Children as young as 13 held at guatanamo. - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Dragonlich · 05-03-2003, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
Wasn't "ripping" on Texas, just stating the fact that Bush supports the death penalty and hates atheists. Since Dragonlich and I were discussing the hypothetical situation where he was imprisoned by Bush's administration, statistics or not, he'd be fucked.

Ah, but more fucked than if I were imprisoned by a fundamentalist Islamic Dutch regime? I doubt it.

KillerYoda · 05-03-2003, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Ah, but more fucked than if I were imprisoned by a fundamentalist Islamic Dutch regime? I doubt it.

Fundamentalist Christian American regime and fundamentalist Islamic Dutch regime...is either one worse than the other?

forgotten_dream · 05-03-2003, 06:53 PM

Nope. But I wouldn't think of the Bush regime as "christian fundementalist quite.

Dragonlich · 05-03-2003, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
Fundamentalist Christian American regime and fundamentalist Islamic Dutch regime...is either one worse than the other?

Er... yes?

The "fundamentalist" Christian American regime imprisons terrorists on Cuba, holding them in nice, spacious cells with loads of perks. I don't know of any fundamentalist Islamic regime that would do the same to an atheist like me... Do you have any idea what prisons are like in the middle-east? Compared to that, Guantanamo bay is heaven!

Phaenx · 05-03-2003, 10:48 PM

Christ, I'd prefer Guantanomo to living in the average afghani home let alone a prison.

KillerYoda · 05-03-2003, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Do you have any idea what prisons are like in the middle-east? Compared to that, Guantanamo bay is heaven!

Never been to either, but apparently you have. In case you haven't stayed at one of the Guatanamo Bay prisons like Dragonlich has, here's what they look like:

Not too shabby, I agree, but that still doesn't excuse the no legal counsel thing.

Read more about the camp:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/pe...dy_art10.shtml

KillerYoda · 05-03-2003, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by forgotten_dream
Nope. But I wouldn't think of the Bush regime as "christian fundementalist quite.

Like I said earlier, it was a <b>hypothetical</b> situation where the US had invaded the Netherlands in a similar fashion as Dragonlich's also <b>hypothetical</b> Dutch Islamic takeover.

Dragonlich · 05-04-2003, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
Never been to either, but apparently you have. In case you haven't stayed at one of the Guatanamo Bay prisons like Dragonlich has, here's what they look like:

Not too shabby, I agree, but that still doesn't excuse the no legal counsel thing.

Okay, I admit I've never set foot in one of those middle-east prisons, nor in Guantanamo Bay. Neither have you. However... I do know quite a lot about them from the annual reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and the like.

There is widespread torture and abuse in Islamic prisons, there is overcrowding and insufficient food and healthcare. As for legal counseling, if those governments even admit you're there, they'll eventually send in a local lawyer, who might speak some English, if you're lucky... Besides, legal counseling isn't going to be very useful if you've just admitted to all the charges after weeks of torture.

Note: there was a report on BBC World a while ago, about an Englishman who had been held in a prison in Saudi-Arabia. There had been a terror attack, and he was the scapegoat: Saudis don't blow people up, so it must be an outsider. After several days of torture - being repeatedly hit on his feet with a stick - he still refused to admit to doing it and was released. Others were not so lucky/brave: there are quite a few Britons in prison there, because of terror attacks on Westerners, related to "illegal alcohol smuggling"...

Now, as bad as Guantanamo might be, it's not nearly as bad as that. By the way, weren't those cells in Guantanamo upgraded from those "cages with a roof" to full-blown prison cells?

So... if a hypothetical USA attacked a hypothetical Dutch Islamic state (with me in prison), I'd be happy. I'd doubt I'd be imprisoned by the US afterwards, but if I were, it'd still be better than that hypothetical Dutch cell, given the Islamic background.

KillerYoda · 05-04-2003, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
Never been to either, but apparently you have.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Okay, I admit I've never set foot in one of those middle-east prisons, nor in Guantanamo Bay. Neither have you.

We're both the same.

And the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International criticizes the United States all the time, just the same as Saudi Arabia.

Dragonlich · 05-04-2003, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
We're both the same.

And the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International criticizes the United States all the time, just the same as Saudi Arabia.

Yes they do. However, there's a difference between "The prisoners don't have access to legal counsel" and "The prisoners are tortured on a daily basis"...

I don't like the US legal system, nor the Guantanamo Bay thing (although I understand it). Yet, if I have to choose between spending my life in a US prison or a Saudi prison, I'd prefer the former, as anyone in their right mind would. The Islamic legal system (sharia) is just fucked up...

The_Dude · 05-04-2003, 07:13 AM

i just dont see how y'all can compare the US to saudi arabia.

come on! we're NOT on the same level here, if you're comparing US to something, compare it to canada or UK.

the US is well above saudi for comparison purposes, we're not on the same level.

smooth · 05-04-2003, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Yes they do. However, there's a difference between "The prisoners don't have access to legal counsel" and "The prisoners are tortured on a daily basis"...

Generally, unless our feelings regarding the prisoners are ambiguous (as our society has taught us to feel towards these detainees), U.S. citizens hold refusal to legal counsel and torture on the same moral plane--both are abhorrent.

Dragonlich · 05-04-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Generally, unless our feelings regarding the prisoners are ambiguous (as our society has taught us to feel towards these detainees), U.S. citizens hold refusal to legal counsel and torture on the same moral plane--both are abhorrent.

Er... maybe that's the feeling of many US citizens, but I'd say that torture would be quite a bit more painful.

Also, it's not an either/or situation: I'd say fundy Islamic legal systems don't have a lot of options for legal representation; you're typically caught, put on trial and sentenced in a *very* short period of time...

crewsor · 05-05-2003, 05:06 PM

This has to make Dude happy.

U.S. to Free More Afghan War Prisoners From Guantánamo
By NEIL A. LEWIS

ASHINGTON, May 5 — Bush administration officials said today that they would soon release an additional group of prisoners, about a dozen, from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Officials said that the prisoners, captured in the war in Afghanistan, had been determined to have no further intelligence value and that there was no evidence that they had been involved in any crimes.

The impending release comes after officials said that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had told Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that he was hearing a rising number of complaints from other countries about the indefinite detention of their citizens at Guantánamo.

Those to be released will probably include one or more of the three youths the military recently acknowledged were being held at Guantánamo. The three are believed to be 13 to 16 years old, and the disclosure of their detention by an Australian television network produced a barrage of criticism from human rights groups.

The military has so far discharged about 22 prisoners from the prison at the American naval base in Cuba, first transferring them to the custody of the Afghan government, which then released them in Kabul.

State Department officials said that Mr. Powell had not so much pressed Mr. Rumsfeld to move quickly as to apprise him that the continued, indefinite detentions was causing diplomatic problems. Mr. Powell wrote at least two letters to Mr. Rumsfeld detailing what he had been hearing, officials said.

The prison camp, at the naval base in southeastern Cuba, currently holds about 660 detainees. Even as some are to be released, officials said, others will soon be brought before a military tribunal on the base.

The United States government has kept the Guantánamo prisoners in a political and legal limbo, by declaring they are not prisoners of war but unlawful combatants. As a result of that status, Pentagon officials have said they may lawfully detain them indefinitely.

www.nytimes.com/2003/05/05/international/americas/05CND-GITM.html?ex=....

smooth · 05-05-2003, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crewsor
... there was no evidence that they had been involved in any crimes.

Why wouldn't this make everyone happy, noit just The Dude?

crewsor · 05-05-2003, 06:43 PM

If it makes you happy too, great. Its just that Dude started the thread. Its more just to make a point that these people aren't being held indefinately with no hope for release, as a lot of people seem to think. They are being treated fairly, and released whenever feasable. Can't get that damn link to work though, always have trouble with that.

smooth · 05-05-2003, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crewsor
Its more just to make a point that these people aren't being held indefinately with no hope for release, as a lot of people seem to think.

Seems you didn't even read your own post:

Quote:

...he was hearing a rising number of complaints from other countries about the indefinite detention of their citizens at Guantánamo... Powell had not so much pressed Mr. Rumsfeld to move quickly as to apprise him that the continued, indefinite detentions was causing diplomatic problems...The United States government has kept the Guantánamo prisoners in a political and legal limbo,...

crewsor · 05-06-2003, 03:37 AM

Sure I read it, it said some of the prisoners are being released, including the youths everyone was crying about. If they are releasing the ones they determine not to be a threat, what more can you ask?

nowthen · 05-28-2003, 07:46 AM

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...8-5-2003_pg4_2

This completely shocked me when I read it. I can understand why the US wants to do this, but is this really the way to fight against terrorism?

Surely we are just taking a step towards becoming like the brutal regimes that create these terrorist groups? Or is becoming a savage the only way to fight a savage?

gov135 · 05-28-2003, 08:08 AM

"Prisoners would be tried, convicted and executed without leaving its boundaries, without a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported recently."

This shouldn't shock you. The United States is holding prisoners of war at Guatanamo. They have NO right to trial by jury, they shouldn't have travel rights (that's just plain silly), and this is a MILITARY court, so of course there is no right of appeal.

I think the distinction you find shocking may be because you are used to a different court system in Panama. But these are people being tried for war crimes in a military setting, not a civil one.

It seems each of these men will be well represented, and I'm sure strong evidence is needed for execution.

I'm also a little suspect about the source of this article. I'm not familiar with Pakistani press organizations, but when you read articles you need to read between the lines to see if the source is biased in any way. Could this paper be writing for a Muslim audience and be biased in this way? It seems that without too many direct quotes, the author has taken some liberties, ignoring the other options the U.S. is considering.

nowthen · 05-28-2003, 08:13 AM

I am English, not Panamanian, but still yes perhaps I am looking at this from a civil rather than military perspective.

Very good point on the source though, I guess there could be a strong bias in their reporting.

manalone · 05-28-2003, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gov135
[B]"Prisoners would be tried, convicted and executed without leaving its boundaries, without a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported recently."

This shouldn't shock you. The United States is holding prisoners of war at Guatanamo. They have NO right to trial by jury, they shouldn't have travel rights (that's just plain silly), and this is a MILITARY court, so of course there is no right of appeal.

That's factually incorrect. They are not prisoners of war. If they were, they would be subject to the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. Govt. has flouted repeatedly.

They are "enemy combatants", that term the government in the US use when they mean "scape goats".

Quote:

I think the distinction you find shocking may be because you are used to a different court system in Panama. But these are people being tried for war crimes in a military setting, not a civil one.

to quote the red cross on the third geneva convention:
"Everyone must enjoy basic judicial guarantees and no one may be held responsible for an act he has not committed. No one may be subjected to physical or mental torture or to cruel or degrading corporal punishment or other treatment."

There we go, that's for POWs. But these are enemy combatants.

Quote:

It seems each of these men will be well represented, and I'm sure strong evidence is needed for execution.

I wish I were as optimistic.

Quote:

Could this paper be writing for a Muslim audience and be biased in this way?

Undoubtedly, but was there any coverage in the US? there's none where I am.

I'm from Europe, I abhor the death penalty. But to even go so far as effectively giving these people show trials and then executing them is scary. It should scare everyone, especially people in the US.

The_Dude · 05-28-2003, 08:22 AM

nobody would even know that they're missing or they're dead.

this is gruesome!

gov135 · 05-28-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by manalone
That's factually incorrect. They are not prisoners of war. If they were, they would be subject to the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. Govt. has flouted repeatedly.

Very good point about the Geneva Convention. You are, of course, correct about the US position here. But I think my point still stands about how they will be tried... it will be in a military setting.

Quote:

Originally posted by manalone

to quote the red cross on the third geneva convention:
"Everyone must enjoy basic judicial guarantees and no one may be held responsible for an act he has not committed. No one may be subjected to physical or mental torture or to cruel or degrading corporal punishment or other treatment."

I think they will be accorded all judicial guarantees. I really feel they are well represented - and will continue to be. American lawyers love high-profile cases - no matter who they are representing they will do it for no charge.

Quote:

Originally posted by manalone

But to even go so far as effectively giving these people show trials and then executing them is scary. It should scare everyone, especially people in the US.

Again, we differ here. I think the system will treat these men fairly. You can't just put someone to death. The crime needs to be well documented, as well as the involvement.

Finally, I went back to look at this article again. I truely think it is quite biased - more than I originally thought - and may even be propaganda. The lead quote quotes another newspaper - which is just awful practice. The author uses action verbs like "would" were "could" is much more appropriate. And the use of the phrase "death camp" attempts to classify this in the same vein as Nazi camps in the minds of readers. When you think of "death camp" that's what you think of. I think one thing everyone can agree on, this is not a "death camp." To compare it to one is to lesson the memory of the horrors faced by those who knew all to well what a death camp was.

Thank you for your points about Geneva. It is important to introduce it into any discussions about US policy and these prisoners.

gov135 · 05-28-2003, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
nobody would even know that they're missing or they're dead.

Cmon, The Dude. I hope your kidding here.

The United States has released the names of those being held. Each is lawyered up. Their families would know, human rights groups would know (they are keeping a close eye here), and other prisoners would know.

The US Navy isn't ordering some 18 year old cadets to haul these guys off and execute them in the middle of the night...

manalone · 05-28-2003, 10:02 AM

Well, let's put it in these terms, the US refused habeas corpus. They are not going to provide the prisoners with their choice of lawyer.

Remember, this is a tribunal, which is trial by inquisition rather than the traditional common law model of the adversarial system.

I know inquisition is a loaded term, I mean it in the technical rather than emotive sense.

You have made a sensible argument, I am just concerned that the US govt has something to hide, and I am deeply cynical about the Bush administration's motives.

warrrreagl · 05-28-2003, 10:39 AM

There's something ironic (in a Big Picture kind of way) about a section of Cuba being turned into a Death Camp.

The_Dude · 05-28-2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gov135
Cmon, The Dude. I hope your kidding here.

The United States has released the names of those being held. Each is lawyered up. Their families would know, human rights groups would know (they are keeping a close eye here), and other prisoners would know.

The US Navy isn't ordering some 18 year old cadets to haul these guys off and execute them in the middle of the night...

wait a sec, human rights groups are not allowed in guatanamo.

yes the red cross was allowed in there, but they definately do not keep a close eye on what's going on there, otherwise we would know.

so, here's the deal. a husband of a family leaves to do something. next thing the family gets is a postcard saying that the husband is in cuba. then he gets killed. period.

gov135 · 05-28-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
wait a sec, human rights groups are not allowed in guatanamo.

yes the red cross was allowed in there, but they definately do not keep a close eye on what's going on there, otherwise we would know.

I didn't mean human rights groups are watching at the base. I meant they are keeping tabs on the situation, putting pressure on.

Otherwise we would know what, Dude? I didn't get that part.

And what is the something your husband of the family left to do? Herd some sheep or enforce Taliban policy on the populace?

I seeing some conspiracy theorist stuff in your post.

Glory's Sun · 05-28-2003, 03:34 PM

How are they prisoners of war when they don't fight under any flag or for any specific country. The geneva convention doesn't apply to them. Terrorists fight for their own causes not for the causes of a nation. They are not uniformed and they don't have allegience to any flag.

greytone · 05-28-2003, 05:06 PM

I find it really amazing that some look for the worst in the US gov actions but see innocence in terrorists who were captured while fighting for illegitimate and oppressive regimes who openly state it is there policy to restrict human freedom.

Our options would be:

1) Shoot them instead of capture

2) Try them using US civilian law. This does not apply as they are not citizens and there crimes were not on US soil.

3) Try them using military justice as POW's or enemy combatants. If POW's they have to be released once there is not active combat. That is fine if the conflict is with another state. It is not safe to do if they are terrorists. THEY have decided to make us their enemy until death.

4) Just let them go. This is clearly not an option to rational thinkers.

Frankly, I trust the well trained members of the US military to be infinately more fair toward these people than the terrorists where when they struck the towers.

Spanky Johnson · 05-28-2003, 06:14 PM

Quote:

The United States has released the names of those being held.

Have they? Last I heard the names still had not been released (not being sarcastic, I really don't know).

Lebell · 05-28-2003, 07:24 PM

moving to politics...

smooth · 05-28-2003, 10:30 PM

A couple of definitions seem to be in order. A nation and a state are two different things.

A state is a bureaucratic institution that claims a monopoly of *violence or force over a particular region.

A nation is a collection of people bound by common culture, history, language, etc.

The "terrorists" were fighting for a nation. We made the claim that only states can have legitimate, recognized military (notice the link to the "violence" portion of the definition I provided)--thus denying them legal combatants.

[edit]We claimed that these people were fighting for a nation. Since only states can claim the right to use violence over a population, armed combatants for a nation can not claim legal protection due to acting on behalf of a legal, organized bureaucracy.[/edit]

Keep in mind that almost the rest of the world abhors the death penalty--for any crime. Even if we were to grant what we considered to be a fair trial the punishment appears barbaric to many nations and states. Add to those issues the problem that many of our actions have already been criticized as unfair by various human rights groups and a large portion of the world's population--how skeptical do you think they already are of our intentions and practices?

Would it be to our benefit to find another method of punishment or even to relinquish control of the process to either an uninterested party (if there even is one) or one of our allies (if we even have one)?

Will our actions appear to others as uncaring or indifferent to world opinion; and if so, will that damage our long term interests?

*Violence is the ability to punish those who contradict the will of the state.
Max Weber referred to power as the ability to carry out one's will against resistance.

manalone · 05-29-2003, 12:36 AM

Well said, smooth.

In my opinion, there are basically a few options open to a real democratic justice system:

1) try them under the Geneva convention as pow's
2) try them under criminal law as civilians (not possible, since the war in afghanistan was clearly outside the jurisdiction)
3) Establish a UN or other international tribunal to try these people with international oversight and scrutiny.

None of these are proposed, because, in my opinion, the current "administration" is worried that it will fumble another scape goat.

Frowning Budah · 05-29-2003, 02:00 AM

Before we all get to wound up abt this I think we had better consider the source. This is the first article I have seen on this issue and it is from a Pakistani Newspaper. What are our News sources saying? Is this true? Just look at the official Russian Newspaper Pravada if you want an example of Foreign Journalism or you just want a good laugh.

05-03-2003, 06:53 PM	#123 (permalink)
forgotten_dream Psycho	Nope. But I wouldn't think of the Bush regime as "christian fundementalist quite. __________________ "A ouija board just works better if you've made it yourself. It's sortof like how 'Clue' is more interesting when one of you has actually killed someone."

05-03-2003, 10:48 PM	#125 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Christ, I'd prefer Guantanomo to living in the average afghani home let alone a prison. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

05-04-2003, 07:13 AM	#131 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i just dont see how y'all can compare the US to saudi arabia. come on! we're NOT on the same level here, if you're comparing US to something, compare it to canada or UK. the US is well above saudi for comparison purposes, we're not on the same level. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-05-2003, 05:06 PM	#134 (permalink)
crewsor Women want me. Men fear me. Location: Maryland,USA	This has to make Dude happy. U.S. to Free More Afghan War Prisoners From Guantánamo By NEIL A. LEWIS ASHINGTON, May 5 — Bush administration officials said today that they would soon release an additional group of prisoners, about a dozen, from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Officials said that the prisoners, captured in the war in Afghanistan, had been determined to have no further intelligence value and that there was no evidence that they had been involved in any crimes. The impending release comes after officials said that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had told Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that he was hearing a rising number of complaints from other countries about the indefinite detention of their citizens at Guantánamo. Those to be released will probably include one or more of the three youths the military recently acknowledged were being held at Guantánamo. The three are believed to be 13 to 16 years old, and the disclosure of their detention by an Australian television network produced a barrage of criticism from human rights groups. The military has so far discharged about 22 prisoners from the prison at the American naval base in Cuba, first transferring them to the custody of the Afghan government, which then released them in Kabul. State Department officials said that Mr. Powell had not so much pressed Mr. Rumsfeld to move quickly as to apprise him that the continued, indefinite detentions was causing diplomatic problems. Mr. Powell wrote at least two letters to Mr. Rumsfeld detailing what he had been hearing, officials said. The prison camp, at the naval base in southeastern Cuba, currently holds about 660 detainees. Even as some are to be released, officials said, others will soon be brought before a military tribunal on the base. The United States government has kept the Guantánamo prisoners in a political and legal limbo, by declaring they are not prisoners of war but unlawful combatants. As a result of that status, Pentagon officials have said they may lawfully detain them indefinitely. www.nytimes.com/2003/05/05/international/americas/05CND-GITM.html?ex=.... __________________ We all have wings, some of us just don't know why. Last edited by crewsor; 05-06-2003 at 12:56 PM..

05-05-2003, 06:43 PM	#136 (permalink)
crewsor Women want me. Men fear me. Location: Maryland,USA	If it makes you happy too, great. Its just that Dude started the thread. Its more just to make a point that these people aren't being held indefinately with no hope for release, as a lot of people seem to think. They are being treated fairly, and released whenever feasable. Can't get that damn link to work though, always have trouble with that. __________________ We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

05-06-2003, 03:37 AM	#138 (permalink)
crewsor Women want me. Men fear me. Location: Maryland,USA	Sure I read it, it said some of the prisoners are being released, including the youths everyone was crying about. If they are releasing the ones they determine not to be a threat, what more can you ask? __________________ We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

05-28-2003, 07:46 AM	#139 (permalink)
nowthen Insane Location: Republic of Panama	Guantanamo Bay to be turned into a "death camp" http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...8-5-2003_pg4_2 This completely shocked me when I read it. I can understand why the US wants to do this, but is this really the way to fight against terrorism? Surely we are just taking a step towards becoming like the brutal regimes that create these terrorist groups? Or is becoming a savage the only way to fight a savage?

05-28-2003, 08:08 AM	#140 (permalink)
gov135 Junkie Location: Midwest	"Prisoners would be tried, convicted and executed without leaving its boundaries, without a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported recently." This shouldn't shock you. The United States is holding prisoners of war at Guatanamo. They have NO right to trial by jury, they shouldn't have travel rights (that's just plain silly), and this is a MILITARY court, so of course there is no right of appeal. I think the distinction you find shocking may be because you are used to a different court system in Panama. But these are people being tried for war crimes in a military setting, not a civil one. It seems each of these men will be well represented, and I'm sure strong evidence is needed for execution. I'm also a little suspect about the source of this article. I'm not familiar with Pakistani press organizations, but when you read articles you need to read between the lines to see if the source is biased in any way. Could this paper be writing for a Muslim audience and be biased in this way? It seems that without too many direct quotes, the author has taken some liberties, ignoring the other options the U.S. is considering.

05-28-2003, 08:13 AM	#141 (permalink)
nowthen Insane Location: Republic of Panama	I am English, not Panamanian, but still yes perhaps I am looking at this from a civil rather than military perspective. Very good point on the source though, I guess there could be a strong bias in their reporting. __________________ "People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." George Bernard Shaw

05-28-2003, 08:22 AM	#143 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	nobody would even know that they're missing or they're dead. this is gruesome! __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-28-2003, 10:02 AM	#146 (permalink)
manalone Once upon a time...	Well, let's put it in these terms, the US refused habeas corpus. They are not going to provide the prisoners with their choice of lawyer. Remember, this is a tribunal, which is trial by inquisition rather than the traditional common law model of the adversarial system. I know inquisition is a loaded term, I mean it in the technical rather than emotive sense. You have made a sensible argument, I am just concerned that the US govt has something to hide, and I am deeply cynical about the Bush administration's motives. __________________ -- Man Alone ======= Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

05-28-2003, 10:39 AM	#147 (permalink)
warrrreagl pinche vato Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton	There's something ironic (in a Big Picture kind of way) about a section of Cuba being turned into a Death Camp. __________________ Living is easy with eyes closed.

05-28-2003, 03:34 PM	#150 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	How are they prisoners of war when they don't fight under any flag or for any specific country. The geneva convention doesn't apply to them. Terrorists fight for their own causes not for the causes of a nation. They are not uniformed and they don't have allegience to any flag.

05-28-2003, 05:06 PM	#151 (permalink)
greytone Junkie	I find it really amazing that some look for the worst in the US gov actions but see innocence in terrorists who were captured while fighting for illegitimate and oppressive regimes who openly state it is there policy to restrict human freedom. Our options would be: 1) Shoot them instead of capture 2) Try them using US civilian law. This does not apply as they are not citizens and there crimes were not on US soil. 3) Try them using military justice as POW's or enemy combatants. If POW's they have to be released once there is not active combat. That is fine if the conflict is with another state. It is not safe to do if they are terrorists. THEY have decided to make us their enemy until death. 4) Just let them go. This is clearly not an option to rational thinkers. Frankly, I trust the well trained members of the US military to be infinately more fair toward these people than the terrorists where when they struck the towers. __________________ I was there to see beautiful naked women. So was everybody else. It's a common failing. Robert A Heinlein in "They Do It With Mirrors"

05-28-2003, 07:24 PM	#153 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	moving to politics... __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-28-2003, 10:30 PM	#154 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	A couple of definitions seem to be in order. A nation and a state are two different things. A state is a bureaucratic institution that claims a monopoly of violence or force over a particular region. A nation is a collection of people bound by common culture, history, language, etc. The "terrorists" were fighting for a nation. We made the claim that only states can have legitimate, recognized military (notice the link to the "violence" portion of the definition I provided)--thus denying them legal* combatants. [edit]We claimed that these people were fighting for a nation. Since only states can claim the right to use violence over a population, armed combatants for a nation can not claim legal protection due to acting on behalf of a legal, organized bureaucracy.[/edit] Keep in mind that almost the rest of the world abhors the death penalty--for any crime. Even if we were to grant what we considered to be a fair trial the punishment appears barbaric to many nations and states. Add to those issues the problem that many of our actions have already been criticized as unfair by various human rights groups and a large portion of the world's population--how skeptical do you think they already are of our intentions and practices? Would it be to our benefit to find another method of punishment or even to relinquish control of the process to either an uninterested party (if there even is one) or one of our allies (if we even have one)? Will our actions appear to others as uncaring or indifferent to world opinion; and if so, will that damage our long term interests? Violence is the ability to punish those who contradict the will of the state. Max Weber referred to power* as the ability to carry out one's will against resistance. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 05-28-2003 at 10:36 PM..

05-29-2003, 12:36 AM	#155 (permalink)
manalone Once upon a time...	Well said, smooth. In my opinion, there are basically a few options open to a real democratic justice system: 1) try them under the Geneva convention as pow's 2) try them under criminal law as civilians (not possible, since the war in afghanistan was clearly outside the jurisdiction) 3) Establish a UN or other international tribunal to try these people with international oversight and scrutiny. None of these are proposed, because, in my opinion, the current "administration" is worried that it will fumble another scape goat. __________________ -- Man Alone ======= Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

05-29-2003, 02:00 AM	#156 (permalink)
Frowning Budah Slave of Fear	Before we all get to wound up abt this I think we had better consider the source. This is the first article I have seen on this issue and it is from a Pakistani Newspaper. What are our News sources saying? Is this true? Just look at the official Russian Newspaper Pravada if you want an example of Foreign Journalism or you just want a good laugh.