the guantánamo files - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 04-25-2011, 06:43 AM

this morning sees the release of 700+ files detailing american fun and excitement at guantanamo......

this is the overview from the guardian

Quote:

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison

• Innocent people interrogated for years on slimmest pretexts
• Children, elderly and mentally ill among those wrongfully held
• 172 prisoners remain, some with no prospect of trial or release

More than 700 leaked secret files on the Guantánamo detainees lay bare the inner workings of America's controversial prison camp in Cuba.

The US military dossiers, obtained by the New York Times and the Guardian, reveal how, alongside the so-called "worst of the worst", many prisoners were flown to the Guantánamo cages and held captive for years on the flimsiest grounds, or on the basis of lurid confessions extracted by maltreatment.

The 759 Guantánamo files, classified "secret", cover almost every inmate since the camp was opened in 2002. More than two years after President Obama ordered the closure of the prison, 172 are still held there.

The files depict a system often focused less on containing dangerous terrorists or enemy fighters, than on extracting intelligence. Among inmates who proved harmless were an 89-year-old Afghan villager, suffering from senile dementia, and a 14-year-old boy who had been an innocent kidnap victim.

The old man was transported to Cuba to interrogate him about "suspicious phone numbers" found in his compound. The 14-year-old was shipped out merely because of "his possible knowledge of Taliban...local leaders"

The documents also reveal:

• US authorities listed the main Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), as a terrorist organisation alongside groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranian intelligence.

Interrogators were told to regard links to any of these as an indication of terrorist or insurgent activity.

• Almost 100 of the inmates who passed through Guantánamo are listed by their captors as having had depressive or psychotic illnesses. Many went on hunger strike or attempted suicide.

• A number of British nationals and residents were held for years even though US authorities knew they were not Taliban or al-Qaida members. One Briton, Jamal al-Harith, was rendered to Guantánamo simply because he had been held in a Taliban prison and was thought to have knowledge of their interrogation techniques. The US military tried to hang on to another Briton, Binyam Mohamed, even after charges had been dropped and evidence emerged he had been tortured.

• US authorities relied heavily on information obtained from a small number of detainees under torture. They continued to maintain this testimony was reliable even after admitting that the prisoners who provided it had been mistreated.

The files also show that a large number of the detainees who have left Guantanamo were designated "high risk" by the camp authorities before their release or transfer to other countries.

The leaked files include guidance for US interrogators on how to decide whether to hold or release detainees, and how to spot al-Qaida cover stories. One warns interrogators: "Travel to Afghanistan for any reason after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 is likely a total fabrication with the true intentions being to support Usama Bin Laden through direct hostilities against the US forces."

Another 17-page file, titled "GTMO matrix of threat indicators for enemy combatants", advises interrogators to look out for signs of terrorist activity ranging from links to a number of mosques around the world, including two in London, to ownership of a particular model of Casio watch.

"The Casio was known to be given to the students at al-Qaida bombmaking training courses in Afghanistan," it states.

The inclusion of association with the ISI as a "threat indicator" in this document is likely to pour fuel on the flames of Washington's already strained relationship with its key regional ally.A number of the detainee files also contain references, apparently based on intelligence reporting, to the ISI supporting, co-ordinating and protecting insurgents fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan, or even assisting al-Qaida.

Obama's inability to shut Guantánamo has been one of the White House's most internationally embarrassing policy failures. The files offer an insight into why the administration has been unable to transfer many of the 172 existing prisoners from the island prison where they remain outside the protection of the US courts or the prisoner-of-war provisions of the Geneva conventions.

The range of those still held captive includes detainees who have been admittedly tortured so badly they can never be successfully tried, informers who must be protected from reprisals, and a group of Chinese Muslims from the Uighur minority who have nowhere to go.

One of those officially admitted to have been so maltreated that it amounted to torture is prisoner No 63, Maad al-Qahtani. He was captured more than nine years ago, fleeing from the site of Osama bin Laden's last stand in the mountain caves of Tora Bora in 2001. The report says Qahtani, allegedly one of the "Dirty 30" who were Bin Laden's bodyguards, must not be released: "HIGH risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests and allies." The report's military authors admit his admissions were obtained by what they call "harsh interrogation techniques in the early stages of detention". But otherwise the files make little mention of the widely-condemned techniques that were employed to obtain "intelligence" and "confessions" from detainees such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation and prolonged exposure to cold and loud music.

The files also detail how many innocents or marginal figures swept up by the Guantánamo dragnet because US forces thought they might be of some intelligence value.

One man was transferred to the facility "because he was a mullah, who led prayers at Manu mosque in Kandahar province, Afghanistan … which placed him in a position to have special knowledge of the Taliban". US authorities eventually released him after more than a year's captivity, deciding he had no intelligence value.

Another prisoner was shipped to the base "because of his general knowledge of activities in the areas of Khowst and Kabul based as a result of his frequent travels through the region as a taxi driver".

The files also reveal that an al-Jazeera journalist was held at Guantánamo for six years, partly in order to be interrogated about the Arabic news network.

His dossier states that one of the reasons was "to provide information on … the al-Jazeera news network's training programme, telecommunications equipment, and newsgathering operations in Chechnya, Kosovo and Afghanistan, including the network's acquisition of a video of UBL [Osama bin Laden] and a subsequent interview with UBL".

The Guantánamo files are among hundreds of thousands of documents US soldier Bradley Manning is accused of having turned over to the WikiLeaks website more than a year ago.

The documents were obtained by the New York Times and shared with the Guardian and National Public Radio, which is publishing extracts, having redacted information which might identify informants.

A Pentagon spokesperson said: "Naturally we would prefer that no legitimately classified information be released into the public domain, as by definition it can be expected to cause damage to US national security. The situation with the Guantánamo detention facility is exceptionally complex and releasing any records will further complicate ongoing actions."

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison | World news | The Guardian

link to the files:
The Guantánamo files: the documents | World news | guardian.co.uk

first off, i entirely support the leaking of these documents.

as with previous wikileaks document releases, it'll take some time to go through this..

notice the different coverage the guardian is giving this as over against the ny times.

i think the problem with guantanamo is that the prison exists, that the "war on terror" happened, that ethical, legal and political expediences were constructed to justify both the "war on terror" and gitmo (not to mention extraordinary renditions and other such treats) and not that information about them has been released.

but what do you think of this release?

if you work your way through the files and/or interpretations, what do you make of the information?

is gitmo worth the costs in your view?
why or why not?

Derwood · 04-25-2011, 08:44 AM

I love that the US government's response was that the leaked information was "unfortunate".

Unfortunate that all these people are detained? Oh, no, no, no. Unfortunate that the public has been made aware of all the bullshit? You betcha

filtherton · 04-25-2011, 09:00 AM

I'm glad the info is out. I'm not particularly surprised by any of it. Another bit of flash for my Obama disappointment cap.

dksuddeth · 04-25-2011, 09:53 AM

i'm sorry, what wrong has been done here?

KirStang · 04-25-2011, 10:08 AM

Cruel Inhumane Degrading Treatment, for one. I still haven't formulated a strong position on this.

On one hand, these terrorists are disregarding the norms and customs of law and war, as such, they should not have the right to claim any protection founded on notions of a fair war. (Interestingly, these same arguments were made by crusaders--norms would be followed until they ran in to 'heretics' and 'non believers.') Plain and simple, these criminals are sub-human and them and any associates should be given a dose of their own medicine.

On the other hand, we're supposed to be an enlightened society which respects humanitarian and humane rights. It's hard to take a country which claims to intervene in an oil rich state to promote 'humanitarian concerns' while the same country is doing substantially the same thing to their own prisoners.

filtherton · 04-25-2011, 10:17 AM

Not to mention that not all of these folks are terrorists.

Baraka_Guru · 04-25-2011, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

Cruel Inhumane Degrading Treatment, for one. I still haven't formulated a strong position on this.

I had to take some time to think about it as well.

Quote:

On one hand, these terrorists are disregarding the norms and customs of law and war, as such, they should not have the right to claim any protection founded on notions of a fair war. (Interestingly, these same arguments were made by crusaders--norms would be followed until they ran in to 'heretics' and 'non believers.') Plain and simple, these criminals are sub-human and them and any associates should be given a dose of their own medicine.

This is a dangerous position to take. Some of the worst atrocities in our history were carried out by those who had the capacity to take groups of human beings and render them sub-human. No human being is sub-human. A human is a human, regardless of their thoughts or actions, which brings us to...

Quote:

On the other hand, we're supposed to be an enlightened society which respects humanitarian and humane rights. It's hard to take a country which claims to intervene in an oil rich state to promote 'humanitarian concerns' while the same country is doing substantially the same thing to their own prisoners.

Human rights are in place universally for a reason. The aim is to avoid undermining these rights for political or other purposes. Despite what criminal actions take place, those who are accused must be treated with the most basic and fundamental human rights. This is a foundational aspect of law and justice.

What wrong has been done here? The release? Maybe it was wrong to acquire and/or to release the information, but mostly on a political or security level. On a moral or ethical level (i.e. alternatively political), it was the right thing to do, as the truth regarding dire circumstances that remains shrouded in mystery is a horrific thing.

What's going on in this prison is nothing short of a travesty of justice. I would welcome similar releases from other areas—China is one example.

KirStang · 04-25-2011, 11:15 AM

I agree with the universality of human rights. That's one of the big things plaguing the legitimacy of our imperialistic actions.

On the other hand, in a cost-benefit analysis--if I can aid and abet terrorism, but surrender at the first chance I get, and withhold information, under threat of being asked a lot of questions (and given amenities such as shelter, food, etc) it just seems balanced too much towards the perpetrators. In other words, too much carrot and not enough stick.

But there are also issues of innocent detainees and lack of procedural/judicial safeguards that are usually present to protect the innocent. Again. I don't know enough to argue one point over another.

Baraka_Guru · 04-25-2011, 11:25 AM

Well, I don't blame you, KirStang, the whole operation is a mess—ethically, politically, and legally.

If you choose to overlook the status of a child victim of war crimes for the benefit of his intelligence value, where does that leave you? Well, at least it looks less and less bad as he grows—in a cage—from a child into a Muslimy-looking bearded man.

This is just one example of how many?

dksuddeth · 04-25-2011, 12:38 PM

Aren't rights limited to reasonableness? not absolute? so in the face of terrorism, if rights are limited, isn't that supposed to be ok?

Baraka_Guru · 04-25-2011, 12:53 PM

Rights are limited by law. As you know. Are there laws permitting the torture and inhumane treatment of accused prisoners? Are these just laws?

roachboy · 04-25-2011, 12:54 PM

what the bush people fashioned as a pseudo-legal justification for torture violates international conventions that the united states is signatory of and should have opened bush administration people up to prosecution by, say, the international war crimes tribunal.

but the americans have a Problem with the international war crimes tribunal. especially conservative-nationalist types. part of this has to do with their seeming inability to concede that its possible for the united states to commit the main operative war crime, which is to lose a war.

dksuddeth · 04-25-2011, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Rights are limited by law. As you know. Are there laws permitting the torture and inhumane treatment of accused prisoners? Are these just laws?

apparently, there are. especially since there are no prosecutions forthcoming.

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what the bush people fashioned as a pseudo-legal justification for torture violates international conventions that the united states is signatory of and should have opened bush administration people up to prosecution by, say, the international war crimes tribunal.

but the americans have a Problem with the international war crimes tribunal. especially conservative-nationalist types. part of this has to do with their seeming inability to concede that its possible for the united states to commit the main operative war crime, which is to lose a war.

and yet, when 80+ people were crushed and burned by military equipment in Waco, none of you leftists yelled for a war crimes trial or a human rights prosecution, did you?

Baraka_Guru · 04-25-2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

apparently, there are. especially since there are no prosecutions forthcoming.

Well, I suppose that's why these files were leaked. There is a grave injustice going on, and if I were American, I'd be so fucking pissed about it. I'm already pissed enough at my own government (mostly under Harper) for dropping the ball on protecting a victim of war crimes against a minor. The fact that this kind of thing is still going on is so far beyond the pale that it's maddening.

So while it might be apparent that there are laws that permit what's going on in GB, I'm suspicious and I suspect it's not the case. I don't see the legality of it. Is it internally legal? It appears not to be externally legal, as roachboy points out. It certainly isn't ethical.

---------- Post added at 05:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and yet, when 80+ people were crushed and burned by military equipment in Waco, none of you leftists yelled for a war crimes trial or a human rights prosecution, did you?

Try to stay focused.

dksuddeth · 04-25-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Well, I suppose that's why these files were leaked. There is a grave injustice going on, and if I were American, I'd be so fucking pissed about it. I'm already pissed enough at my own government (mostly under Harper) for dropping the ball on protecting a victim of war crimes against a minor. The fact that this kind of thing is still going on is so far beyond the pale that it's maddening.

So while it might be apparent that there are laws that permit what's going on in GB, I'm suspicious and I suspect it's not the case. I don't see the legality of it. Is it internally legal? It appears not to be externally legal, as roachboy points out. It certainly isn't ethical.

whether it turns out that it's legal or illegal, nothing will come of it because people refuse to enforce the rule of law. people choose to believe that rights are limited and that the government can limit those rights in the name of safety and public order. well your government (yours and mine) are keeping us safe, so those at GB have more limited rights than the rest of us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Try to stay focused.

how totally not surprising that you wonn't equate the two incidents, or did they have their permissions removed because they were a minority in disapproval of the populace?

Baraka_Guru · 04-25-2011, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

whether it turns out that it's legal or illegal, nothing will come of it because people refuse to enforce the rule of law. people choose to believe that rights are limited and that the government can limit those rights in the name of safety and public order. well your government (yours and mine) are keeping us safe, so those at GB have more limited rights than the rest of us.

But my point is that this is an abhorrent limitation of rights. There's a difference between this and removing someone's right to liberty and to bear arms because he was convicted of murder.

Quote:

how totally not surprising that you wonn't equate the two incidents, or did they have their permissions removed because they were a minority in disapproval of the populace?

If you're going to bring another incident into the equation, you need to demonstrate why you're doing it. I could try to equate this simplistically to Nazi Germany, but I'd be accused to Godwinning the thread.

I don't mind looking at something outside of the matter at hand, but at least be convincing about it. (i.e. What's your point?)

hiredgun · 04-26-2011, 11:16 AM

I agree with roachboy that the greatest problem with Gitmo is not what happens there but that it exists in the first place, and that it is framed as part of a war on terror.

As the documents show, the 'evidence' is really flimsy; the prosecutors and defense working the cases have known this for quite some time. It turns out that the evidence isn't flimsy in the context of a temporary detention on the battlefield; but it doesn't come within a light-year of meeting the criteria we consider a part of 'due process' in civilian judicial life, and of course the recourse afforded to the prisoners has been extremely limited. The military isn't trained to collect evidence the way that police and prosecutors are; the conditions in the field often make this extremely difficult to do; and in any case, the military don't see it as their job to be policemen, painstakingly rebuilding and preserving a trail of evidence about some set of events that happened in the past; their job is to do what it takes to stop the next bomb from going off and killing their buddies in a theater of fast-moving asymmetric war.

So at a tactical level, this all played out pretty logically - but strategically, it makes no sense. Based on some of the data posted above (grabbing taxi drivers, prisoners of the Taliban, etc) it seems as if the strategic plan was to wring Afghanistan dry of anyone with even loose connections to Al Qaeda, squeeze all these folks until they tell you everything you want to know, and then smash AQ with the resulting information. Unfortunately, it seems there wasn't really a plan B for what to do with the prisoners...

roachboy · 04-26-2011, 12:37 PM

well there wasn't really even a coherent plan a either. on the one hand, you have extensive use of torture and claims from military types that it extracted useful legit information---and then you have all kinds of examples that show people basically just making stuff up, giving lots of meaningless names in exchange for privileges at gitmo or---and this is the most typical result of torture--to make the torture stop.

i was somewhat heartened to read of the internal fights over the ethics of torture:

Guantánamo files: US agencies fought internal war over handling of detainees | World news | The Guardian

and grimly not surprised that the result was their replacement with people whose ethical compass did not extend that far.

personally, i think gitmo--and the entire american reaction to 9/11/2001---represents a compromise of something quite fundamental about the united states as a country ostensibly based on the rule of law, something so fundamental that it's hard not to see in this anything but a victory for the putative motives of the ghosts who blew into the pentagon, trade center and field in central pa.

GreyWolf · 04-26-2011, 03:17 PM

The concept of rights is that they are inherent. Overriding them requires specific, prescribed procedures. When, as in the case of Guantanamo, and the other abuses committed in the name of the war on terror, you ignore the requirements for overriding rights, you lose. It's as simple as that. If we do it because it's expedient, even to save thousands of lives from an attack, we lose. If it is expedient for us to ignore a person's rights in the name of safety, then it is expedient for the other side to ignore them in their actions.

By our reactions, we validate their position and actions. The system falls apart, and rights become, as we have here in Canada, simply maybes. The only way to win, is to be strong, live up to the concepts we have enshrined, and accept that the actions of the enemy may cause us losses in battles, but not the loss of the war. No comfort to those who have lost, but in the long run, the only way to win overall.

roachboy · 04-26-2011, 03:37 PM

rights are inherent because a constitution frames them that way. there are functional reasons for that. the result is that within a legal system that operates on the basis of the premises outlined in that constitution, rights are understood as inherent. in a different type of legal system, that wouldn't be the case: for example, in an older-school monarchy, rights are, like everything else, granted by the king. within such a system, that is simply how things work.

that said, i have a problem with the way gitmo et al was justified legally and ethically and part of that has to do with unnecessary and/or arbitrary abrogation of basic legal rights guaranteed not only by the us constitution but also by international agreements that the united states is signtory to. i think the consequences are as you say grey wolf.

Willravel · 04-26-2011, 03:46 PM

It makes me sick to say that none of this surprises me. We've known that people detained on evidence that's flimsy at best and nonexistent at worst have been held and even tortured for years and years. It's inexcusable, it's monstrous, and it is a fundamental violation of the principles upon which this country was founded and remain an integral part of the law today.

Baraka_Guru · 04-26-2011, 04:22 PM

Guantánamo will stand as a testament to the effectiveness of terrorism.

WhoaitsZ · 04-26-2011, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

i'm sorry, what wrong has been done here?

So if I kidnap you because you have a name I don't trust or used a phone number of a Bad Person and keep you locked up for years in terrible conditions, no rigts, no calls... you are okay with it because golly gee wilikers I feared you might be a terrorist?

Or better yet, let me kidnap your family. I bet you won't shrug it off then.

And as far as no liberals complaining about Waco speak for yourself. That is one of the vilest moments in US history. Either way, stick with your 'was that wrong' defense, please.

I am sorry but I think anybody who reads about Gitmo and is not pissed beyond belief is either just bigoted due to it being Brown Muslims or you simply have no heart if you're safe which is the polar opposite of what America is supposed to stand for.

---------- Post added at 09:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Guantánamo will stand as a testament to the effectiveness of terrorism.

Indeed, sir.

It's like not holding trials in the States. Sure guys, lets cower even more. The terrorist didn't win until we gave them the ball repeatedly.

04-25-2011, 08:44 AM	#2 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I love that the US government's response was that the leaked information was "unfortunate". Unfortunate that all these people are detained? Oh, no, no, no. Unfortunate that the public has been made aware of all the bullshit? You betcha __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

04-25-2011, 09:53 AM	#4 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	i'm sorry, what wrong has been done here? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

04-25-2011, 11:25 AM	#9 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Well, I don't blame you, KirStang, the whole operation is a mess—ethically, politically, and legally. If you choose to overlook the status of a child victim of war crimes for the benefit of his intelligence value, where does that leave you? Well, at least it looks less and less bad as he grows—in a cage—from a child into a Muslimy-looking bearded man. This is just one example of how many? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

04-25-2011, 12:38 PM	#10 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Aren't rights limited to reasonableness? not absolute? so in the face of terrorism, if rights are limited, isn't that supposed to be ok? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

04-25-2011, 12:53 PM	#11 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Rights are limited by law. As you know. Are there laws permitting the torture and inhumane treatment of accused prisoners? Are these just laws? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

04-25-2011, 09:00 AM	#3 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I'm glad the info is out. I'm not particularly surprised by any of it. Another bit of flash for my Obama disappointment cap.

04-25-2011, 10:17 AM	#6 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Not to mention that not all of these folks are terrorists.

04-25-2011, 12:54 PM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what the bush people fashioned as a pseudo-legal justification for torture violates international conventions that the united states is signatory of and should have opened bush administration people up to prosecution by, say, the international war crimes tribunal. but the americans have a Problem with the international war crimes tribunal. especially conservative-nationalist types. part of this has to do with their seeming inability to concede that its possible for the united states to commit the main operative war crime, which is to lose a war. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-26-2011, 11:16 AM	#17 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	I agree with roachboy that the greatest problem with Gitmo is not what happens there but that it exists in the first place, and that it is framed as part of a war on terror. As the documents show, the 'evidence' is really flimsy; the prosecutors and defense working the cases have known this for quite some time. It turns out that the evidence isn't flimsy in the context of a temporary detention on the battlefield; but it doesn't come within a light-year of meeting the criteria we consider a part of 'due process' in civilian judicial life, and of course the recourse afforded to the prisoners has been extremely limited. The military isn't trained to collect evidence the way that police and prosecutors are; the conditions in the field often make this extremely difficult to do; and in any case, the military don't see it as their job to be policemen, painstakingly rebuilding and preserving a trail of evidence about some set of events that happened in the past; their job is to do what it takes to stop the next bomb from going off and killing their buddies in a theater of fast-moving asymmetric war. So at a tactical level, this all played out pretty logically - but strategically, it makes no sense. Based on some of the data posted above (grabbing taxi drivers, prisoners of the Taliban, etc) it seems as if the strategic plan was to wring Afghanistan dry of anyone with even loose connections to Al Qaeda, squeeze all these folks until they tell you everything you want to know, and then smash AQ with the resulting information. Unfortunately, it seems there wasn't really a plan B for what to do with the prisoners...

04-26-2011, 12:37 PM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well there wasn't really even a coherent plan a either. on the one hand, you have extensive use of torture and claims from military types that it extracted useful legit information---and then you have all kinds of examples that show people basically just making stuff up, giving lots of meaningless names in exchange for privileges at gitmo or---and this is the most typical result of torture--to make the torture stop. i was somewhat heartened to read of the internal fights over the ethics of torture: Guantánamo files: US agencies fought internal war over handling of detainees \| World news \| The Guardian and grimly not surprised that the result was their replacement with people whose ethical compass did not extend that far. personally, i think gitmo--and the entire american reaction to 9/11/2001---represents a compromise of something quite fundamental about the united states as a country ostensibly based on the rule of law, something so fundamental that it's hard not to see in this anything but a victory for the putative motives of the ghosts who blew into the pentagon, trade center and field in central pa. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-26-2011, 03:17 PM	#19 (permalink)
GreyWolf Sober Location: Eastern Canada	The concept of rights is that they are inherent. Overriding them requires specific, prescribed procedures. When, as in the case of Guantanamo, and the other abuses committed in the name of the war on terror, you ignore the requirements for overriding rights, you lose. It's as simple as that. If we do it because it's expedient, even to save thousands of lives from an attack, we lose. If it is expedient for us to ignore a person's rights in the name of safety, then it is expedient for the other side to ignore them in their actions. By our reactions, we validate their position and actions. The system falls apart, and rights become, as we have here in Canada, simply maybes. The only way to win, is to be strong, live up to the concepts we have enshrined, and accept that the actions of the enemy may cause us losses in battles, but not the loss of the war. No comfort to those who have lost, but in the long run, the only way to win overall. __________________ *The secret to great marksmanship is deciding what the target was AFTER you've shot.*

04-26-2011, 03:37 PM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	rights are inherent because a constitution frames them that way. there are functional reasons for that. the result is that within a legal system that operates on the basis of the premises outlined in that constitution, rights are understood as inherent. in a different type of legal system, that wouldn't be the case: for example, in an older-school monarchy, rights are, like everything else, granted by the king. within such a system, that is simply how things work. that said, i have a problem with the way gitmo et al was justified legally and ethically and part of that has to do with unnecessary and/or arbitrary abrogation of basic legal rights guaranteed not only by the us constitution but also by international agreements that the united states is signtory to. i think the consequences are as you say grey wolf. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-26-2011, 03:46 PM	#21 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It makes me sick to say that none of this surprises me. We've known that people detained on evidence that's flimsy at best and nonexistent at worst have been held and even tortured for years and years. It's inexcusable, it's monstrous, and it is a fundamental violation of the principles upon which this country was founded and remain an integral part of the law today.

04-26-2011, 04:22 PM	#22 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Guantánamo will stand as a testament to the effectiveness of terrorism. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot