EU Calls For Guantanamo "Anomaly" Shutdown

[Mr. Do]

What confuses me is that I might agree there, but how many terror attacks against civilians have the men taken prisoner commited? And given that it seems most of Afghanistan openly carries AK-47's, how likely is that they really were acting like terrorists, given that the prime reason they were taken into custody was their associations with fighting for Al-Qaeda/ Taliban...

 

[mdwh]

Alright, I read some of the BBC PDF file Ram. I'm still waiting for proof of torture. They seem to have proof that they use some interrogation techniques that are certainly rough, and I wouldn't enjoy (Making them stand for hours on end; isolation for 30 days at a time; listening to rap music, etc) but I wouldn't qualify them as torture. And it doesn't sound like the UN would either:

Bolding mine. Note that they use the phrase "severe pain or suffering".

They also say it includes mental suffering.

Have you been in isolation for 30 days? That sort of thing gets very boring after just a few hours, I couldn't imagine the mental anguish of it lasting for 30 days, especially in the context where I'm in a prison that I may never get out of, and that sort of thing could happen to me again and again.

It may not be anything like medieval-style torture, but the definition of torture is broader than that.

One question I haven't seen addressed - torture or not, why are these offences being commited upon them? If it's for information, why is this necessary if they aren't being tried?

 

[malclave]

Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot used rap music to torture people??? Priceless post of the year I reckon.

Your dates don't match up mate. Rap music came in the 70s (arguably in other, vaguer forms in the 50-60s) but these people you are talking about finished their work decades before. The only one with a chance of even hearing rap music would be Pol Pot, but I think he was a little more inclined to use techniques a bit harsher than just making prisoners "listen to rap music".

Not according to a leading Democratic Senator, Sen. DIck Durbin.

 

[malclave]

So what you're saying is that torture methods are okay to use as long as they don't leave permanent marks or provide longlasting damage?

No, I'm saying that many of the people complaining about torture have no idea what torture is.

 

[malclave]

I think the point is you can't just make an assumption without tribuneral, so their legal status remains unclear and they are protected by the Geneva convention, untill such time as an independant tribuneral can make a judgement. This hasn't happened at all and so the US are in breach of the Geneva convention. Guilty until proven innocent, which of course again is impossible without a trial.

Reference to the requirement of an "independent tribunal"?

There have, in fact, been military tribunals held in Guantanamo Bay to ascertain status, and many people have been released.

 

[malclave]

Oh and nice comment on what does not constiute a tribunal YNCS.

Not really, since it ignores the fact that there have been tribunals held.

 

[malclave]

The "illegal combatant" category was manufactured by the Bush administration to bypass the Geneva Conventions.

Proof? Wikipedia says the category of "unlawful combatant" dates back to "at least the 1940s".

 

[De Lorimier]

Dude, just edit your post instead of posting five one-liners in a row.

 

[Elrohir]

They also say it includes mental suffering.

Have you been in isolation for 30 days? That sort of thing gets very boring after just a few hours, I couldn't imagine the mental anguish of it lasting for 30 days, especially in the context where I'm in a prison that I may never get out of, and that sort of thing could happen to me again and again.

It may not be anything like medieval-style torture, but the definition of torture is broader than that.

One question I haven't seen addressed - torture or not, why are these offences being commited upon them? If it's for information, why is this necessary if they aren't being tried?

It would not be a pleasant experience, certainly. And it's definitely not something I would want to try. But this is prison, not Six Flags. They aren't there to baby you; it's not supposed to be an enjoyable experience where everyone has fun and goes home at the end of the day. This is a war we are fighting, and we aren't going to win it by coddling terrorists, and tying our hands at the fear of causing " severe mental suffering" to captured terrorists.

There are a variety of reasons. The first, of course, is interrogation. If they refuse to talk, throw them in a dark cell for a week with no human contact, and then see if they change their mind. If not, give them another week. And so on. Another is punishment: If you assault a guard or fellow prisoner, or give false information, they have every right to punish you for those offenses. I think locking them in a dark cell for a few days is an acceptable punishment; do you?

 

[YNCS]

Proof? Wikipedia says the category of "unlawful combatant" dates back to "at least the 1940s".

That comes from the Supreme Court's findings in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), which says in part:

...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. [emphasis added]​

As Wiki points out: "The validity of this case, as basis for denying prisoners in the War on Terrorism protection by the Geneva Conventions, has been disputed." A report from the American Bar Association says

The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, "The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission ... is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States." Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin, that right could hardly be denied to U. S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.​

Since the 1942 Quirin case, the US signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are, therefore, considered to be a part of US domestic law.

 

[FredLC]

Dictionary.com:


We could follow the Geneva Convention if we wished do. But we are, when dealing with terrorists, not obligated to. We will respect their basic human rights after capturing them - we won't torture them - but that's it. We are not obligated to try them (Although I think we generally should) and we are certainly not obligated to just let them go, and many people seem to think is the best plan.


I would think so, as do many legal scholars, but others disagree. I would say that as terrorists neither carry arms openly (They would be slaughtered by US forces quite quickly if they did; they no longer fight openly at all, it's mostly suicide and car bombings now) or respect the laws and customs of war, they do not get the benefits that those who do, should, and would receive.

Tell me Fred and co, do you see any difference, morally or legally, between a man who wears a uniform, carries a rifle, and fights the enemy who invades his country; and the man who does not carry weapons openly, and fights not only the enemy soldiers, but killing civilians without conscience as well? If you do not, I'm afraid we don't have anything to talk about. If you do, then tell me, if they are not the same, legally or morally, why should we give to the second man the same benefits that we would to the first?

Elrohir: the entirety of your logic here is flawed, and now i'll tell you why.

There are two reasons:

The first is to assume that having a condition that determines the need of a trial is a privilege, that can be conceded or revoked by an enemy power.

It's not!!! Simply put, all people are inherently civilians, and can only be arrested under civilian regulations. Period.

When one of these civilians happens to join an army, he/she surrenders his/her civilian condition, and enters a military condition - a situation in which he/she will be judged by a military court in case of wrongdoing related to the service.

there is no alternative to this.. So, an "illegal combatent" IS a CIVILIAN, and fully entitled the guarantees of a civilian trial whenever he/she does wrong.

The second mistake is to imply that either me or my "co" are somehow advocating impunity, or at least lenience, that we are thinking they should go free without any inconvenience (though I did say that this turn of events IS what a legal vacuum demands - in what I'm quite right); only that I don't think there is a vacuum of any sort here; I don't accept "illegal combatents" as a "new, unruled cathegory", which is what bush administration is pushing as it's reason why no rights are being granted.

So, these civilians, just like any other, will answer a trial for murder, or attempted murder, or public endangerement, or whatever, and, proven guilty, than I hope these criminals will get a deserving long strech seeing the sun through bars.

So, indeed, I see a difference between an armed, uniformed and loyal enemy, and a coward back-stabbing terrorist. What I don't really see is a difference between a coward terrorist and any other kind of coward murderer.

Both should be tried for what they do (did), and be punished accordingly.

When I say what I say, I'm as much worried with the whole and spirit of the US in this situation as I am with innocents that might have been arrested by you. Remember the old saying - when fighting a monster, be careful not to become one yourself.

So far, your administration is being rather careless...

Regards .

 

[Azash]

Since these people are not christians, it follows that the geneva convention does not apply to them. Praise!

Sometimes, a smiley is enough of an reply. For example, now.

 

[Winner]

Well, I think it is none of our business, as long as the Americans agree to hand over EU citizens who may be kept there.

It is very funny that we're so quick to denounce the Americans, but we talk with countries like Cuba, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia etc. For example Russia has been doing (and it is most probably still doing) terrible things in Chechnya, but we decided not to remind it very often, because we don't want to upset our main supplier of natural gas.

Som people in the EU should realize, that we still need US as an ally. We should negotiate hard over things that touch us directly, but this useless gripe just hurt our interests.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, I think it is none of our business, as long as the Americans agree to hand over EU citizens who may be kept there.

It is very funny that we're so quick to denounce the Americans, but we talk with countries like Cuba, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia etc. For example Russia has been doing (and it is most probably still doing) terrible things in Chechnya, but we decided not to remind it very often, because we don't want to upset our main supplier of natural gas.

Som people in the EU should realize, that we still need US as an ally. We should negotiate hard over things that touch us directly, but this useless gripe just hurt our interests.

Not all people in the US are in favour of breaking human rights though; why try to keep on friendly terms those who are, or those who fail to see that they essentially help ensure that they do?

Russia, anyway, definately is far behind the Usa in terms of its democracy, so you cannot really expect it to act in a more checked way, and besides how can any country trully be democratic when it has to maintain an empire where the vast majority of its parts are not at all densely populated, and there is no natural sense of a homeland due to the size and unfriendly terrain of the asiatic steppes and Siberia. Russia will have to face a lot more problems than the Usa is, if it is to ever become respectful of human rights, and a european nation; its western part is European, but although it is bigger than that of other european countries, still it is dwarfed by its asian part.

I think that only a very small minority gets trapped in the loop of identifying self with country anymore; it is at heart mostly a false sense of identify triggered by misery and war (in wars one could even get shot for not being patriotic, afterall).
On the contrary in the EU we should have a less significant nationalism, and be more united by common (to a level) goals in raising quality of life, in all fields.

 

[Winner]

Not all people in the US are in favour of breaking human rights though; why try to keep on friendly terms those who are, or those who fail to see that they essentially help ensure that they do?

It is up to Americans to force their government to respect human rights. US is still a democratic country, so it should have a sufficient internal political mechanisms to allow that. EU shouldn't lecture the other democratic countries, one hypocritic preacher on this planet is enough.

Russia, anyway, definately is far behind the Usa in terms of its democracy, so you cannot really expect it to act in a more checked way, and besides how can any country trully be democratic when it has to maintain an empire where the vast majority of its parts are not at all densely populated, and there is no natural sense of a homeland due to the size and unfriendly terrain of the asiatic steppes and Siberia. Russia will have to face a lot more problems than the Usa is, if it is to ever become respectful of human rights, and a european nation; its western part is European, but although it is bigger than that of other european countries, still it is dwarfed by its asian part.

So the human rights aren't universal, but dependent on the circumstances, is that what you're saying? Because I don't think I can agree on that, especially in the Russian case. Russia is a member of Council of Europe, it has signed the European Convention on Human Rights which obliges it to protect human rights. I find it totally outrageous that Russia hasn't been kicked out of the CoE yet, because if any smaller country did what they have done, it would be kicked out instantly.

The US activities are nothing compared to what many other countries are doing, so I believe Europe should save its criticism for someone who really deserve it.

On the contrary in the EU we should have a less significant nationalism, and be more united by common (to a level) goals in raising quality of life, in all fields.

I of course agree on that.

 

[Mr. Do]

Your argument was already taken apart about 5 pages ago, Winner. The point is, if the West wants to be able to comment on human rights abuses by other countries, such as Russia, China etc., we have to get our own house in order first, and remove the one anomoly in the pretty much flawless human right record that our countries have, which is clearly Guantanamo Bay.

When Chinese dignitaries visit Britain, liberal protesters complain loudly about the human rights abuses in that country. But then the Chinese ask us if we're so concerned about human rights, why is our closest ally running an illegal camp where prisoners are tortured? Now even if the entire set-up is 100% legal and if you're the type of person who would describe things like water-boarding as "not enjoyable", the fact is that Guantanmo is a stain on our countries' records, and needs to be removed.

 

[Azash]

Dictionary.com:


We could follow the Geneva Convention if we wished do. But we are, when dealing with terrorists, not obligated to. We will respect their basic human rights after capturing them - we won't torture them - but that's it. We are not obligated to try them (Although I think we generally should) and we are certainly not obligated to just let them go, and many people seem to think is the best plan.

Your logic is flawed. If a captured insurgent can be but 0 or 1, you are classifying him as ½.

 

[nonconformist]

Dictionary.com:


We could follow the Geneva Convention if we wished do. But we are, when dealing with terrorists, not obligated to. We will respect their basic human rights after capturing them - we won't torture them - but that's it. We are not obligated to try them (Although I think we generally should) and we are certainly not obligated to just let them go, and many people seem to think is the best plan.


I would think so, as do many legal scholars, but others disagree. I would say that as terrorists neither carry arms openly (They would be slaughtered by US forces quite quickly if they did; they no longer fight openly at all, it's mostly suicide and car bombings now) or respect the laws and customs of war, they do not get the benefits that those who do, should, and would receive.

Anyone carrying arms openly, wearing some form of uniform, or fighting as a cohesive unit must be treated as a combattant. It's not an "and" it's an "or".
And unless you have definite proof they're not combattants, you have to treat them as combattants.

Tangentially, I believe that the count the American tribunal is trying t indict Saddam on was perfectly legal under Iraqi law.....

Tell me Fred and co, do you see any difference, morally or legally, between a man who wears a uniform, carries a rifle, and fights the enemy who invades his country; and the man who does not carry weapons openly, and fights not only the enemy soldiers, but killing civilians without conscience as well? If you do not, I'm afraid we don't have anything to talk about. If you do, then tell me, if they are not the same, legally or morally, why should we give to the second man the same benefits that we would to the first?

They're soldiers, aren't they?

There are a variety of reasons. The first, of course, is interrogation. If they refuse to talk, throw them in a dark cell for a week with no human contact, and then see if they change their mind. If not, give them another week. And so on. Another is punishment: If you assault a guard or fellow prisoner, or give false information, they have every right to punish you for those offenses. I think locking them in a dark cell for a few days is an acceptable punishment; do you?

Interrogation is illegal, except for three pieces of information:
name, rank and serial number.
Solitary confinement is allowed for a maximum of (I believe) of ten days.

 

[blackheart]

We could follow the Geneva Convention if we wished do. But we are, when dealing with terrorists, not obligated to. We will respect their basic human rights after capturing them - we won't torture them - but that's it. We are not obligated to try them (Although I think we generally should) and we are certainly not obligated to just let them go, and many people seem to think is the best plan.

Yes, we are obligated to try ANYONE captured under the pretenses that they have committed a crime. It's what the American justice system is based on. Claiming that because they're terrorists so therefore they are exempt from the judicial system is going against the soul of the equality of the justice system.

I would think so, as do many legal scholars, but others disagree. I would say that as terrorists neither carry arms openly (They would be slaughtered by US forces quite quickly if they did; they no longer fight openly at all, it's mostly suicide and car bombings now) or respect the laws and customs of war, they do not get the benefits that those who do, should, and would receive.

"Openly" isn't a literal term here. But by your logic, guerilla fighters of certain governments aren't soldiers at all? Most of the wars we've fought in for the last 50 years were where the enemy did not fully follow the Geneva conventions, so that point is moot.

If you do, then tell me, if they are not the same, legally or morally, why should we give to the second man the same benefits that we would to the first?

Because we're America and we need to uphold the highest standards of fairness in law and not apply it selectively. Murderers, rapists, drug dealers, drunk drivers, and corporate scandalers all get the same judicial rights yet their crimes vary widely.

 

[Winner]

Your argument was already taken apart about 5 pages ago, Winner. The point is, if the West wants to be able to comment on human rights abuses by other countries, such as Russia, China etc., we have to get our own house in order first, and remove the one anomoly in the pretty much flawless human right record that our countries have, which is clearly Guantanamo Bay.

This should be the counter-argument? So the pickpocket isn't less vicious than a mass murderer?

In this case, the extent of such activities matter. A country slaughtering millions in its concentration camps can hardly dismiss the criticism by pointing at small prison, where few people were allegedly mistreated. That would be much more hypocritic.

When Chinese dignitaries visit Britain, liberal protesters complain loudly about the human rights abuses in that country. But then the Chinese ask us if we're so concerned about human rights, why is our closest ally running an illegal camp where prisoners are tortured? Now even if the entire set-up is 100% legal and if you're the type of person who would describe things like water-boarding as "not enjoyable", the fact is that Guantanmo is a stain on our countries' records, and needs to be removed.

Chinese should shut up, because their own crimes are much worse.

Kdo je bez viny, ať hodí kamenem [czech saying, it means something like "nobody is innocent"]. Every country has its faults. Americans are holding these people because they are their enemies and they have most probably been involved in terrorist activites. Countries like China, which is detaining tens of thousands of people just because they have different opinion on the right form of government, have no right to abuse the war on terror to excuse their own, much worse crimes.