Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Vpro7 · Mar 12, 2004, 04:37 AM

Well, the British detainees who were released this week have spoken, they were tortured and besten by the US soldiers to gain confessions. So much for human rights, and the American culture beig one of example. They just lost every inch of credibility today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/3504034.stm

clt2 · Mar 12, 2004, 05:56 AM

You can't lose something you don't have.

Developer · Mar 12, 2004, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by clt2:
You can't lose something you don't have.

If you are referring to human rights, are you saying that Britons aren't human beings?

Troll · Mar 12, 2004, 06:54 AM

The documentary that the BBC has done on the UK prisoners is excellent! It's on BBC World at regular intervals throughout the weekend. Try to catch it. It includes US Army lawyers appointed to defend these guys saying that in principle the military is capable of delivering justice but that the Guantanamo process is flawed (lack of appeal, flawed evidentiary rules) to such an extent that they (US Army lawyers) don't think that the prisoners will get a fair trial!

It ends with a statement that the 4 British prisoners who were repatriated were released without any charges being brought against them. Aside from the treatment they received, treatment that drove some of them to the brink of suicide, these guys lost 2 years of their lives. One can't help thinking that if the law had been followed and a procedure implemented at the start, the innocent people might have been released far earlier without endangering anyone's safety.

Troll · Mar 12, 2004, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Developer:
If you are referring to human rights, are you saying that Britons aren't human beings?

He's referring to credibility I think.

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 09:11 AM

Red Cross Slams US over Guantanamo Prisoners

dcolton · Mar 12, 2004, 09:23 AM

SO how do you treat prisoners of war, who live to kill innocent civilians, whose hate for everything non-islamic is manifested by ruthless murder.

So how much can you believe these terrorists? Do you think he is going to say he was treated fairly? Has he demonstrated that amount of integrety to simply take his word? NO, NO, NO.

Developer · Mar 12, 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
So how much can you believe these terrorists? Do you think he is going to say he was treated fairly? Has he demonstrated that amount of integrety to simply take his word? NO, NO, NO.

Why was he released, when he is a terrorist?

?

dcolton · Mar 12, 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Developer:
Why was he released, when he is a terrorist?

?

Whats your point? The dumb ass was in Afghanistan during a military action. He claims that he was accidently taken through afghanistan as he was visiting Pakistan, trying to get to Turkey. Hmmm? What kind of dumb ass travels to a region of war. He was a web designer, so I doubt he was there on business.

The military deemed him as a non-threat...doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist or he isn't a coward sympathizer. It just shows how tolerent we Americans are by letting him 1. Live 2. Leave.

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
SO how do you treat prisoners of war, who live to kill innocent civilians, whose hate for everything non-islamic is manifested by ruthless murder.

Here's how

dcolton · Mar 12, 2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by zachs:
Here's how

Show proof that we have not followed the Geneva Convention. And, no, I will not take some bitter man's word - who just happened to be in Afghanistan while the Americnas were dropping bombs.

Spliffdaddy · Mar 12, 2004, 09:43 AM

We set them free when we should have shot them.

and the world is upset.

lol.

good thing world opinion has no merit.

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
Show proof that we have not followed the Geneva Convention. And, no, I will not take some bitter man's word - who just happened to be in Afghanistan while the Americnas were dropping bombs.

Footage allowed to air on NBC, which shows an Iraqi POW:

Is it really any different from from when Iraq aired images of American POWs?

registered_user · Mar 12, 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
SO how do you treat prisoners of war, who live to kill innocent civilians, whose hate for everything non-islamic is manifested by ruthless murder.

So how much can you believe these terrorists? Do you think he is going to say he was treated fairly? Has he demonstrated that amount of integrety to simply take his word? NO, NO, NO.

Considering there was no judge, no jury, no trial, and I'm not sure there was ever an actual charge, I'll just rely on my old stand-by of innocent until proven guilty. That's a provision we used to use in the US, and it does a remarkable job of protecting people from oppressive government. I'm curious how you've come to the conclusion that these people are living just to kill innocent people. Did you just make that up? Perhaps it was just a broad generalization about people who wear turbans? I'm not gonna just call you a racist outright, but that post sure has some strong prejudicial tendencies.

Lerkfish · 01:16 PM

=

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ahhh..the old "guilty until proven innocent, and THEN considered guilty anyhow"

clever, very clever.

Yep. Some people just assume that everyone at Guantanamo has committed some kind of violent act -- when in fact, they haven't even been charged with such.

dcolton · Mar 12, 2004, 09:52 AM

And that proves what?

So are we supposed to treat these murderous thugs like kings? They want to kill...nothing more, nothing less. They are killers.

registered...what do terrorists do...live to kill guilty people. You already said innocent til proven guilty. Do these assholes think the same way when they kill innocent civilians

Call me racists...I HATE TERRORISTS.

dcolton · Mar 12, 2004, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by zachs:
Yep. Some people just assume that everyone at Guantanamo has committed some kind of violent act -- when in fact, they haven't even been charged with such.

POW. They are prisoners of war. We follow the Geneva Convention. Whats else do we do. Let killers go?

Spliffdaddy · Mar 12, 2004, 09:53 AM

I see lots of envy toward the US by foreigners.

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
And that proves what?

So are we supposed to treat these murderous thugs like kings? They want to kill...nothing more, nothing less. They are killers.

registered...what do terrorists do...live to kill guilty people. You already said innocent til proven guilty. Do these assholes think the same way when they kill innocent civilians

Call me racists...I HATE TERRORISTS.

Well, I hate all killers. Including murderers here in the U.S. But we don't send them off to Guantanamo, now do we?

Lerkfish · 01:17 PM

=

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
POW. They are prisoners of war. We follow the Geneva Convention. Whats else do we do. Let killers go?

First of all, they haven't been charged with killing anyone.
Second of all, we shouldn't be treating them like this
Third of all, we shouldn't be "letting them go". We should be charging them with a crime, then giving them a fair trial. If they are found innocent, let them go.

Lerkfish · 01:18 PM

=

dcolton · Mar 12, 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by zachs:
Well, I hate all killers. Including murderers here in the U.S. But we don't send them off to Guantanamo, now do we?

Why can't you differentiate between a POW and a criminal.

As for the giy who wants to call everyone racist -

turbans = person
terrorist = enemy of state

Lerkfish · 01:20 PM

=

clt2 · Mar 12, 2004, 09:59 AM

Foreign human rights abusing dictators are indeed envious of the US.

Shaddim · Mar 12, 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We set them free when we should have shot them.

and the world is upset.

lol.

good thing world opinion has no merit.

I was thinking the same thing. Typical "world" reaction.

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why can't you differentiate between a POW and a criminal.

I certainly can differentiate. But that doesn't mean we should subject POWs to inhumane conditions and treatment.

Shaddim · Mar 12, 2004, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Do you also see bright, shiny objects and are hopelessly mesmerized by them?

No, that would make him Liberal.

Lerkfish · 01:21 PM

=

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We set them free when we should have shot them.

and the world is upset.

lol.

good thing world opinion has no merit.

People are upset at the inhumane conditions the prisoners have been subjected to.
And why should we have shot them? They weren't charged with a crime, or convicted of anything. Or is it because they "might" have been a threat, so the best solution is just to execute them "in case".

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Interesting tidbit from your article:

"This, however, has been achieved only because most of the detainees' attempts to hang themselves have now been reclassified as 'manipulative self-injurious behaviour', or SIB"

Kind of like "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities". And "enemy combatants"....

dcolton · Mar 12, 2004, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um...actually, Simey has gone to great lengths explaining how we carefully classified them so we would not have to follow the Geneva convention at all.

Your assumption that we have followed the Geneva Convention in this instance couldn't be more incorrect.

I realize this Lerk...but although the US has made great efforts to call these killers detainees, we still follow the Geneva Convention

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
I realize this Lerk...but although the US has made great efforts to call these killers detainees, we still follow the Geneva Convention

You can't call them "killers" unless they have been charged and convicted of some type of murder...

phoenixboy · Mar 12, 2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by zachs:
Or is it because they "might" have been a threat, so the best solution is just to execute them "in case".

yup. it's the fascist way. take a position of power, then accuse. eliminate "in dubio pro reo", "due process", human rights, and kill.

always been the same...

Shaddim · Mar 12, 2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Interesting tidbit from your article:

Depression medication?

They're lucky they get food and water... or that they're still breathing for that matter. We're being way too soft on these scumbags.

Troll · Mar 12, 2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
I realize this Lerk...but although the US has made great efforts to call these killers detainees, we still follow the Geneva Convention

No you don't! One example. Under the Geneva Convention any combatant that is captured has to be treated as a POW until such time as he has been found by a competent court not to be a POW. POW's cannot be interrogated. All you can do is ask them for their serial number. POW's are entitled to a whole host of other privileges that they are being denied. If you do a search, you will find a 7 page thread where we discussed this issue and in there is a post setting out chapter and verse provisions of the GC that are being offended.

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Depression medication? They're lucky they get food and water... or that they're still breathing for that matter. We're being way too soft on these scumbags.

What have they done so that they are lucky to get food and water? They haven't been charged with anything.

clt2 · Mar 12, 2004, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by zachs:
They haven't been charged with anything.

Bush says they're bad people. So they're bad people. QED.

Troll · Mar 12, 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by zachs:
They haven't been charged with anything.

This is the real issue here, not whether we are being soft on terrorists. I have still not found ONE PERSON that can explain to me why the US decided to hold these people indefinitely without charging them. What does that achieve? Why not just charge them with terrorism and start trying them?

What is George Bush saying about the US justice system when he doesn't trust it enough to correctly identify the people that commit the most heinous crimes on earth? Obviously he has no faith in the same system of civilisation that he is so keen to export to Afghanistan and Iraq. What are we fighting for if not to prove that our system of democracy and justice works?

dcolton · Mar 12, 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Troll:
No you don't! One example. Under the Geneva Convention any combatant that is captured has to be treated as a POW until such time as he has been found by a competent court not to be a POW. POW's cannot be interrogated. All you can do is ask them for their serial number. POW's are entitled to a whole host of other privileges that they are being denied. If you do a search, you will find a 7 page thread where we discussed this issue and in there is a post setting out chapter and verse provisions of the GC that are being offended.

I am referring to treatment. We treat these detainees better than any other nation would treat American POW's. I don't want to hear how horrible and evil the United States is in treating killers of the innocent, catalysts of destruction, fanatical hate mongors. Maybe we should let them all go...I say we drop them off in France.

registered_user · Mar 12, 2004, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
fanatical hate mongors.

Yeah, off waging war on everyone. haters.

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am referring to treatment. We treat these detainees better than any other nation would treat American POW's. I don't want to hear how horrible and evil the United States is in treating killers of the innocent, catalysts of destruction, fanatical hate mongors. Maybe we should let them all go...I say we drop them off in France.

The fact that the U.S.'s treatment of prisoners might be the "lesser of the two evils" doesn't mean that it is any less brutal or inhumane. Why don't you want to hear about it? Because the United States can do no wrong?

Again, you CANNOT call them "killers of the innocent", because they haven't been convicted -- or even charged -- of such! Nor can you call them "catalysts of destruction", because no evidence has been offered in court which shows that.

dcolton · Mar 12, 2004, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Troll:
This is the real issue here, not whether we are being soft on terrorists. I have still not found ONE PERSON that can explain to me why the US decided to hold these people indefinitely without charging them. What does that achieve? Why not just charge them with terrorism and start trying them?

What is George Bush saying about the US justice system when he doesn't trust it enough to correctly identify the people that commit the most heinous crimes on earth? Obviously he has no faith in the same system of civilisation that he is so keen to export to Afghanistan and Iraq. What are we fighting for if not to prove that our system of democracy and justice works?

Why do we hold these people indefinitely? Because they are part of a group, that lerks in dark to kill innocent people. They mask themselves as "normal" citizens while they plot to kill people like you and I. This is not a conventional war - it is a war against an interanational group of terrorists that derive their power not from a nation, but through individual cells throughout the world, waiting for the right moment to destroy humankind. Each one of these killers is a weapon of mass destruction - waiting to inflict death on anything different from them. These assholes have proven themselves to be dangerous...they took arms against the world in support of Al-Queda, the Taliban, and Usama bin Laden. They have proven that there life is dedicated to terror by their actions and support of evil.

Troll · Mar 12, 2004, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by clt2:
Bush says they're bad people. So they're bad people. QED.

Actually that was an EXTREMELY unfortunate thing for Bush to say and the military lawyers representing the accused have already raised this issue. Appeals in these military trials would ultimately be to Bush since the courts have been excluded. Bush, by saying that they are "bad" has already expressed a judgement on their guilt before any evidence has been heard. That means that he has prejudged the issues and it means that the process is intrinsically flawed. Justice cannot be done. This is going to hamstring prosecution of these people.

In fact, there is an argument for saying that Bush's bungling of this whole thing has raised the chances of a court (be it military or civilian) finding that these people's rights were infringed and that therefore certain evidence is inadmissible and certain procedural steps are incompetent. That could mean that some of the guilty guys have to be set free, or certain of the cases will be declared mistrials. Again, I don't understand why Bush followed this course of action given that it may well lead to terrorists going free.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 12, 2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Troll:
POW's cannot be interrogated. All you can do is ask them for their serial number.

Why do you always misstate the Geneva Convention? The Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war specifically says you can question POWs. All it says is when you interregate them, you can't coerce them to provide information. The only information they are required to give is name, rank, and serial number. But they can give any other informaition they choose.

This is set out in Article 17:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

Not the part about the language to be used. It's quite clear. You can question them. It's just that they aren't required to answer beyond name, rank, and serial number, and if they don't, you can't treat them worse than you otherwise would because they aren't cooperating.

They are also, of course, supposed to carry identification, which I am sure that al-Queda does. [/sarcasm]

Troll · Mar 12, 2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am referring to treatment. We treat these detainees better than any other nation would treat American POW's. I don't want to hear how horrible and evil the United States is in treating killers of the innocent, catalysts of destruction, fanatical hate mongors. Maybe we should let them all go...I say we drop them off in France.

You said that you were treating them in accordance with the Geneva Conventions! Treating them better than anyone else doesn't cut it even if there were empirical evidence of that! I haven't heard any of the American POW's held by Iraq say they were sensorily deprived or tortured! US soldiers committed "homicide" (official cause of death on death certificates) at Bagram airbase and they are accused of torturing prisoners at Guantanamo. That is certainly as bad, if not worse treatment than any US POW has had.

zachs · Mar 12, 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why do we hold these people indefinitely? Because they are part of a group, that lerks in dark to kill innocent people. They mask themselves as "normal" citizens while they plot to kill people like you and I. This is not a conventional war - it is a war against an interanational group of terrorists that derive their power not from a nation, but through individual cells throughout the world, waiting for the right moment to destroy humankind. Each one of these killers is a weapon of mass destruction - waiting to inflict death on anything different from them. These assholes have proven themselves to be dangerous...they took arms against the world in support of Al-Queda, the Taliban, and Usama bin Laden. They have proven that there life is dedicated to terror by their actions and support of evil.

None of the prisoners have been charged of killing anyone. So you can't assume such. We cannot hold people indefinately, and mistreat them, simply because they "might be" terrorists. We need to charge them, hold a fair trial, and only after they have been convicted can we call them killers, terrorists, whatever.

So just because we're waging an unconventional "war", that gives us the right to subject prisoners to inhumane treatment and conditions? Why?

Troll · Mar 12, 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why do we hold these people indefinitely? Because they are part of a group, that lerks in dark to kill innocent people. They mask themselves as "normal" citizens while they plot to kill people like you and I. This is not a conventional war - it is a war against an interanational group of terrorists that derive their power not from a nation, but through individual cells throughout the world, waiting for the right moment to destroy humankind. Each one of these killers is a weapon of mass destruction - waiting to inflict death on anything different from them. These assholes have proven themselves to be dangerous...they took arms against the world in support of Al-Queda, the Taliban, and Usama bin Laden. They have proven that there life is dedicated to terror by their actions and support of evil.

You clearly didn't understand the question. Why do you not trust the US system of justice to send mass killers to the electric chair or to jail for life? Why do you have so little faith in your systems that you have to put these people in a place where no laws apply? Huh?

dcolton · Mar 12, 2004, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Troll:
You clearly didn't understand the question. Why do you not trust the US system of justice to send mass killers to the electric chair or to jail for life? Why do you have so little faith in your systems that you have to put these people in a place where no laws apply? Huh?

When a man takes up arms against your nation, they do it for a reason. In this case...these evil-doers, took up arms against not only the United States, but the world. They "defined" themselves as a terrorist by attacking peace, by defending the Taliban, Usama bin Laden, and the ideology to attack American interests - as proclaimed by Al- Quada.

So, it is not a matter of trust...it is a matter of diligence. Our justice system applies to citizens of the United States of America - not coward terrorists who lay prey on innocent women and children. We are detaining these people in an effort to protect the world and American interests. Once again, in this situation, detainees are not afforded the rights of the constitution of the United States. After all, that is one of the institutions in which they lerk in the shadows to destroy.