the most powerful method of war ever.
O, and naturally you would like a source: here's a group of naturally harmless lefties that were obviously "merely fighting occupation" aye

 

[CptStern]

How? You have to actually ask how?
jeez, for starters, read international law, Geneva convention very carefully, then look at the actions and strategies (in general 4th generation warfare) of "the other side".
Amazing you'd even have the balls to ask "how".

@Stern,
9/11 and its aftermath happened due to the US support of Israel and its actions in the MidEast, not whether or not some US Green Berrets or CIA operative use torture to get information.
Though now indeed Guantanamo Bay is doing its part in generating a lot of terrorism, because its organized, larger in scale, and pretty much "out in the open" and the media loves it.

you're not reading betwen the lines ..the foreign policy that was in place when those torure manuals were put into effect is the same one that's in place today ..torture is just a by product of US foreign policy


also terrorist organisations are not bound by the geneva accords ..since they're not recognised as sovereign states they cant be signatories to the accords ..the US on the other hand helped write those same accords and are signatories to the agreement therefore they are bound those same laws

 

[Ome_Vince]

1 - True, though its not relevant to the global terrorism issue. As we were discussing the cause of terrorism, which is hardly due to these manuals. Guantanamo Bay however, is a different story.

2 - Whether or not terrorists sign any convention doesn't change the fact that their methods are illegal. Nation/Organization X committing genocide cant be excused by international law because they didn't sign any convention. Didn't Milosovich claim he didn't not recognize the International Court? Didn't actually work out for him, and if the KKK starts mass-murdering Black people they will be hunted down too.
Terrorists are indeed no sovereign countries, yet they still are using beyond illegal methods to obtain their goals. They are still humans, who are bound to International law...
The only natural to-be-expected response to such tactics is usage of illegal methods by their opponents. This has been the case in virtually every terrorism situation. We can't simply shift the blame or overlook the bigger issues at hand as to solely focus on the response of in this case the US..

I'm not trying to debate how wonderful or terrible the US is. I'm trying to get at what I was wondering, and thats how do people think such situations can effectively be fought without spiraling downwards. Thinking about it, there's no real clear-cut answer.
I read an article once which claimed to "ignore" terrorists in the media, and in time they will lose their public support, which is key to their survival, and when this happens, that organization will slowly fade away. In these cases, i doubt it would work though.
Many get funded royally by dubious countries and/or people, and in many cases religious or extreme political reasons keeps their vision alive for a very long time.
Nevertheless, large military action is probably the worst thing you could do. Perhaps a combination of /ignore, PR campaigns to destroy public support and small special forces-scale operations to remove the heads.
Ah well.

 

[CptStern]

1 - True, though its not relevant to the global terrorism issue. As we were discussing the cause of terrorism, which is hardly due to these manuals. Guantanamo Bay however, is a different story.

torture manuals/toture and gitmo are part and parcel of US foreign polic ..and we cant come up with an explanation for the causes of terrorism unless it's in a generalised way: inequality is the root cause. Each group fights for different objectives, even their methodologies are different as some are indistinguiable from common criminality (ie: extortion, kidnapping for ransom etc)

2 - Whether or not terrorists sign any convention doesn't change the fact that their methods are illegal.

but only within the borders where the crime is commited as it's criminal activity ..since they have no status as a nation they are bound by international law

Nation/Organization X committing genocide cant be excused by international law because they didn't sign any convention.

of course not, but that's not what we're talking about ..terrorists are no more a nation than you or I are

Didn't Milosovich claim he didn't not recognize the International Court? Didn't actually work out for him

the US doesnt recognice the International Criminal Court ..doesnt mean they couldnt be accused/charged of crimes against internatonal law ..of course they have no way of enforcing their laws except through the UN security coucil

and if the KKK starts mass-murdering Black people they will be hunted down too.

because local state and federal laws ...you wont see UN troops being sent in to capture the KKK for crimes against humanity

Terrorists are indeed no sovereign countries, yet they still are using beyond illegal methods to obtain their goals.

of course, they're terrorists ..terrorism is illegal

They are still humans, who are bound to International law...

I think you mean humanitarian law but no on both counts ...only nation states (also multinat corporations, individuals are naturally the focus of each case as a country cannot stand trial ..only it's leaders) are bound by international law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#Public_international_law.27s_scope

The only natural to-be-expected response to such tactics is usage of illegal methods by their opponents.

how is stooping to the level of your enemy by engaging in criminality even the playing field? again nation states have an obligation to adhere to international law at all times ..there are no "special circumstances" for criminality; it blurs the line between terrorist and law enforcer ..however in reality this line is crossed by nation states into criminality on a continual basis ..that doesnt justify the use of torture or any other criminality

This has been the case in virtually every terrorism situation. We can't simply shift the blame or overlook the bigger issues at hand as to solely focus on the response of in this case the US..

1. gitmo is run by the US
2. torture was used before the threat of terrorism
3. only 10 people have ever been charged and not one has been found guilty: illegal detainmnet = contrary to international law = criminality ..same thing as kidnapping only more sanitized

I'm trying to get at what I was wondering, and thats how do people think such situations can effectively be fought without spiraling downwards. Thinking about it, there's no real clear-cut answer.

there's a very clear cut answer that's completely ignored and is on the verge of being erased from the history books: the illegal invasion and occupation of iraq ..iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism ..once again US foreign policy perpetuates terrorism ..here read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)
http://www.commondreams.org/views/050400-103.htm

I read an article once which claimed to "ignore" terrorists in the media, and in time they will lose their public support, which is key to their survival, and when this happens, that organization will slowly fade away. In these cases, i doubt it would work though.
Many get funded royally by dubious countries and/or people, and in many cases religious or extreme political reasons keeps their vision alive for a very long time.
Nevertheless, large military action is probably the worst thing you could do. Perhaps a combination of /ignore, PR campaigns to destroy public support and small special forces-scale operations to remove the heads.
Ah well.

hard to ignore 3000 civilians a month dying in iraq from violence caused by a breakdown in law and order as a result of the US invasion/occupation ..under the geneva accords as the occupying nation the US has a responsibility to provide security within their jurisdiction; legally and within the boundaries of the accords and international law

 

[Ome_Vince]

torture manuals/toture and gitmo are part and parcel of US foreign polic ..and we cant come up with an explanation for the causes of terrorism unless it's in a generalised way: inequality is the root cause. Each group fights for different objectives, even their methodologies are different as some are indistinguiable from common criminality (ie: extortion, kidnapping for ransom etc)

There is no proof or theory that this terrorism is linked to torture of several parts of the the US CIA or Green Berets. Even Mr Bin Laden disagrees.
The reasons given for any terrorist attack towards any US target are almost always its foreign policy towards Israel and its basis in the MidEast.
On top of that there are more than plenty of Mideast terrorism cases where the US isn't even part of the matter. As i mentioned before, any religious, occupation or other political ideal often spawns terrorism.
Guantanamo Bay is where it is changing.

but only within the borders where the crime is commited as it's criminal activity ..since they have no status as a nation they are bound by international law

So if the genocide or international crime is commited in a country which hasn't signed any accord its considered void? Or what are you saying here.
Worldwide any crime against humanity is considered a crime, no matter how big an asshole the opponent is.
Having signed the accords or not has no impact on responsibility and liability of the act.
Don't nitpick the point, its illegal and inhuman according to every international law signed or not.
Terrorism is also not something "local police should take care of" like regular crime, since in many cases its sponsored by countries and international. I'm sure Pakistan will be more than pleased to arrest its own sponsored and armed militia used to bomb India.

of course not, but that's not what we're talking about ..terrorists are no more a nation than you or I are

But we're not talking nations, we're talking opponents, opponents are responsible for their actions, they do not have to be nations to be responsible for their actions/beliefs.

the US doesnt recognice the International Criminal Court ..doesnt mean they couldnt be accused/charged of crimes against internatonal law ..of course they have no way of enforcing their laws except through the UN security coucil

True, yet how does that link to terrorists? Terrorism is as old as warfare is, only recently the media is hyped about it, since the largest terrorist attack = 9/11 and its global aftermath leading to the July and Madrid bombings.

because local state and federal laws ...you wont see UN troops being sent in to capture the KKK for crimes against humanity

KKK is an internal matter which Police can "solve". If they become violent and in fact terrorists, the country they're in will internally solve it. But be sure its not going to be by the book, since fighting these tactics is not a clearcut job.
Now terrorism in the case of 9/11 or country vs country is something else, thats international and involves multiple nations who chose this method to fight each other (like Pakistan). Now in the case of 9/11 its an international organization not-linked to any specific country fighting multiple countries using illegal methods.
The whole discussion I'm trying to get at is how to combat this without becoming "a beast yourself".

of course, they're terrorists ..terrorism is illegal

No shit? What is the point you're trying to make with this: because terrorists are not a nation, we should not care and look at the US instead of the terrorists? We should look at both, and see how the problem could be solved. The attack on the US on 9/11 swayed the favor to right-winged action. The US would not be in Iraq, or Afghanistan and there would not be a Guantanamo Bay if it weren't for the 9/11 attack. What this means is that the US is simply adjusting to its enemy, which is disagree with (As mentioned countless times before).

I think you mean humanitarian law but no on both counts ...only nation states (also multinat corporations, individuals are naturally the focus of each case as a country cannot stand trial ..only it's leaders) are bound by international law

Everybody can stand trial. In the Yugoslavia case, not only its leaders, but also plenty of military officials involved in genocide had to stand trial. Just as Muslim leaders in Darfur should actually be forced to stand trial for genocide.
When an organization terrorizes multiple countries it becomes an international matter, and those people are liable to stand trial in the international courts. I'm sure if France captures Bin Laden they'll send him to the courts in Den Haag on accounts of mass-terrorism.

how is stooping to the level of your enemy by engaging in criminality even the playing field? again nation states have an obligation to adhere to international law at all times ..there are no "special circumstances" for criminality; it blurs the line between terrorist and law enforcer ..however in reality this line is crossed by nation states into criminality on a continual basis ..that doesnt justify the use of torture or any other criminality

Dont overlook my post please, i never said engaging your enemy on his/her level/method is the way to go.

1. gitmo is run by the US
2. torture was used before the threat of terrorism
3. only 10 people have ever been charged and not one has been found guilty: illegal detainmnet = contrary to international law = criminality ..same thing as kidnapping only more sanitized

No doubt Guantanamo Bay is against international law, why do you keep acting as if I'm supporting it? HELLOOO??
Many terrorists commit crimes for any political and/or religious reasons, just as that "Rote Armee Fractione", and in the case of US-Mideast terrorism , threat of terrorism has been around for some time, and is not linked or spawned by any US handbook of torture, or usage of torture by military/CIA personnel.
More importantly. until Bin Laden thought it was a good idea to fly planes into the WTC, or even blow up the US embassy in '93, there was hardly focus or media on terrorism.
And according to Bin Laden himself, the reason was not torture, but the US help towards Israel and its bases in the MidEast...
If the point you're trying to make is:
->USA = bad, uses torture = yes, they're no saints. They're spiraled to the same level as their opponents.
->CIA handbooks and methods of torture spawned terrorism = false, none of the terrorist attacks vs the US have been claimed to be because of any torture. as pointed out before, they're always political-occupation or religious reasons.

there's a very clear cut answer that's completely ignored and is on the verge of being erased from the history books: the illegal invasion and occupation of iraq ..iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism ..once again US foreign policy perpetuates terrorism ..here read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)
http://www.commondreams.org/views/050400-103.htm


hard to ignore 3000 civilians a month dying in iraq from violence caused by a breakdown in law and order as a result of the US invasion/occupation ..under the geneva accords as the occupying nation the US has a responsibility to provide security within their jurisdiction; legally and within the boundaries of the accords and international law

Didn't i mention in each of my posts violence seems to be the worst thing you can do?
I'm not interested in how ****ed up and wrong Iraq now is, i agree on that. Reread what I'm trying to say please...
You're again focusing on the result and not on the cause or reason Bush got his approval to invade Iraq.
Its safe to say, without 9/11 Bush would never have gotten approval to invade/occupy Iraq, simple as that.
Therefor it is the massively funded and supported terrorist act itself that is indirectly more than co-responsible for the invasion of Iraq.
Yet, many people, only care about the aftermath and not the history.
Or shall I say cherry-picked version of history.
Let me summerize it:
Bin Laden doesn't like the US help to Israel and its Bases + involvement in the Mideast. It devises the largest terrorist act in history killing 3000 Americans. The nature of terrorism works well in democracies, and immediately the public sways right-wing and the government attacks Afghanistan and later on Iraq for whatever reasons"
Now the US has spiraled to the same level as the ones they're fighting, which leads me to the thing I keep asking, and thats how do people think effectively you can fight terrorism without spiraling downwards...

And please don't cloud the issue with more how Americans sponsor terrorism or are no good-guys. Its not the cause of this terrorism, their aid to Israel and their involvement in the Mideast spawned this specific case. In general terrorism, and more precisely sponsored terrorism was a famous tool way before America even existed. Today virtually every Foreign Politics section of any country "with a problem" sponsors terrorism. Who do you think is funding those terrorists attacking India? And who do you think is sending so much crap into Iraq to fight Americans? There's more, but you get the idea.
These days international terrorism cannot be brushed off as regular crime, and it often is sponsored and funded by a variety of nations. It works really well against democracies where public opinion is ruled over by the Conan O'Brein show, if you know what I mean.
Which leads me back to my initial question which I'm loosing hope for we'll ever discuss: how to effectively fight terrorism.