EU Calls For Guantanamo "Anomaly" Shutdown

[Bronx Warlord]

Do you serve in the military? You should be ashamed. And if the military is populated with programmed people these days, I am ashamed for having served myself.

Out of line, lock it up. For real.

 

[usarmy18]

I believe they were held according to the Geneva Convention. Many prisoners of war in WW2 were treated badly, for example by the Japanese. Are you telling me that that was acceptable?

I'm talking about U.S. POW camps and you know it. As I've stated, these men have no rights according to the Geneva Convention because they hold no allegiance to a country and where no identifiable uniform, thus they're terrorists.

They are *not* classified as terrorists, as they have not been convicted as such. And if they're not soldiers, then the US has absolutely no right to hold them in the first place! (Please don't tell me you support hostage taking?)

Legally, they're enemy combatants and as I posted, President Bush wants to start giving these men trials.

US Laws don't apply to other countries.

They apply to men we captured during combat though. They're in our custody.

And by your logic, a concentration camp guard was "just doing his job", because it was legal according to German law.

That's not my logic at all. There is a big difference between executing millions of people and holding detainees, who we happen to feed, clothe, and provide living space to.

I'm not asking you to start protesting against it.

But at the same time, you don't have to be a supporter of it either. It worries me that you think that in order to be a soldier, you need to start campaigning in favour of taking foreign nationals hostage and holding them indefinitely in poor conditions.

Where the hell did I say this? I meant that if I wanted to continue my career I'm not going to start accusing my superiors of commiting illegal acts when the highest court in the US hasn't spoken out against them. Sorry, but I trust the Supreme court more then I do the EU Parliament or some lawyers out to make a name for themselves.

Have people been put in US prisons without trial? No.

*Sigh*

I can't believe I'm explaining this. Usually in the US you're arrested first when the Government has probably cause to try you and convict you. Later on you'll have a court appearance where the Judge will set bail, usually in the first week of imprisonment. However, it would be insane to give these men bail, bond, or whatever since they would only return to the Middle East and begin fighting us again.

Our logic is robust. If the US was putting people in solitary confinement in prisons, then that would be wrong also.

People are put in solitary confinement all the time. Time to go protest!!

 

[mdwh]

I'm talking about U.S. POW camps and you know it. As I've stated, these men have no rights according to the Geneva Convention because they hold no allegiance to a country and where no identifiable uniform, thus they're terrorists.

If the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, you must be a terrorist? Wow, I guess that makes me a terrorist, since I'm not a soldier protected by the Geneva Convention!

They apply to men we captured during combat though. They're in our custody.

Which is what any country could say of hostages it takes.

That's not my logic at all. There is a big difference between executing millions of people and holding detainees, who we happen to feed, clothe, and provide living space to.

Many concentration camp prisoners were not executed. But hey, as long as they're forced to wear a trendy orange jumpsuit, and have some food and are given a luxury cell to live in, you're in favour of that. Why don't you go and live in prison if that's so good?

Where the hell did I say this?

You've been supporting it in this thread.

I meant that if I wanted to continue my career I'm not going to start accusing my superiors of commiting illegal acts when the highest court in the US hasn't spoken out against them.

For the second time, no one is asking you to do that. But that doesn't mean you have to argue in favour of them, either. You could, you know, not argue either way, instead of trying to defend them on random Internet forums.

Sorry, but I trust the Supreme court more then I do the EU Parliament or some lawyers out to make a name for themselves.

And I trust sound logic over absurd arguments.

I can't believe I'm explaining this. Usually in the US you're arrested first when the Government has probably cause to try you and convict you. Later on you'll have a court appearance where the Judge will set bail, usually in the first week of imprisonment. However, it would be insane to give these men bail, bond, or whatever since they would only return to the Middle East and begin fighting us again.

And I can't believe I'm explaining this:

Us: Imprisoning people *without trial* is wrong.
You: But the US puts people in prison all the time, and that's okay.

...

Not everyone is granted bail - if the US was worried about that, then they would be kept in prison until their trial was over. But are trials even happening? No. So comparisons to US prisons are irrelevant.

Also I would like to know how the men would manage to fight the US from another country.

People are put in solitary confinement all the time. Time to go protest!!

Oops, I meant "If the US was putting people in solitary confinement in prisons *without trial*, then that would be wrong also." Is that happening?

 

[usarmy18]

If the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, you must be a terrorist? Wow, I guess that makes me a terrorist, since I'm not a soldier protected by the Geneva Convention!

I'm curious if you even really know what you're saying? Under the Geneva Convention, anyone captured bearing arms against you, but having no allegiance to a foreign country or wearing no distinguishable uniform is classifed as a terrorist. Not a random person plucked off the street. If you want to believe that these men were just randomly thrown in there then go right ahead and be naive.

Which is what any country could say of hostages it takes.

When we captured them they weren't unarmed civilians. I think I'm missing your sound logic here.

Many concentration camp prisoners were not executed. But hey, as long as they're forced to wear a trendy orange jumpsuit, and have some food and are given a luxury cell to live in, you're in favour of that. Why don't you go and live in prison if that's so good?

Have we executed just one prisoner in Guantanamo? No. Are we forcing them to support our war effort? No. There is no comparison between Guantanamo and a concentration camp no matter how much you spin and twist it. Sorry bud.

You've been supporting it in this thread.

I've been saying I don't think thats torture. Far different from saying I support torture.

For the second time, no one is asking you to do that. But that doesn't mean you have to argue in favour of them, either. You could, you know, not argue either way, instead of trying to defend them on random Internet forums.

So I should keep my opinions to myself? Shouldn't you use your own advice in that case?

And I trust sound logic over absurd arguments.

You're logic might be sound to you but it's absurd to me.

And I can't believe I'm explaining this:

Us: Imprisoning people *without trial* is wrong.
You: But the US puts people in prison all the time, and that's okay.

...

Not everyone is granted bail - if the US was worried about that, then they would be kept in prison until their trial was over. But are trials even happening? No. So comparisons to US prisons are irrelevant.

I didn't say its ok because the US puts people in prison all the time. I said the same thing happens in the US where people are put in jail before having a trial and wow, lookey there. Our Commander-in-Chief just decided to order trials. Odd.

Also I would like to know how the men would manage to fight the US from another country.

Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't be stupid or blind.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming. Make your point without assaulting another poster. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Azash]

Associating by holding onto a rpk, a few ak's and some arty shells in your mudhut basement for Mohammed when he comes by to pick them up is a hostile act in my mind, even if they did lack the balls to put on there black pj's and come get some.

Start the tirbunials and deal with them or start dealing with them in the field

I fail to see how this applies to cooks and drivers.

Also, on gitmo.. Since we're mentioning familiar bookk quotes, this situation is reminding me of The Process, by Kafka.

 

[Elrohir]

usarmy18:

Your outright support of torture and holding people without being tried is an outrage. Dont you know that the US ARMY WAS CREATED TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION??? How bout we further crap on the sixth amendment!!!!!

Do you serve in the military? You should be ashamed. And if the military is populated with programmed people these days, I am ashamed for having served myself.

Stop trolling. If you don't have anything constructive or worthwile to say, then don't post.

 

[Shylock]

Yea, I know. That article stated alot of heavy handed torture and abuse that goes on at Guantanamo. For example:



The horror .

EDIT: I guess if we want to be asses about it we could just start lopping off fingers and carving out eyes. I guess then we really would be torturing them.

2nd EDIT: Just for the record, I see Guantanamo in the same light as our POW camps during WW2 for German prisoners. We're at war and I don't see the sense of letting all of them go because one or two might be innocent. Let's see, there is roughly 400 detainees at Guantanamo and if say 10 of them are innocent then that's .025% that are innocent and the rest get set free.

3rd EDIT: Let's say a higher number, 50, are detained in Guantanamo when they really shouldn't be. That's still only 12%. You can argue that none of them should be there till you're blue in the face but in the end, they are all detained in Guantanamo because they were captured fighting US forces.

4th EDIT: Bush says he wants to end Guantanamo anyways and try the detainees in U.S. courts. Since what he says pretty much goes in the military (he's our boss afterall), I guess we're gonna see how many are really guilty or not.

5th damn EDIT: Here is the definitions of water boarding and short shackling.



This is a psychological technique and not really a physical one. It's going to be banned soon by the US anyways.



Wow, they're shackled to the floor and forced to sit for a couple of hours.

Of course it is easy to sit there and say that's nothing. You've probably never been tortured.

Then again as a military hopeful you hope to either be doing the torturing or at least be experiencing it.

 

[malclave]

Of course it is easy to sit there and say that's nothing. You've probably never been tortured.

Well, depends on whether you're using a real definition of torture or one contrived to make the U.S. look bad.

I daresay that the poster to whom you're responding has probably been made to stand up straight and perform exercises to (and past!) the point of discomfort. He might have even had to listen to rap music, which was apparently used by the people under Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

Then again as a military hopeful you hope to either be doing the torturing or at least be experiencing it.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking of the person to whom you're responding... you're saying he either WANTS to torture others or be tortured himself?

 

[CaptainF]

The men at guantanamo should get a damn trial already.

Rather ******** to just hold them there, and quite unamerican to boot.

 

[Rambuchan]

This thread really went nowhere since yesterday. It's turned into "oh I was in the army, so let me beat my chest", followed by "yes but I was in the army and I was tortured!" What exactly does this have to do with the legality of Gitmo?

I notice that those supporting Gitmo here are still doing so without any understanding of, reference to or factual basis in - international law.

And when they do try and reference laws and agreements - they get the details and names wrong! So the Gitmo supporters' posts simply read like they are making it up as they are going along; drawing spurious parallels, offering knee-jerk solutions and tripping up on their own ignorance on the matter.

~ How do you expect to refute charges against you if you can't even be bothered to read and understand those charges?

This is what you call > Head in the sand. > Flicking the bird to international law. > Arrogance mixed with ignorance, pure and simple.

 

[Rambuchan]

Here's a classic example......

Well, depends on whether you're using a real definition of torture or one contrived to make the U.S. look bad.

Sorry, but it's the same definition with which the US accused Saddam Hussein of torture. It's the same definition that the USA agreed to and signed to declare their agreement and compliance to codes of law surrounding the use of torture (named and linked previously).

Q1 ~ So which definition of torture is it that are you referring to?
Q2 ~ Is it the USA or UN who is distorting the definition of torture?

I daresay that the poster to whom you're responding has probably been made to stand up straight and perform exercises to (and past!) the point of discomfort. He might have even had to listen to rap music, which was apparently used by the people under Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

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".



I suppose Moses was listening to his iPod when guiding the Israelites out of Egypt, right? Or perhaps Columbus got lucky because of his satnav system? Oh wait up, how about, Julius Caesar used to torture his political opponents in Rome by making them watch daytime television (especially Martha Stewart's programmes).

See what making it up as you're going along looks like now? Oh Man. Absolutely priceless.

 

[Mr. Do]

Well, depends on whether you're using a real definition of torture or one contrived to make the U.S. look bad.

I daresay that the poster to whom you're responding has probably been made to stand up straight and perform exercises to (and past!) the point of discomfort. He might have even had to listen to rap music, which was apparently used by the people under Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

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? I have to say it's a very intelligent decision by US interrogators to use methods like "putting people in uncomfortable positions" or "playing a bit of a music to them", becuase they're so easily waved off by people like yourself. Maybe they should start beating prisoners with wet towels too, then if it gets out we can all just laugh at the silly hi-jinks, and chuckle to ourselves, "it's not really torture, is it?".

I ask, if such methods are used, then what is their point, if it's not to cause severe mental and physical anguish in the short term? Do you think that they're forced into one uncomfortable position or subjected to sleep deprivation for being naughty or something?

 

[Rambuchan]

Here's another one.....

I'm curious if you even really know what you're saying? Under the Geneva Convention, anyone captured bearing arms against you, but having no allegiance to a foreign country or wearing no distinguishable uniform is classifed as a terrorist. Not a random person plucked off the street. If you want to believe that these men were just randomly thrown in there then go right ahead and be naive.

Hey, if this bit I bolded is the truth, then you'd better put me down for the naive camp as well then.

Where does it say this in the Geneva Convention exactly?

When we captured them they weren't unarmed civilians. I think I'm missing your sound logic here.

Sorry, but the AP news wires disagree. Note this line:

"But a wide variety of detainees at the U.S. lockup at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, alleged they were sold into capture. Their names and other identifying information were blacked out in the transcripts from the tribunals, which were held to determine whether prisoners were correctly classified as enemy combatants."

Have we executed just one prisoner in Guantanamo? No. Are we forcing them to support our war effort? No. There is no comparison between Guantanamo and a concentration camp no matter how much you spin and twist it. Sorry bud.

Gitmo is certainly not a concentration camp and those gulag comments that were made way back were erroneous. Gitmo is indeed an "anomaly" that defies logical, humanitarian and legal definition. IOW - It stands outside all three of those realms.

I've been saying I don't think thats torture. Far different from saying I support torture.

You're someone who hasn't done your homework on what constitutes torture aren't you? (see PDF links earlier in the tread for Elrohir).

So I should keep my opinions to myself? Shouldn't you use your own advice in that case?

I think you should inform yourself better before debating the subject.

 

[Princeps]

The horror .

Actually sexual humiliation, or often - violation of sexual taboos is an excruciating form of torture, probably one of the worst.

 

[mdwh]

I'm curious if you even really know what you're saying? Under the Geneva Convention, anyone captured bearing arms against you, but having no allegiance to a foreign country or wearing no distinguishable uniform is classifed as a terrorist. Not a random person plucked off the street. If you want to believe that these men were just randomly thrown in there then go right ahead and be naive.

Can you show me a reference for this?

I mean, clearly that can't be true, as even in the US people can defend themselves if attacked, and they are not classed as "terrorists" for not wearing a uniform. And yes, until they are tried and evidence is presented, I am going to think that many may have been wrongly captured. If a foreign country invaded your home, don't you think individual Americans would try to defend themselves? Are Americans therefore terrorists? Sorry, I find it hard to trust a Government that lies about weapons of mass destruction, and refuses to present any evidence.

When we captured them they weren't unarmed civilians. I think I'm missing your sound logic here.

Where did I say unarmed? I'm talking about taking hostages, which is a term used whether or not the victim tries to defend himself or his property.

Have we executed just one prisoner in Guantanamo? No. Are we forcing them to support our war effort? No. There is no comparison between Guantanamo and a concentration camp no matter how much you spin and twist it. Sorry bud.

Why are you talking about execution? Are you seriously telling me that the only bad thing about concentration camps is that people were executed?

And if you think Guantanamo is a fine place to live, why don't you go there?

I've been saying I don't think thats torture. Far different from saying I support torture.

I'm talking about supporting Guantanamo as a whole, not quibbling over whether X counts as torture.

So I should keep my opinions to myself? Shouldn't you use your own advice in that case?

I'm stating my opinions because I believe them. You're saying that you have to support something, because you can't be against them. Which is illogical, because you could simply have no opinion either way instead.

I didn't say its ok because the US puts people in prison all the time. I said the same thing happens in the US where people are put in jail before having a trial and wow, lookey there. Our Commander-in-Chief just decided to order trials. Odd.

If people were held "on remand" for years with no mention of when any trial would be, that would be outrageous too. And even if they were told, years is a disgusting amount of time to be held without trial.

Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't be stupid or blind.

How will they attack you from there?

 

[bhsup]

And USians wonder why there are anti-American sentiments around the world? Dim wits. That's what comments such as those make folk look like. Belligerent dim wits at that, trying to justify many quite clear violations of international codes of law. Are you telling the EU to jump off a cliff because you cannot refute the points of violation, because you don't know what they are, or simply because you don't give a damn for international law and agreements that your nation is party to?

Those making such comments ought to check the actual facts of the matter, as to what the UN considers of your position (see the numerous reports they've published on Gitmo). It's the same verdict as most human rights lawyers and pressure groups worth their salt hold. Add to that all your allies taking the same view, well the ones that are left anyway.... According to their Special Reports and legal experts - you guys are contravening your most basic international obligations. Yet you've been wilfully ignoring this and mistakenly interpretting it all as "anti-americanism" or simply by slandering those who bring up your gross violations - in your best interests. And the best you can come up with is....................."kiss my arse"? Nice.

Perhaps next time you want to a buddy to go out on an illegal war, or next time you want to use our airports to transfer to torture chambers (unproven) terrorists, next time you want us to back you diplomatically over some bullying - you will find that you won't have anyone who wants to anymore.

Do you think telling us to "collectivly kiss our rosey red arse" or take a "flying leap off the nearest cliff" is a good way to go about it? Shows how far from sanity you guys are wandering in backing Gitmo.

You guys are messing up your credibility and reputation, and ours in the process, and we're just trying to point that out. That's gratitude for you!

And it's comments like that which are the main cause of me not caring a whit what a bunch of Europeans think about anything we do. Quite the vicious circle.

However, even more important in my feelings on this matter is the simple fact that we're not torturing people there and those folks don't fall under Geneva convention parameters, so that doesn't apply anyway. Therefore the reasons for calling for Gitmo's shutdown are invalid anyway.

EDIT: Per Ram's request, expanded the quote to include his whole post to prevent misrepresentation of his intent behind the post.

 

[Rambuchan]

And it's comments like that which are the main cause of me not caring a whit what a bunch of Europeans think about anything we do. Quite the vicious circle.

I think you chopped off a pretty important part of my post there, which makes it look very different (not the flame that you've left it to read as). Care to correct that at all please?

However, even more important in my feelings on this matter is the simple fact that we're not torturing people there and those folks don't fall under Geneva convention parameters, so that doesn't apply anyway. Therefore the reasons for calling for Gitmo's shutdown are invalid anyway.

With respect, your feelings matter not to the discussion. It's the facts in the black and white print of the UN Declarations which are pertinent, not your "simple" but quite erroneous "fact". So, please let me remind you once again, you are factually incorrect according to International Declarations which define torture and which your govt signed. Read the UN reports I keep mentioning and you will see that.

 

[Kyriakos]

The sad thing is that this is nothing new. I am sure that past generations also at some time realised that there is no moral high ground for the Usa to do anything. Supporting juntas around the world, and breaking human rights, has always been the norm.

However the EU should really try to be more united, if it is ever going to act as serious power.

Also the game of polarising between "us" and "them" is always problematic; after all it just creates an entirely false sense of identity.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

I think you're missing the point. These guys are viewed as enemys of the state and are being detained for (I hope) good reasons. Just as it would've been rather dumb to release all the prisoners during World War 2 so they could simply take back up arms against our troops and kill Americans. I call this the real world. It's nice to be an idealist and wish everything was perfect but yes, people have to suffer for progress (damn, I sound like a communist ) anyways, before this is blown out of propertion what I mean is that we are trying our hardest to secure the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and it would be like shooting ourselves in the foot if we just release these men so they can go back to the Middle East and take up arms against us again.

Do you think a previous evil will justify a new evil?

I live in arizona, and i've been to the site where the US gov't illegally detained japanese-americans near the colorado river. But that sort of thing was in-vogue at the time for that war now, wasn't it?

People are being detained even without a military tribunal, and because of a loop-hole in the constitution we can deny them basic human rights afforded to our worst enemies in war via the Geneva convention (let alone the US constitution).

This does not make it right and if you think so you are deluding yourself just to be comfortable.

 

[bhsup]

I think you chopped off a pretty important part of my post there, which makes it look very different (not the flame that you've left it to read as). Care to correct that at all please?

Will correct immediately after this post, and my apologies for doing that. It was simply an issue of brevity, nothing more. I didn't intend to alter the meaning of your post.

With respect, your feelings matter not to the discussion. It's the facts in the black and white print of the UN Declarations which are pertinent, not your "simple" but quite erroneous "fact". So, please let me remind you once again, you are factually incorrect according to International Declarations which define torture and which your govt signed. Read the UN reports I keep mentioning and you will see that.

I read it before once, and frankly think they took the definition of torture to ridiculous limits. Bamboo shoots under fingernails - torture. Castration - torture. Having guard dogs near an inmate - not torture. Just another reason for the US Senate to immediately vote to nullify any and all treaties we have with the UN and leave that institution, then kick them out of New York.