Gitmo = Hooters?

[CptStern]

Was it really one? I can think of more than that off the top of my head. We were attacked, we are fighting back. This is Pearl Harbor II.

so you're still looking for Osama then? how's that going?

 

[seinfeldrules]

so you're still looking for Osama then? how's that going?

No idea. I would think its going pretty good because he is scared to show his face anymore. I can tell you his area of operation has been drastically reduced. Afghanistan can no longer hold the training facilities and neither will Pakistan. Other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have begun to cut down on extremists as well. Hopefully, Osama wont be a problem anymore. There are only so many caves the US can look in. All it will take is a random tip from one of his buds.

 

[Venmoch]

Yeah and so the IRA Terror attacks were almost a small blip on the radar. Even though it went on for a long period of time and got to the point where servicemen/women would have to check under their cars or is still at the point today where some government workers cannot take trips to Southern Ireland?

Wake up for Christs Sake Terrorism is one of those things that happens what it shouldn't be is a convenient excuse to A.) Bomb Countries, B.) Hold possibly innocent people without charge which if I recal is against human rights.

Terrorism will never be solved, people will have to face up to the fact that there will always be terrorism. "Going in" does nothing to help it. In fact all it does is usually makes it worse.

 

[Edcrab]

At least 9/11 opened the eyes of certain American businessmen and crippled the IRA's chances of ever reforming to quite the same scale. Meh.

I like to think I could see both sides of the arguement- and note I'm talking about these "interrogation" methods rather than the unlawful imprisonments in Guantanamo Bay.

Having a lapdance and/or having red ink smeared over you... haha, yes, look how we laugh. Alternatively some people could become aware that the man in question is under the impression that blood- leaked from some woman's genitals- has just been painted onto his face. That's distasteful to someone of any religious background.

The point is that if this man has genuinely been planning terrorist attacks such methods are unethical but understandable. What is not understandable is the growing trend of locking up men for indefinite time periods for... well, god knows what since many haven't even been charged.

We may "only" be dabbing them with fake blood and making them feel deeply uncomfortable about their situation, but we're meant to be better than they are. They behead a hostage? We take a prisoner. They torture people? We don't. I'd call this more psychological abuse rather than anything overtly physical, but that's open to debate.

This kind of thing could be seen as worse than execution in the eyes of some fundamentalists- we don't want anything remotely negative to get out. That's why our "free" media is both a blessing and a curse... once upon a time, pictures of supposed (and genuine) abuse would never have got out. The perpatrators wouldn't have been brought to justice, but then again we wouldn't have given terrorists yet another recruitment issue...

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yeah and so the IRA Terror attacks were almost a small blip on the radar.

When did I say otherwise?

A.) Bomb Countries

So we should let countries like Afghanistan openly allow Al Qaeda to run training camps?

B.) Hold possibly innocent people without charge

Agreed.

 

[bliink]

Just to get back on topic..

Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.

Right... females in the military are useless for everything else.. or at least thats the message I'm getting from that.

Why the hell would anyone actually be doing that?

"ok ladies check your field manuals; chapter 2, subheading: acting like a slut to interrogate prisoners""

 

[seinfeldrules]

Why the hell would anyone actually be doing that?

They are finding methods to play off of male Muslim fear. Think about it, their view of females is much different than the Western viewpoint. In some ways their females are treated subhuman.

 

[Edcrab]

The "logic" behind it is that many Muslim men feel uncomfortable... um... "interacting" with women who are not their wives, especially when their clothes are unnecessarily revealing.

Then again, encountering a male GI in a thong and miniskirt would also inflict horrific psychological injuries.

I wouldn't be too keen on having some complete stranger (apparently) smear my face with her own blood either- it's not so much religious violation to me as a violation of good taste. It's a terrorist interrogation, however, not a counselling session for orphans. How far is too far, anyway? Someone dig out the Geneva principles...

 

[bliink]

They are finding methods to play off of male Muslim fear. Think about it, their view of females is much different than the Western viewpoint. In some ways their females are treated subhuman.

How about they build up a case, you know, with evidence and everything.. then they put them in a court of law and give them a trial instead of doing that other stuff?

and if they can't build a case, then apply a statute of limitations to the whole thing.. just fly them back to afghanistan or wherever.
If they decide to fight again, they'll probably die legally in the battlefield.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Someone dig out the Geneva principles...

I dont believe Geneva applies to Gitmo.

 

[seinfeldrules]

How about they build up a case, you know, with evidence and everything.. then they put them in a court of law and give them a trial instead of doing that other stuff?

It is an interrogation to discover information of other possible terrorist plot's, locations, personnel, etc. What they are doing is not meant to punish them (in a legal sense).

 

[Edcrab]

Yes, that was meant to be irony. Apologies for not making that clear. Unless you were also being ironic, in which case I also apologise for not understanding that you were continuing the theme. I'll be quiet.

Dying "legally"... urrgh. It's true, but still sounds awful.

As for Gitmo, one of these days something will happen there that won't be monstrously unethical and illegal and won't cause a public outcry. Until then it's still a blight on the planet.

 

[bliink]

It is an interrogation to discover information of other possible terrorist plot's, locations, personnel, etc. What they are doing is not meant to punish them (in a legal sense).

I really doubt some dude off the field in afghanistan is going to know anything relevant/useful so many years down the track.. having spent the whole time in isolation in a cage.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yes, that was meant to be irony. Apologies for not making that clear.

Heh, my bad.

 

[Venmoch]

Agreed.

So lets get this straight, you "agree" with these peoples loss of Human Rights? Because you know, thats not exactly a good idea I mean lets take a look here

Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Whats happening over there is not torture but it is degrading, so thats one Human Right knocked off.

Article 9
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment.
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

And another one. So yeah holding people for 3 years with no reason is moral....

Article 10

1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
2.
1. Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons;
2. Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and brought as speedily as possible for adjudication.
3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.

And another one goes there....

Article 16
Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Which doesn't appear to be happening....

Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
1. For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
2. For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

I mean do I really need to say any more? The US is signed up to the Human Rights agreement yet you flagrently fly in the face of them? Surely that makes you as bad as the terrorists who you fight?

I'd rather get my morals off a Terrorist than an American.

Taken from HERE

 

[seinfeldrules]

I really doubt some dude off the field in afghanistan is going to know anything relevant/useful so many years down the track.. having spent the whole time in isolation in a cage.

We are still in Afghanistan... That means more prisoners, more information etc.

 

[Tr0n]

I love the hypocrisy of this thread!

*hugs*

 

[seinfeldrules]

So lets get this straight, you "agree" with these peoples loss of Human Rights? Because you know, thats not exactly a good idea I mean lets take a look here

Wrong. I agree that they shouldnt be held indefinitely. They should all receive a trial after interrogation. Furthermore, if you were citing the Geneva Conventions then realize that it doesnt cover terrorists.

 

[Tr0n]

Wrong. I agree that they shouldnt be held indefinitely. They should all receive a trial after interrogation. Furthermore, if you were citing the Geneva Conventions then realize that it doesnt cover terrorists.

...but it does cover us.

 

[bliink]

Furthermore, if you were citing the Geneva Conventions then realize that it doesnt cover terrorists.

ahh.. so if they aren't "enemy combatants" (eg geneva convention), then I guess that makes them civilians?
now thats a huge can o' worms right there!

 

[seinfeldrules]

...but it does cover us.

We fall under the criteria.

I believe the main reason terrorists do not is because they do not wear 'uniforms' (ex. some random guy walking around with a satchel pack under his coat). There are probably many other reasons which I either A. Forget or B. Never knew. I'm sure you could find the complete legal argument online.

 

[seinfeldrules]

A little tidbit I quickly dug up

"In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them."

 

[Venmoch]

Wrong. I agree that they shouldnt be held indefinitely. They should all receive a trial after interrogation. Furthermore, if you were citing the Geneva Conventions then realize that it doesnt cover terrorists.

Uh and?

They are human, therefore automatically they are entitled to human rights

Incidently Terrorists are covered in the Geneva Convention.

terrorism

Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68)

Civilians in an occupied territory must not be subject to collective penalties or any other measures of intimidation or terrorism. (Convention IV, Art. 33)

So not only are they covered by the Geneva Convention they still get their human rights.

(http://www.genevaconventions.org/)

 

[bliink]

A little tidbit I quickly dug up

"In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them."

hmm.. so then; the US govt/military can engage civilians abroad in military operations?
Thats unnerving... I'm waiting to see an M1A1 outside the opera house now

 

[seinfeldrules]

Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which

-does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration
-pose a grave collective danger
-seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power,

I dont think you read it very well.

 

[Tr0n]

I'm waiting to see an M1A1 outside the opera house now

For some reason...I don't get that part.

(Probally because I'm tired and stressed out.)

 

[seinfeldrules]

hmm.. so then; the US govt/military can engage civilians abroad in military operations?

Huh? It doesnt say that at all. I must be missing your point.

 

[Kommie]

Nothing good has ever come out of geneva

 

[Venmoch]

I dont think you read it very well.

Nope they still pose a grave collective danger and still have human rights.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Nothing good has ever come out of geneva

It definitely needs revision.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Nope they still pose a grave collective danger and still have human rights.

Exactly, they pose a grave danger. Posing a grave danger means they dont fall under Geneva...

Nobody is saying they dont have human rights. The US is punishing those responsible for torture in Abu Gharib.

 

[Venmoch]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3533804.stm

Yes they do. In fact it may just be worth reading that.

Besides Abu Gharib isn't Gitmo.

 

[bliink]

Huh? It doesnt say that at all. I must be missing your point.

Well, if you're saying they arent military (& therefore covered by geneva conventions) then they must be civilian, and as we all know, the US engaged these civilians in afghanistan.

 

[Eg.]

speaking of human rights, if they want u dead, then they dont give a damn about anyones human right then do they? when do u act nice to someone who is trying to kill you?

blink are u talking about the terrorists? what do u think they should be classified as?

they have:

and organized command structure
carry weapons

the dont:
wear uniforms
obey any international law

so why should we treat them well?

 

[Tr0n]

speaking of human rights, if they want u dead, then they dont give a damn about anyones human right then do they? when do u act nice to someone who is trying to kill you?

Because it's the right thing to do.

 

[Eg.]

no its not. no one would be scared to to attack you again. wars should serve as punishment and as a lesson. other nations should get a clear message: dont mess with us. if that means mass torture of enemy troops, terrorists, and carpet bombing of capital cities, then lets go

 

[Venmoch]

so why should we treat them well?

Because they're human. And they may not be terrorrist.

Just because someone expresses an urge to blow up the White House doesn't make him a terrorist.

 

[Tr0n]

no its not. no one would be scared to to attack you again. wars should serve as punishment and as a lesson. other nations should get a clear message: dont mess with us. if that means mass torture of enemy troops, terrorists, and carpet bombing of capital cities, then lets go

I guess you are no better than them.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Eg.]

id rather be a living savage then a dead saint.

they want the western world to crumble, i would be ever so happy to meake their lives miserable if that meant they would hurt me or my country

 

[CptStern]

sure as long as you take the rest of us down with you who's to say nay! yeeehaw armageddon here we come!!!

that's it! I'm building one big ass fence on the 49th parallel