Torture

[El_Machinae]

Wait, you're right! The only evidence that they could be terrorists is that they claim to have been tortured. Yet, despite this evidence, they were let go.

How could the officials let them go, if there's this evidence that they're terrorists?

 

[Trajan12]

So let's say, purely hypothetically, that I was tortured in Guantanamo. I was eventually released after being held there for 3 years. While I was there I was tortured. Just how would I obtain documented proof that I was tortured? I mean seriously that is a rediculous thing to ask for. Obviously they aren't going to "document" that they tortured prisoners.

Then it is their word against the word of the government. Guess who I trust more. And I should.

 

[Sidhe]

Then it is their word against the word of the government. Guess who I trust more. And I should.

You trust Bush? I wouldn't, not after the amount of mistruth, bending of facts and outright decietful rhetoric that man has perpetrated. I take alot of things politicians say with a pinch of salt, with Bush though if he swore on a stack of bibles there was no torture at Guantanemo, I still wouldn't believe him. What about that guy who went into guantanemo walking and came out in a wheel chair. Probably just fell down in the shower

 

[bhsup]

Gotta go with Trajan on this one. I'll believe my government over anyone who was bad enough to warrant a trip to Gitmo to begin with.

 

[Sidhe]

Gotta go with Trajan on this one. I'll believe my government over anyone who was bad enough to warrant a trip to Gitmo to begin with.

Most of the people released weren't bad enough, in fact most aren't even guilty of anything, since they have never been tried. This in itself is a disgraceful abuse of power, which lowers the US government to the same level as the terrorists it popports to fight, essentially they are morally bankrupt people and I wouldn't believe them if they said the sky was blue, but then that's just me.

Like your government has a good track record with the truth? I always thought gullibility was a bit of an American stereotype, maybe with some people it's justified. If Tony Blair told me that no British prisons in Iraq ever used torture I'd be just as disinclined to believe that, because some soldiers have been court marshalled for doing just that. In fact so have some US soldiers. It's not a question to my mind if torture has been used, it's how often and is it commonplace?

 

[jafink]

Then it is their word against the word of the government. Guess who I trust more. And I should.

I understand how you say that you trust your government more, but if you think about it, what reason do the people who claim to be tortured have to lie? The only possiblity that I can think of is that they are spreading lies about the US because they hate it for holding them against their constitutional rights, without a trial. The government on the other hand, obviously has many reasons to lie. They want to win another election. They want to avoid being charged with crimes against humanity, and with the violation of human rights.

 

[JollyRoger]

Gotta go with Trajan on this one. I'll believe my government over anyone who was bad enough to warrant a trip to Gitmo to begin with.

Why would you trust your government if they are releasing people "bad enough to go to gitmo" who weren't "bad enough to stand trial"?

 

[Xanikk999]

They want to win another election. They want to avoid being charged with crimes against humanity, and with the violation of human rights.

Bush cant run again anyway.

Learn a little about american politics will you?

 

[sonorakitch]

I understand how you say that you trust your government more, but if you think about it, what reason do the people who claim to be tortured have to lie? The only possiblity that I can think of is that they are spreading lies about the US because they hate it for holding them against their constitutional rights, without a trial. The government on the other hand, obviously has many reasons to lie. They want to win another election. They want to avoid being charged with crimes against humanity, and with the violation of human rights.

Have you thought perhaps that as VRWC Agent suggested, they are trained to claim torture when introduced the the media pulpit when none really exists? And you ask why they would lie? Don't you know that this is a propoganda war as well as a military one?

In my opinion, these people wouldn't be deprived of sleep and wouldn't be forced to listen to blaring Red Hot Chili Peppers had they suited up in uniform before going on the battlefield. The vast majority of those held in Guantanamo have been captured as prisoners from the battlefield in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent in Iraq.

Maybe these fighters should have placed themselves into the category of soldiers...

Then all of the Geneva Convention rights would apply to them.

~Chris

 

[puglover]

There are times when lives can be saved by taking others. Why shouldn't the same apply to torture?

Yes, torture is evil, but letting innocents die because we won't take action is even worse.

EDIT: Gitmo, of course, is something else. I think criminals should be tried before judgment whenever possible. I'm just making the point that torture is sometimes applicable, in response to the accusations that Christians ignore their moral standards to support torture.

 

[brennan]

Bush cant run again anyway.

Learn a little about american politics will you?

Other Republicans can.

deliberately not using smiley.

 

[brennan]

In my opinion, these people wouldn't be deprived of sleep and wouldn't be forced to listen to blaring Red Hot Chili Peppers had they suited up in uniform before going on the battlefield. The vast majority of those held in Guantanamo have been captured as prisoners from the battlefield in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent in Iraq.

Maybe these fighters should have placed themselves into the category of soldiers...

Hmm captured on a battlefield, that would seem to suggest 'enemy combatant' to most people, but hell no these guys are viscious EVIL terrorist SCUM who deserve to be Whipped AND flayed and BOILED alive. And it's not torture because we've written OUR OWN DEFINITION of torture that excludes all the s*** we subject people to so there.

 

[Sidhe]

Hmm captured on a battlefield, that would seem to suggest 'enemy combatant' to most people, but hell no these guys are viscious EVIL terrorist SCUM who deserve to be Whipped AND flayed and BOILED alive. And it's not torture because we've written OUR OWN DEFINITION of torture that excludes all the s*** we subject people to so there.

Personally I'd give up trying to describe what morality is to people who palpably don't care. I can only assume they sleep soundly at night safely in the knowledge that their government is torturing innocent people and that it doesn't matter because, they are "potential" terrorists, and that somehow perpatrating heinous crimes against human decency is OK if you can hide behind some facile idea that bad things is alright.

Let's face it if any other nation on Earth started doing this, they'd probably be sanctioned by the UN up the wing wang. But it's OK because the US has cart blanche to act in the most inhumane ways, to ignore moral standards, and to lower itself into the slime pit with those it fights against.

The damage this government has done to it's countries reputation is unequalled in it's history. I understand patriotism but this absolving a bunch of immoral liars from responsibility, allowing them to rape the sort of ideals the country was founded on, to give up any sort of decent moral perspective, is frankly appaling. This denial is very reminiscent of another sort of denial from history. I wonder if you can guess what that is?

 

[brennan]

Do I get to invoke Godwin's early?

 

[jafink]

Have you thought perhaps that as VRWC Agent suggested, they are trained to claim torture when introduced the the media pulpit when none really exists? And you ask why they would lie? Don't you know that this is a propoganda war as well as a military one?

In my opinion, these people wouldn't be deprived of sleep and wouldn't be forced to listen to blaring Red Hot Chili Peppers had they suited up in uniform before going on the battlefield. The vast majority of those held in Guantanamo have been captured as prisoners from the battlefield in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent in Iraq.

Maybe these fighters should have placed themselves into the category of soldiers...

Then all of the Geneva Convention rights would apply to them.

~Chris

You say they are trained to claim that they were tortured, and I'm not saying that terrorists aren't. I believe you on that point, but what about the people who released because they are innocent. They claim to be tortured, and they are not terrorrists. Nobody has trained innoccent civilians to claim that they were tortured as far as I know.

 

[sonorakitch]

Hmm captured on a battlefield, that would seem to suggest 'enemy combatant' to most people, but hell no these guys are viscious EVIL terrorist SCUM who deserve to be Whipped AND flayed and BOILED alive. And it's not torture because we've written OUR OWN DEFINITION of torture that excludes all the s*** we subject people to so there.

Hahahah, while I do appreciate your sarcasim and do love it so, I don't like the idea of boiling them really. But I am one of those that think sleep deprevation and loud music constitutes harsh interrogation methods but doesn't fall into the category of torture. Even waterboarding is a bit more harmless then many lead on to.

My only point is that the occupants of Gitmo and Bangra are the cream of the crop and deserve relatively harsh treatment. While I do think each one should be brought to the stand and charged (hopefully the evidence collection was sufficient), I also believe the conditions at Gitmo and the like are far better than history has seen.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta.htm

~Chris

 

[sonorakitch]

You say they are trained to claim that they were tortured, and I'm not saying that terrorists aren't. I believe you on that point, but what about the people who released because they are innocent. They claim to be tortured, and they are not terrorrists. Nobody has trained innoccent civilians to claim that they were tortured as far as I know.

Well, I don't think these people who are being released were simply civilians who were rounded up in the streets. These are people who:

--Simply have little submittable evidence to bring them to the legal proceedings eventually (I am sure....I think) will occur for the other 400 or so.

--Provided enough information regarding "the bigger fish" to warrant a release, which doesn't mean much anyways because nearly all have been rounded up upon return to their home countries anyways.



~Chris

 

[jafink]

Well, I don't think these people who are being released were simply civilians who were rounded up in the streets. These are people who:

--Simply have little submittable evidence to bring them to the legal proceedings eventually (I am sure....I think) will occur for the other 400 or so.

--Provided enough information regarding "the bigger fish" to warrant a release, which doesn't mean much anyways because nearly all have been rounded up upon return to their home countries anyways.

~Chris

Considering that they are held in Guantanamo without trial, why would the government care about evidence? It's already violating a constitutional right.

 

[jafink]

Bush cant run again anyway.

Learn a little about american politics will you?

Thank you for pointing that out, I didn't know that, but as someone already metioned earlier, the Republicans can still run.

Also, adding that little comment on the end about learning American politics is pretty rediculous. You sound lie you are mocking me for not know a minor fact. I'm sure you wouldn't know the term limits in Sweden, or Japan for example, so you shouldn't act like everyone should know everything about American politics. I would have appreciated you letting me know about Bush not being able to run again if you didn't add that little comment at the end.

 

[sonorakitch]

Considering that they are held in Guantanamo without trial, why would the government care about evidence? It's already violating a constitutional right.

Yes, but one of two things will happen: the current administration will bow to the political pressure and will of the US Supreme Court and bring the remaining 400 detainees to the court system or the next administration will bring them to the legal table. The leadership knows this and needs to prepare for it.

I think the most recent release of 33 detainees is the first step.

~Chris