Is Guantanamo Bay naval base justice?

[Kyriakos]

Proof?

You can google it, there are many urls about it.
Here is one by the american journal of psychiatry:
http://www.prisoncentral.org/Prisoncentral/Mental%20Illness/Grassian/Psych%20Effects%20of%20Solitary/Index.htm

This is from the conclusions: "The present observations, coupled with those in the earlier German literature, suggest strongly that the use of solitary confinement carries major psychiatric risks. I have not attempted in this paper to define or classify this psychopathological syndrome, but, as mentioned earlier, there have been speculations in the literature linking solitary confinement with the formal experiments on profound sensory deprivation".

 

[Elrohir]

And American troops are infidels, who will be repulsed from the Holy land with all the might, their blood shall line our roads, and theirm flesh will be eaten by our Gods!

Doesn't make it true because I say so, does it?

When you can define what "infidel", and "repulsed" to reflect what you want them to say, to make those definitions show what is happening, actually, it does. For example, if you redefine "infidel" to mean "human beings" in general, then yes, American troops are infidels. If you redefine "repulsed" to mean "victory", then yes, the American infidels are on their way to total repulsion.

According to the guidelines layed out in the Geneva Convention, as the US signed and ratified it, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are not POW's. Period. If we wanted to grant them the rights of POW's, then would could, but as we do not want to we are under no obligation whatsoever to treat them as legally captured Prisoners Of War. Their basic human rights will, and have been, respected, but they get none of the special rights that POW's are entitled to. That is a fact, I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's life.

 

[MobBoss]

You can google it, there are many urls about it.
Here is one by the american journal of psychiatry:
http://www.prisoncentral.org/Prisoncentral/Mental%20Illness/Grassian/Psych%20Effects%20of%20Solitary/Index.htm

This is from the conclusions: "The present observations, coupled with those in the earlier German literature, suggest strongly that the use of solitary confinement carries major psychiatric risks. I have not attempted in this paper to define or classify this psychopathological syndrome, but, as mentioned earlier, there have been speculations in the literature linking solitary confinement with the formal experiments on profound sensory deprivation".

Heh, I would say that your website is somewhat biased towards inmate rights, citing links to the ACLU and various stats for wrongful arrests, wrongful identification etc. Hardly a suprised that they would have such an article linked.

Perhaps, as in everything, there is a median to our argument. I would say that solitary confinement, COULD be used as torture if, for example, a person was made to sit in an extremely small cell, heated/chilled cell or other extraneous things....however, someone alone in a normal sized cell, being fed three times a day is hardly torture in my book. Hell, even those in solitary confinement in maximum security prisons get 1 hour a day in the yard.

Sorry, while I do think solitary confinement could be abused, there is no evidence to indicate this is the case at gitmo.

 

[nonconformist]

How about you stick with what I said....which is I dont think solitary confinement is torture.

Ah, come on, man, how is strapping Ameircans to the floor, denying them food, and letting water trickle, drop by drop, onto their faces day and night torture?



Cos you know that they went insane, so acting like a big man and doing the whole "I could ride it all out, they're *******" macho thing fools noone. Torture is torture.

 

[MobBoss]

Ah, come on, man, how is strapping Ameircans to the floor, denying them food, and letting water trickle, drop by drop, onto their faces day and night torture?

Sorry, but there is no evidence of that what-so-ever. Point of fact, when the prisoners went on a hunger strike they were force fed so they wouldnt starve to death....they are not being denied food.

Cos you know that they went insane, so acting like a big man and doing the whole "I could ride it all out, they're *******" macho thing fools noone. Torture is torture.

Right. Torture is torture. And putting a guy into a cell by himself is not in of itself torture. Sorry. By the way, were you not the person who advocated that torture never works in that McCain torture thread? So which is it? Does it work or not? Or it doenst work when it fits your argument...but it does when it does fit your argument like here.

Bah.

 

[nonconformist]

When you can define what "infidel", and "repulsed" to reflect what you want them to say, to make those definitions show what is happening, actually, it does. For example, if you redefine "infidel" to mean "human beings" in general, then yes, American troops are infidels. If you redefine "repulsed" to mean "victory", then yes, the American infidels are on their way to total repulsion.

If by "illegal combattant" you mean "we haven't got a thing on these people, so we're holding thewm to not make it look like we screwed up, big time", yeah, they're illegal combattants.

According to the guidelines layed out in the Geneva Convention, as the US signed and ratified it, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are not POW's. Period. If we wanted to grant them the rights of POW's, then would could, but as we do not want to we are under no obligation whatsoever to treat them as legally captured Prisoners Of War. Their basic human rights will, and have been, respected, but they get none of the special rights that POW's are entitled to. That is a fact, I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's life.

Whoops, wrong answer, you go home with nothing.
Allow me to requoteth the Convention:

(Art 4) "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy"

* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms"

(Art 5):"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

(Ironically, the 1977 Geneva Protocol would allow the USto treat these guys differently, but the US has outright refused to ratify it)

Now, if you excuse me, I have no more time for this gay banter, as I must go and eat.

 

[bhsup]

EDIT: Yeah, deleting post. Sorry, nonconformist, I forgot the post I made yesterday in the "casio" thread. Not fair for me to now jump in here after I said I was done with the Gitmo debate.

 

[MobBoss]

* "Members of the armed forces"

Nope.

* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"

Nope.

* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"

Nope.

* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"

Nope.

* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms

Nope.

How do you figure the people in gitmo meet any of these criteria? They dont.

 

[Kyriakos]

Heh, I would say that your website is somewhat biased towards inmate rights, citing links to the ACLU and various stats for wrongful arrests, wrongful identification etc. Hardly a suprised that they would have such an article linked.

Perhaps, as in everything, there is a median to our argument. I would say that solitary confinement, COULD be used as torture if, for example, a person was made to sit in an extremely small cell, heated/chilled cell or other extraneous things....however, someone alone in a normal sized cell, being fed three times a day is hardly torture in my book. Hell, even those in solitary confinement in maximum security prisons get 1 hour a day in the yard.

Sorry, while I do think solitary confinement could be abused, there is no evidence to indicate this is the case at gitmo.

MobBoss, to claim that the medium view is always the correct one is illogical, for in such a case there would be as many medium views as the different people in a debate, since neither you are on the absolute edge (impossible) of your part, nor me. It seems to me that claiming that the medium view is correct is just a way to not accept any value in what is being said, since the medium again is something thought by you, ie my medium would be something different.
I dont understand your argument about the site; it is from the american journal of psychiatry, so one would expect it to be the official scientific opinnion on the subject. Moreover i dont get why you think that solitary confinement is not torture. Is it a game/fun, or it is "not enough torture to be called torture"? Such a view is entirely unscientific ofcourse, since torture is something of the mind as much as of the body. You can remember kids in elementary or highschool which seemed to feel tortured by bullies; to them it was very real torture, to another it might seem nothing at all, but to claim it was nothing would just show lack of empathy, as you are also showing. The thing is that in this way you (ie people in the USA who share such views) help ruin the lives of others, as in this case prisoners in gitmo.

 

[BasketCase]

Solitary confinement is used in U.S. prisons when a prisoner becomes a threat to his cellmate. Either violate the rights of the rowdy prisoner by isolating him, or violate the rights of the rowdy prisoner's cellmate by refusing to remove the rowdy prisoner.

So, I have no problem with MobBoss' "medium" view. Sometimes solitary confinement can be considered torture, and other times it's a necessity.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, to claim that the medium view is always the correct one is illogical, for in such a case there would be as many medium views as the different people in a debate, since neither you are on the absolute edge (impossible) of your part, nor me. It seems to me that claiming that the medium view is correct is just a way to not accept any value in what is being said, since the medium again is something thought by you, ie my medium would be something different.

Quite the long winded way to say you dont agree with me. Suffice it to say that in my humble experience the "medium view" as it were, is almost always closer to the truth than any extreme point of view concerning the matter.

I dont understand your argument about the site; it is from the american journal of psychiatry, so one would expect it to be the official scientific opinnion on the subject.

That in itself says nothing. How was it accepted by his peers that wrote it? Was there any peer review regarding it. Also, the study merely states suggested findings, and is in of itself not conclusive in any way, shape or form. Or do you think that a study of a handfull of prison inmates concerning the matter indicates a final and conclusive "official scientific opinion" of the subject?

Moreover i dont get why you think that solitary confinement is not torture. Is it a game/fun, or it is "not enough torture to be called torture"? Such a view is entirely unscientific ofcourse, since torture is something of the mind as much as of the body. You can remember kids in elementary or highschool which seemed to feel tortured by bullies; to them it was very real torture, to another it might seem nothing at all, but to claim it was nothing would just show lack of empathy, as you are also showing. The thing is that in this way you (ie people in the USA who share such views) help ruin the lives of others, as in this case prisoners in gitmo.

If I ground my child to their room is that torture? No. It is simply a tool to encourage good behavior. I do not think I have a lack of empathy, rather, I think you over-empathize with the prisoners at gitmo and their situation.

Lets be frank. What has ruined these peoples lives (if indeed that is the case...to my knowledge their lives are not finished yet) is Islamic fananticism. We would not be in Afghanistan or Iraq today if Al-Qaeda had not destroyed the World Trade Center in its terrorist attack. That is a fact.

The people in Gitmo have been picked up and identified as being hostile to US and coalition forces. Some have been released, so there must be some type of process going to to ascertain their innocence or guilt. I know for a fact that such a process exists in Iraq and people get released on a daily basis once it is found out that they indeed are harmless.

Those that have been in gitmo for a long time apparently are not that harmless. I dont have a problem with that.

 

[blackheart]

Those that have been in gitmo for a long time apparently are not that harmless. I dont have a problem with that.

Therein lies the problem. You believe that due process is at work and justice is being served, while the rest of us don't. There are already numerous facts and evidence pointing out the falseness in your belief but you fail to recognize them. I will point out a few facts.

They've been there four years without a trial. If they are accused of a crime, they should stand trial.

Some were picked up by bounty hunters with rather sketchy accusations.

 

[Kayak]

Hey MobBoss, please see my post #104 on page 6! answer appreciated.

 

[blackheart]

That in itself says nothing. How was it accepted by his peers that wrote it? Was there any peer review regarding it. Also, the study merely states suggested findings, and is in of itself not conclusive in any way, shape or form. Or do you think that a study of a handfull of prison inmates concerning the matter indicates a final and conclusive "official scientific opinion" of the subject?

Psychology isn't a conclusive field to begin with, but that doesn't mean you should conveniently ignore something that is backed by research and observable because it doesn't fit with your views.

 

[MobBoss]

@MobBoss, You never aswered my question, so I will pose it again. Just the other day names and records were released as the result of a Freedom of Information act case. A couple of those records were read on the news. To our credit some people in Gitmo have pretty clear ties to Al Caida(sp?) (Example caught while carrying financial records for the group) others are tenuous at best. There is one man , that has been held for four years after being picked up in Northern Pakistan. His connection? He spent a night in a house that was occasionaly used by some other people who were suspected of membership. This is from our military's records, that is all of the evidence against him. Is this man a POW? Why are we holding him?

First of all, I dont know individual details. How was the information we have on this guy obtained? Was it his word only, given at his deposition? Is there any corroborating evidence? How do we verify his story?

 

[MobBoss]

Therein lies the problem. You believe that due process is at work and justice is being served, while the rest of us don't. There are already numerous facts and evidence pointing out the falseness in your belief but you fail to recognize them. I will point out a few facts.

They've been there four years without a trial. If they are accused of a crime, they should stand trial.

Some were picked up by bounty hunters with rather sketchy accusations.

Well, here is a fact for you... yes..we have released people from gitmo, so some sort of process is in place. And one reason we are taking our time is for this very reason: http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/000567.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3745962.stm

News story about a guy released from gitmo that turns right around and commits another terrorist act.

So, if gitmo is the hole of no return....HOW DID HE GET OUT???

EDIT: more gitmo prisoners released: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A982-2005Jan11.html

And more inmates returning to their life of terrorism: http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/afgthans.htm and http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041018-124854-2279r.htm

So, it seems a pretty good number of the "poor innocent" inmates at gitmo are in fact going back to fight against us again and again. Tell me....exactly how smart are we to release people who want to come back to kill more of us?

 

[blackheart]

Well, here is a fact for you... yes..we have released people from gitmo, so some sort of process is in place. And one reason we are taking our time is for this very reason: http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/000567.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3745962.stm

News story about a guy released from gitmo that turns right around and commits another terrorist act.

So, if gitmo is the hole of no return....HOW DID HE GET OUT???

So the Gitmo interrogators blundered and released an actual terrorist?

That still doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there is no due proces or trial going on.

 

[MobBoss]

So the Gitmo interrogators blundered and released an actual terrorist?

That still doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there is no due proces or trial going on.

Yes, there is a due process...just because you dont know the details does not mean there is one. I also think your funny face is incredibly out of place....its not funny to the people that this guy kidnapped and killed now is it?

Shame on you.

 

[blackheart]

Yes, there is a due process...just because you dont know the details does not mean there is one. I also think your funny face is incredibly out of place....its not funny to the people that this guy kidnapped and killed now is it?

Shame on you.

Then how would you know there is due process if you don't know the details either?

It's funny to me that the military spends so much time interrogating Gitmo prisoners that they happen to let a real terrorist slip. I laugh at them.

 

[Elrohir]

Whoops, wrong answer, you go home with nothing.
Allow me to requoteth the Convention:

(Ironically, the 1977 Geneva Protocol would allow the USto treat these guys differently, but the US has outright refused to ratify it)

It mentions organized resistence movements. That means the terrorists in Iraq might count as POW's - but terrorists, like the sort who attacked us in 9/11, would not. We were not occupying their countires, therefore they could not be resistence movements against US occupation. That seems fairly clear to me.

As to Article 5, you missed the key clause:

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Not "They are automatically POW's", "they are POW's until a tribunal says otherwise". As far as I'm concerned, the US government has the authority to form a "competent tribunal" and determine that they do not fall under Article 4 regulations.

Now, if you excuse me, I have no more time for this gay banter, as I must go and eat.

I'll talk to you later then. Thank you for your politeness and maturity, especially in that last sentence. You have been an inspiration to us all.