U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question - Page 4

**section-8** · 02-20-2006, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

Also, Tarpan is completely correct in saying that torture usually only gets you what you want to hear. Just ask John McCain, he can tell you first hand that it simply doesn't work - it doesn't pay, and it creates more enemies. Terrorism works better than torture.

So true. Friendly interrogations suck.

**DudeMan** · 02-20-2006, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

I'm curious, how does the shape of the battlefield alter our basic responsibility to human dignity, justice, and our moral duties? When torture - real hands down blood and sweat torture - is a shaky intelligence-gathering method at best, how does the character of our enemy justify actions which, 50 years ago, we decided were unjust?

sorry but i think this answers that question....

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

what we fail to see is that terror plots have been stopped because of information we have recieved (if im to believe reports in the media from police officials). im not sure about guantanimo because little is released, but if it were a completly pointless and non productive exercise there would be no point doing it. so how about ask what quantanimo has produced. #

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Also, are we attempting to justify here the rough but common interrogation techniques practiced in a war zone, or the brutalities of Abu Gharaib, which were not so much for intel as for plain old ugly human spite, in many cases?

i was attempting to justify the reason for change on this issue, i am not for pulling finger nails or thumb screws or pain with regards to regular beatings or electric torture, or severe pain techniques.... but making someone uncomfortable with temperature, such as sweat boxes or cooolers, and humiliating them i do not see as half as bad as the enemy we are up against.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Two things on this point:
1) We still have no judicial process by which we can determine the relative guilt of the inmates at Guantanamo. Until a system is established, it is a detention run entirely on the good faith of the executive branch and the military. Such an arrangement is anathema to our legal system, which recognizes universal human rights regardless of citizenship. While you won't find me crying for any hardened bomber fundamentalists there, it sets a bad precedent, both for our nation and our relationship with the rest of the world.

im not going to cry for the British inmates, you know the ones who plead innocents and are attempting to be repatriated to the UK... they were picked up on the Battlefield of Afghanistan, and there were not fighting for the British... it seems the western world has gone soft on traitors.

it may have pissed off the whold but who the hell are you kidding you were not popular to start with.... lol ok sorry for the joke in a serious post... i just couldnt resist that one... forgive me...

no seriously there may very well be people pissed with this system, although again ill place some trust in the fact we are getting some information out of these inmates... because if we were not it would be a pointless exercise. ofcourse i cannot tell you for certain noone can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

2) Even ignoring the fact that degrading treatment is specifically mentioned in the Geneva Conventions, humilitaion would be considered a minor form or "torture," if that. However, this has been going on for years. If it's a health club, then I guess we don't have to worry much. But if what the UN and inspector reports say is true - that we lock them up, interrogate them daily, play mind games on them, waterboard them, deny them basic human dignities on a frequent basis over many many years, then we are tortuing these people. If we end up having to release them, they will be broken and traumatized whether they deserved it or not. And that is a problem.

has it not already been said that the UN inspectors have declined to visit the facility, and have based their reports in people who have been to the prison. if so the report is ridiculous and as good as toilet roll. you cannot ask a prisopner what prison was like and expect them to say, it was cool and the guards were always respectful. and without seeing with your own eyes this is all the report amounts to. i wander, if the UN asked these prisoners (ex) and they also get info from the states, yet they conclude without real first hand proof the accounts of those released.

as for the torture, well i have made my position clear on that, i would be devestated to find that nothing was achieved, but if lives were saved, i would not begrudge the methods i have mentioned and others like that.

Quote:

I think it's impossible for anyone to make a sound decision on Guantanamo without knowing this. It is, however, the kind of information that will never be released, particularly if it is no longer producing anything worthwhile. I would tend to believe that this was a temporary solution to a sticky wartime problem that has since been left to fester because there is no easy or politically sound way out of it. The momentum of bad leadership will mean that the camp will outlive its usefulness by a wide margin

i agree with you here, i would like to think that something is being gained from this, but there is no way of telling... i would be apalled if they dod not uncover any terror plots... but also you must keep in mind, something the MET Police chief said overe here about the anti terror squad here.

he said something along the lines of, (because i cant find the quote) It it very frustrating with this squad because the information and criminals they are dealing with often only make the news months after their original arrest. and the information on what they were doing often cannot be released, so the public never know what work our officers have achieved.

it was something along those lines, but what i get is the fact that the info is so sensative, you and i cannot be told about it till after the fact...but i agree it could also be a complete political nightmare that ius waiting for a cover up....

**DudeMan** · 02-20-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Wrong and wrong.

Small pieces of information OFTEN connect. How do you think any sort of investigation works?

And you'd have to define torture as "peeling fingernails while expecting detailed plans to the enemy base" in order to make your second statement correct.

agreed, the small pieces are the basis of any investigation... thats what an investigation is a puzzle of bits of information.

**DudeMan** · 02-20-2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xRANSACKx

And i doubt Mr. Terrorist is sitting around in the dark watching 'American Idol' & waiting for the phone to ring.

excluding the dark room i think the latter is probably true, have you seen the terrorist fashion... they have no taste at all.... peh....

**CingularDuality** · 02-20-2006, 08:14 PM

Can anyone here tell me how many prisoners have been released from Gitmo? I remember reading about some a year or so ago, but haven't seen any numbers...

SmokingTarpan · 02-21-2006, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Please don't confuse my statement that "terrorist prisoners don't belong in the US justice system" and "torture is a gray area" to mean that I want prisoners in gitmo tortured. They're too completely seperate arguments that apply to this situation in different ways.

No, I didn't take it to mean that. What I meant is that our Constitution and other related documents state that all men, not just Americans, have certain rights. Among them, I believe, is the right to a fair and speedy trial, as well as access to lawyers and whatnot. I think it's kind of sad that we fight for all men to have these rights, but can turn a blind eye to Gitmo. One could argue that they're prisoners of war (which I'm rather skeptical of). But, if you go that route, these people are pretty much sentenced to life in prison without parole due to the fact that it's impossible to win the war on terror.

How long have they been there? Four years now? Five? What more information can they possibly have? If you don't think they belong in the justice system of the country holding them prisoner, what justice system do they belong in? They can't just sit there until they die.

In answer to your question, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay :

Quote:

As of June 2005, the United States was holding about 520 foreign terrorism suspects at the facility, some of whom were captured in Afghanistan. On September 22, 2004 ten prisoners were brought from Afghanistan. A total of 242 detainees have been moved out of Guantanamo as of July 20, 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, Of these 242, 173 have been released, and 69 transferred to the governments of other countries.

So it looks like about 173 have been released as of that posting.

**CingularDuality** · 02-22-2006, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

How long have they been there? Four years now? Five? What more information can they possibly have? If you don't think they belong in the justice system of the country holding them prisoner, what justice system do they belong in? They can't just sit there until they die.

I'm saying that they're not common criminals that deserve lawyers and a trial by jury. They're terrorist prisoners. And it might not be that we want more information from them at this point, but that we don't want them to go blabbing to the rest of the enemy about what information we were seeking.

SmokingTarpan · 02-22-2006, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I'm saying that they're not common criminals that deserve lawyers and a trial by jury. They're terrorist prisoners. And it might not be that we want more information from them at this point, but that we don't want them to go blabbing to the rest of the enemy about what information we were seeking.

Has it been proven that they're actual terrorists, or is it a precation in case they "might" be? Can't see how they can be proven terrorists, as there's no legal system involved or terrorist acts involved. And if everyone there was a big T, why did we free about 200 of them?

I still maintain my question, though: what do we do with them? If we hold them as terrorists POW's, but refuse them a legal system, their only real options are to stay locked up until they either die or we decide- presumably on a whim- to let them go like the others. The war on terror can't be won, so they're pretty much POW's for life.

I understand the concept of not wanting to let the enemy free to get back to their cohorts, but I don't recall the people there being proven as terrorists. As far as I can tell, we're holding them pretty much just because we want to and can.

**leejo** · 02-22-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

How long have they been there? Four years now? Five? What more information can they possibly have? If you don't think they belong in the justice system of the country holding them prisoner, what justice system do they belong in? They can't just sit there until they die.

Sure they can. Why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

they're pretty much POW's for life.

I understand the concept of not wanting to let the enemy free to get back to their cohorts, but I don't recall the people there being proven as terrorists. As far as I can tell, we're holding them pretty much just because we want to and can.

Right. This ain't beanbags we're throwing at each other.

Also, they may very well have been "proven" to be terrorists. Just not publicly. Personally, I have little doubt that a truly innocent and cooperative man would be released. Maybe not quickly, but soon.

Mateo · 02-22-2006, 12:43 PM

Guantanamo is not the problem. Ask what is going on in the Embassy in San Salvador.

Faultline · 02-22-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TG_Mateo

Guantanamo is not the problem. Ask what is going on in the Embassy in San Salvador.

What is going on in the embassy in San Salvador?
I'm not trying to be cute, I just couldn't google anything eyebrow-raising.

Mateo · 02-22-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faultline

What is going on in the embassy in San Salvador?
I'm not trying to be cute, I just couldn't google anything eyebrow-raising.

The CIA is holding additional "combatants" in the Embassy, from what I am told.

AMosely · 02-22-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

How long have they been there? Four years now? Five? What more information can they possibly have? If you don't think they belong in the justice system of the country holding them prisoner, what justice system do they belong in? They can't just sit there until they die.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Sure they can. Why not?.

So if I understand you correctly, Leejo, you think it should be fine for an invading force to capture civilian or military targets, take them into custody, relocate them to a different country (not the invading force's country), hold and interrogate them for an indefinite amount of time without formally charging them with any crime, without access to representation or outside contact of any kind?

At this point the burden is (and has been for years) on the U.S. to charge these men with a crime and prove their guilt. Being a potential terrorist is not a crime - some U.S. administration officials would like it to be - but it isn't. Instead of being secretive and trying to fly beneath the radar, I would like to see my government be more clear and direct in their handling of this situation. There is confusion over the definitions P.O.W., detainee, enemy fighter and enemy combatant. If another person takes up arms against the U.S. military during active combat, I do believe we have the right to detain the individual under the guidelines Geneva Conventions until the combat is concluded. Rather than assume this gives us free license to seize 'terrorists,' I think we should be working hard to reform and update the conventions where needed so there is no doubt as to how the situation should and is being handled. The current situation at Guantanamo is not the answer.

**USN_Squid** · 02-22-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mateo

Mateo said

I don't pretend to know anything about this. Can you elaborate? Google doesn't come up with anything useful.

**leejo** · 02-22-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

So if I understand you correctly, Leejo, you think it should be fine for an invading force to capture civilian or military targets, take them into custody, relocate them to a different country (not the invading force's country), hold and interrogate them for an indefinite amount of time without formally charging them with any crime, without access to representation or outside contact of any kind?

I was pointing out the difference between "can" and "should". "Can" is objective - clearly we have the power to capture and keep these men and women indefinitely. "Should" is your opinion. I have a different opinion because I trust that the military is chock full of intelligent, decent people who will not allow evil to go unchecked and unknown. This goes back to the "hate the war/support our troops" question. If an innocent man is in Gitmo and mil. intelligence has no reason to believe that he has important information or poses any threat, do you believe our troops will do the right thing or don't you?

Quote:

At this point the burden is (and has been for years) on the U.S. to charge these men with a crime and prove their guilt.

No right now our military has these people exactly where they want them. What burden are you talking about? The public opinion of hollywood/europe/18-28 year olds? I think that's a factor, but I wouldn't call it a burden.

Quote:

Being a potential terrorist is not a crime

Maybe not, but it might land you in Gitmo. Life is about decisions and certain people are now being cut much less slack than before. Choose wisely young muslim men!

Quote:

Instead of being secretive and trying to fly beneath the radar, I would like to see my government be more clear and direct in their handling of this situation. There is confusion over the definitions P.O.W., detainee, enemy fighter and enemy combatant. If another person takes up arms against the U.S. military during active combat, I do believe we have the right to detain the individual under the guidelines Geneva Conventions until the combat is concluded. Rather than assume this gives us free license to seize 'terrorists,' I think we should be working hard to reform and update the conventions where needed so there is no doubt as to how the situation should and is being handled. The current situation at Guantanamo is not the answer.

I don't care very much about the Geneva Conventions because I believe they are a fiction dreamed up by a war-weary Europe in an attempt to make war less vicious. Plus, these rules always seem to apply only to the strong side in a conflict - so many outright atrocities go unnoticed and unmentioned by the same people who jump at the opportunity to condemn US acts. It's a farce.

Also, I don't care about the confusion over detainee, fighter, combatant. Here's what I want: I want everyone who is plotting to commit acts of terror targeting the US or our allies to be captured or killed. I support the military and this President in their efforts to effect that goal. I understand that mistakes will be made, and that certain overzealous individuals may occasionally cross a line, but overall the policies I see being put in place seem ok to me.

02-20-2006, 08:14 PM	#50 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 17,137	Re: U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question Can anyone here tell me how many prisoners have been released from Gitmo? I remember reading about some a year or so ago, but haven't seen any numbers... __________________ Become a supporting member! Buy a Tactical Duck! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

02-22-2006, 12:43 PM	#55 (permalink)
Mateo Join Date: Aug 2004 Age: 37 Posts: 6,483	Re: U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question Guantanamo is not the problem. Ask what is going on in the Embassy in San Salvador.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links