Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Well said Nathan, We have become our own worst enemy.

The people screaming about GITMO are the ones who think our country is so important in the scheme of things, that no matter what we do, good or bad, it effects what everyone else in the world does. As if no one else has any control or responsibility for anything.
It is my understanding that some of those released from GITMO say they never had it so good in their whole lives. We don’t hear much about that because it isn’t the ‘news’ someone decided we want to hear about.
Shut it down? and then what? Maybe we should move them all in with MJ at Neverland Ranch? or maybe Kennedy’s vacation home?

The Third Geneva Convention (“Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War”) covers members of the armed forces who fall into enemy hands. They are in the power of the enemy State, not of the individuals or troops who have captured them

Prisoners of war MUST be:

- Treated humanely with respect for their persons and their honour.
- Enabled to inform their next of kin and the Central Prisoners of War Agency (ICRC, the International Red Cross) of their capture.
- Allowed to correspond regularly with relatives and to receive relief parcels.
- Allowed to keep their clothes, feeding utensils and personal effects.
- Supplied with adequate food and clothing.
- Provided with quarters not inferior to those of their captor’s troops.
- Given the medical care their state of health demands.
- Paid for any work they do.
- Repatriated if certified seriously ill or wounded, (but they must not resume active military duties afterwards) .
- Quickly released and repatriated when hostilities cease.

Prisoners of war must NOT be:
-Compelled to give any information other than their name, age, rank and service number.
- Deprived of money or valuables without a receipt (and these must be returned at the time of release).
- Given individual privileges other than for reasons of health, sex, age, military rank or professional qualifications.
- Held in close confinement except for breaches of the law, although their liberty can be restricted for security reasons.
- Compelled to do military work, nor work which is dangerous, unhealthy or degrading.

The fourth Geneva Convention (“Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”) covers all individuals “who do not belong to the armed forces, take no part in the hostilities and find themselves in the hands of the Enemy or an Occupying Power”.

Protected civilians MUST be:
- Treated humanely at all times and protected against acts or threats of violence, insults and public curiosity.
- Entitled to respect for their honour, family rights, religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs.
- Specially protected, for example in safety zones, if wounded, sick, old, children under 15, expectant mothers or mothers of children under 7.
- Enabled to exchange family news of a personal kind. - Helped to secure news of family members dispersed by the conflict
- Allowed to practise their religion with ministers of their own faith. Civilians who are interned have the same rights as prisoners of war. They may also ask to have their children interned with them, and wherever possible families should be housed together and provided with the facilities to continue normal family life. Wounded or sick civilians, civilian hospitals and staff, and hospital transport by land, sea or air must be specially respected and may be placed under protection of the red cross/crescent emblem.

Protected civilians must NOT be:
- Discriminated against because of race, religion or political opinion. - Forced to give information.
- Used to shield military operations or make an area immune from military operations.
- Punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. - Women must not be indecently assaulted, raped, or forced into prostitution.

It’s saddening that after more than 3 years of having these people locked up at Gitmo the United States still cannot say if these people are prisoners of war (and therefore subject to then Geneva conventions) or criminals (and therefore subject to the criminal laws and consitutional protections of the United States). The U.S. government just continues to call them “dangerous terrorists” without any elaboration of what that means regarding their rights. The U.S. government is behaving no differently than any number of totalitarian dictatorships it has criticized over the years.

…

Typical, looking at the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it. If you think for some reason that torturing people is permisable simply because of legal loop holes your dead wrong.

“It is my understanding that some of those released from GITMO say they never had it so good in their whole lives. We don’t hear much about that because it isn’t the ‘news’ someone decided we want to hear about.”

A link, please, Dawn?

The Democrats in this country should be put in prison. They are the United States worst enemies

This is scary. Are you guys really so determined to ignore what’s going on? Team Red has gone from saying We must not support torture to saying that objections to the US holding people for years without any trial or legal representation is “screaming about the prisoners at Gitmo”. And if you don’t support torture, then you “should be put in prison”! Look what you’re saying, people.

William-

I think that was a statement from the young kid from Afganistan that was detained then released early on. Could be wrong though….

The problem with most statements from the previous detainees is that they are always innocent and that they were sold to the Americans for money. I’ve done some work in our local prison and I can tell you that there are a whole bunch of innocent people locked up there too; just ask them and they will tell you so.

The U.S. doesn’t allow much information flow from Gitmo and that makes it ripe for Area 51 style speculation. Seems like they could put an bi-partisan oversight board together and start separating fact from fiction. Sam Nunn, Bob Dole, and hell even Jimmy Carter. That would quiet it down some.

We must not care about what the rest of the world does. If we must be the world’s police department, then we need to set the acceptable standard. Anything less than that standard is unacceptable.

But more than that, we must do what is right. Morally and ethically…in a civilized and humane way.

If the prisoners at GITMO are dangerous combatants, they need to be labeled as such and treated under the Geneva Convention as such.

If the prisoners at GITMO are criminals, then they need to be labeled as such and treated under the laws of the United States as such.

If they are neither combatants nor criminals, then they need to be released.

The time has come.

Dawn

It is my understanding that some of those released from GITMO say they never had it so good in their whole lives.

Of course, because when we think “comfort,” we think “GITMO.” In fact, I was planning my next vacation to be in GITMO, would you like to join me, Dawn?

Norman,

The Democrats in this country should be put in prison. They are the United States worst enemies

How so?

Zeek,
Of course, because when we think “comfort,” we think “GITMO.” In fact, I was planning my next vacation to be in GITMO, would you like to join me, Dawn?
Your not seriously that stupid are you? I mean, can you really not understand the context of what Dawn said?

Kevin,
Calling somebody stupid doesn’t prove your point. Why is it when progressives talk about facts, we only get opinions from the other side. Unlike you Kevin, I don’t think it is because you are stupid, instead it is because you get your news filtered through talk radio and Fox News. Can we once have a discussion that is fact based? If so, why are all of the people in GITMO there in the first place? Are they all enemy combatants? Or are some Americans who happen to be the wrong color? Please give a link if you are using facts to discuss this issue. Your opinions are boring stump speeches that Rush uses every day.

The Bush Administration does not want the detainees considered POWs because then they must follow the Geneva Convention.

The Bush Administration does not want the detainees considered criminals because then they would have a right to representation and trial according to international law.

So, if they are neither of these, what are they? When stuck between a rock and a hard place, the Bush administration does what they normally do, and made up a new category not specifically covered by the Geneva Convention or International Trial Law—illegal combatants.

So, by the time we figure out what an illegal combatant is, define what procedures to use or which laws are applicable, the war will be over, half the illegal combatants will be released or dead already (or lost), and the egg already on our face as the “land of the free” will have spread to our entire body.

…

Ok, Kevin. Explain to me how the prisoners having it better than ever in GITMO is true in any context. Because I was fairly certain that a false assertion is a false assertion no matter what context you put it in.

Gitmo is not the issue. Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s public declarations and defense of the American position that the Geneva Conventions will not apply to the US in its handling of terrorist suspects is the issue being used against the US, aiding and abetting the resolve of our enemies and growing their recruitments.

Bush and Rumsfeld’s statements are making our soldier’s jobs more dangerous and growing the enemy ranks which our troops are ordered to fight. That is the issue.

Close GITMO, move them all to a dormroom at Berkley, problem solved.

This horseshit gets tiresome after awhile.

You know, I was brought up to believe that the Geneva Convention related to the treatment of human beings, no matter what they are doing during a war. If you capture someone, you have a responsibility for that person’s life.

You don’t get to destroy that life, in the interest of gaining military advantage. You are SUPPOSED to teach that person how civilized people live and treat their peers.

It’s curious to me how there were no such thing as “enemy combatants” in WW2, Korea or Viet Nam, though there were plenty of people captured who would fit the label of “terrorist” so much better than even Usama!

Hey Beagle, whaddya want, another Israel? That’s what people like you consider a foreign policy success, right?

Whose land are you gonna steal this time? How about Egypt, or South Africa? Maybe you can make a deal with China to nuke NK and move all the dissidents and terrorists there…

Usama? Who is that? Oh yeah, the guy that attacked our country. Why isn’t he in GITMO? This is the question we all should be asking, but because it is such an embarassment to the right of this country, our press remains silent. That is the horse… that gets tiresome Beagle.

Careful, Vic… you’re starting to make unfair assumptions.

Common Man,

They don’t have a foreign policy. They have to make it up as they go.

Nation building? “No, we will not nation build.” (Bush in 2000)

WMD? “Yes. Do you want a mushroom cloud in the US?” (2002)

Nation building? “Yes. and we should spread democracy even further”

At least make up your mind. I want to know where my next tax dollar is going.

Vic,

Osamaha likely isn’t in gitmo because “someone” in congress leaked to the press that He was being tracked by cell-phone use.
( I don’t think that was intended, just a moron given too much info).

It always fascinates me why Republicans like to equate BushCo’s Failures with Support The Troops. Right now they are blaming Democrats, the Media, Doctors Without Borders, International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the UN, France, the Weather and the Rain. They do not blame themselves and their holier-than-thou asinine policies.

Dawn:
A Prison wrapped in velvet is still a Prison.

All Republicans:
Have any of you ever been tortured? I find it amazing what excuses you spout. You have the Yellow Sticker on your SUV but you don’t volunteer to Serve. May I suggest sending your children to the Army to show your Support for the Troops? That way the poor slobs getting stoplossed can go home.

Nice post Nathan,

I would extend this POW issue to include anyone who is taken into captivity during time of war whether or not they are wearing a uniform or not and regardless of where they come from. Also, if a little “mis-treatment” creeps in, I wouldn’t mind.

On the entry doors and gates to my prison would be a “NO Cameras Allowed” sign.

Gitmo is just real estate. Shutting it down will only lead to accusations that the same activities are taking place somewhere else.

It is the President and Sec’y. of Defense who rendered the Geneva Conventions not applicable to American Soldier’s treatment of prisoners that needs to be shut down. But, as we have seen, Bush and Rumsfeld would rather continue the violations and increase the risks for our troops than to admit a mistake in policy and rescind it.

Worst administration of war policy since Viet Nam: LBJ and McNamara.

I said it before and I’ll say it again:

The U.S. military complained that the Viet Cong often appeared to be part of the civilian population, and thus U.S. troops could not tell the difference between the Viet Cong insurgents and peaceful civilians. During the Vietnam War, U.S. stated policy was to treat captured Viet Cong and North Vietnamese regulars as Enemy Prisoners of War under the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Regardless of the letter of the Geneva Convention, US policy towards non-uniformed combatants in times of war has changed. The question is why, and to what ends?

I think that was a statement from the young kid from Afganistan that was detained then released early on. Could be wrong though….

Gitmo did actually observe the Geneva Conventions early on, so that’s possible. Until I see a link, tho, I’m going to put it in the “republican urban legend” pile, along with the church that was sued by the ACLU for having a nativity scene.

The problem with most statements from the previous detainees is that they are always innocent and that they were sold to the Americans for money. I’ve done some work in our local prison and I can tell you that there are a whole bunch of innocent people locked up there too; just ask them and they will tell you so.

No doubt. But if they’re all so obviously guilty, would it kill us to have some sort of trial?

The U.S. doesn’t allow much information flow from Gitmo and that makes it ripe for Area 51 style speculation. Seems like they could put an bi-partisan oversight board together and start separating fact from fiction. Sam Nunn, Bob Dole, and hell even Jimmy Carter. That would quiet it down some.

Great idea, George - that’s a much more constructive idea than closing the place. (No sarcasm here, I really mean it.) That’s gotta be the first step toward repairing any PR damage that has been done, and won’t the “screamers” feel stupid after Carter & McCain tell us that Gitmo’s really clean as a whistle?

If I was a Republican I’d be telling all my friends to get behind that idea and write their congressmen! Unless, of course, I thought that really there was something to hide, and that we were better off with the area-51 style rumors.

Here’s one article about what was done to the 20th Sept 11th hijacker. The techniques are undisputed: (forced to urinate in his pants, shaved, stripped, had a woman straddle him, pornagraphy draped around his neck, forced to bark like a dog while naked):

http://news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050613/pl_afp/usattacksguantanamomilitary_050613075713

And following is the testimony of abuse from one of the three UK guys that was arrested and detained at Gitmo for two years. I’ve tried to find an article or website that makes some sort of case that they are guilty of something and have come up with nothing. To date, no charges have been brought against them:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1168937,00.html

Nathan, ask yourself simply this question: If you were picked up by mistake by the police, what would you say to them once they started putting a cigarette to your skin? In your opening statement you sound so confident that everyone in GITMO is quilty and is a terrorist. Far from it or we would have found Osama by now. In the 18th century Fredrick the Great was the first ruler to abolish torture as a means of justice. Bush II is the first ruler of the 21st century to re-establish its use.

The reasons for our constitution and Geneva convention is to protect the innocent and civilians - neither of which you seem to care about.

And finally, how can we go around the world talking up democracy and freedom when we do not practice one its basic tenements: right to a fair trial. Personally, I am shocked that any nation that calls itself religious would even have this discussion.

Julia

“Here’s one article about what was done to the 20th Sept 11th hijacker. The techniques are undisputed: (forced to urinate in his pants, shaved, stripped, had a woman straddle him, pornagraphy draped around his neck, forced to bark like a dog while naked):”

This would seem to pretty light treatment for a 9/11 hijacker. Should have duplicated the above for each life lost on 9/11. OH wait, the woman would get tired.

William-

It was Mohammed Ismail Agha who was 15

At first I was unhappy with the U.S. forces. They stole 14 months of my life,” Agha said. “But they gave me a good time in Cuba. They were very nice to me, giving me English lessons. “For two or three days I was confused, but later the Americans were so nice with me, they were giving me good food with fruit and water for ablutions before prayer.” Besides teaching him to read and write English, the military provided books in his native Pashto language and a Quran, Islam’s sacred book.

Telegraph

Thanks William. You know I should have put WJC on my list seeing has him and Bush 41 are now best buds….

And Julia, I was over in Manchester when those guys were released. There is more to their story I think, and Sky News backed off some as I remember. It’s clear from your article that the Brits were heavily involved with the three and so I don’t how much of the blame is on the U.S. for their detention.

As for the two weeks of special treatment for Mr. Qahtani I’m kinda torn on that one. Like Nick Cage in Guarding Tess.

HAS ANYONE HERE BEEN IN ANY OF THE ABOVED MENTIONED PRISONS?

No- then it’s all hearsay isn’t it?
Stop talking about the (R) spin and acknowledge that all your “facts” are secondhand, on that sentiment, so are all the (R’s) the only difference is we take the secondhand stories from our soldiers as truth, you take it from the terrorists.

Stephen,
The Gitmo prisoners ARE NOT citizens of this country, so the constition DOESNOT apply to them.
They ARE ALL prisoners of war.
As for the so called Geneva Convention, why should we hold to an out dated piece of paper that no other country(Specaily our enimies) holds to any more?

traci,

The Qhatami story is undisputed by any side. So we can begin there, since everyone agrees on the facts.

steve s,

The men who gave the orders to gas and incinerate jews in Nazi Germany were imprisoned and not tortured. They were tried in a court of law. In addition, Timothy McVeigh was not tortured. He was tried in a court of law.

George in SC,

I think, in terms of Mr. Qhatami’s case, the real debate is what you are talking about. With someone who obviously DID have information that could prevent the loss of innocent lives in the future, what is appropriate?

If it is inappropriate to torture Mr. Qhatami, then it follows that the Geneva Convention should apply to all cases, as I don’t think you would be able to find a case much more clear cut than Mr. Qhatamis.

Ron,

We should hold to the Geneva Conventions, because whenever Saddam acted like he was going to torture our boys, we had the weight of international law on our side. Our boys have been saved from torture many times, because of fear of prosecution under the banner of the Geneva Conventions.

You throw away the rule of law, you pay the consequences.

Traci:

Thing is, these people haven’t been proven to be terrorists. There’s been no trials, no rules of evidence, nothing at all in most cases. Judging them guilty without those things, and condemning those who would listen to their grievances as “taking secondhand stories from the terrorists”, is very premature.

Julia,

What is this in response to? What point of mine are you counterpointing?

“The men who gave the orders to gas and incinerate jews in Nazi Germany were imprisoned and not tortured. They were tried in a court of law. In addition, Timothy McVeigh was not tortured. He was tried in a court of law.”

Julia
Our boys have been saved from tourture many times, because of fear of prosecution under the banner of the Geneva Convention.
Tell that to the boys that were in the Hanoi Hilton, or the ones that were held by the VC.

Are we talking about torture only to those held by the U.S. military? Or are we talking about torture to all those held because of the IRAQ situation? Those held by the forces opposed to the US are not given anything close to GC rules. They quite often just parade some captives before the camera and demand from the captive’s country to give in to their demands. Hey, where is AI? Suddenly AI has amnesia!

It they shut down GITMO, then the left, AI, anti-Bushies, etc. will claim “I told you they were guilty of torture”.

I presume nobody here has the inside track on intel. Since none of has that inside track, then how about some names of those being tortured and the nature of the torture.

I believe Michelle Malkin had it correct. She had access (as we probably do if we pursured it) to recently released FBI documents.
In those documents were found that a significant number of detainees’ complaints were exaggerated or made up. One detainee claimed that guards were physically abusive, but admitted he had not seen it.
One issue of the Koran being abused, claimed by a detainee, was actually the detainee abusing the Koran and accused a guard of the abuse.
Each detainee has an arrow pointing to Mecca. There is a library of Jihadi books. Detainees have hurled urine and feces on the guards. She says more in her column.

The Gitmo thing did not raise its head until AI made there loose lips statements and then Chris Wallace persisted in getting AI US director William Schulz to back down and basically retract much of what he said. Now some Beltway Boses want to get in on the Big Shew. Just remember them at the polling place when they show up and want your vote.

Have we forgotten the lessons England learned from the IRA?

Has any entrenched “power” ever been successful in putting down an independence movement?

So, what makes you or your president believe that it will happen now?

Remember, France came to our aid when we fought England for our independence, and I’m quite sure England called them and everyone else (Irish, Portuguese, et cetera) insurgents, who were terrorizing the good British citizens.

By the very terms of the Geneva Convention, the prisoners at Gitmo, do not qualify as POW’s. They do, however, qualify as “Enemy Combatants”. As such the Geneva Convention does not apply. Add to this the fact that they are not US citizens and the protection of the US Constitution does not apply to them, either.

In all future military conflicts, I suggest the US institute a “Take no Prisoners” policy. It has become abundantly clear, if one folows the Democrat’s howls, and the whining of the Mainstream Media, that is the most compassionate thing we can do.

Longstreet

Steve S,

It was in response to this comment: “This would seem to pretty light treatment for a 9/11 hijacker. Should have duplicated the above for each life lost on 9/11. OH wait, the woman would get tired.” Your implication is that the things he was involved with were so horrible, the way he was treated was justified. My counterpoint was that Timothy McVeigh was certainly horrible, but we still treated him humanely.

Ron Brown,

Did I say our boys were saved from torture ALL the time? I said many times. Tell your story to the Cong who were tortured in South Vietnamese prisons, which they then used to justify the torture on American soldiers in Cong prisons.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. We don’t throw away the rule of law, because vigilante justice is the other side of that coin. Do we fly a plane into a building in Afghanistan to wreak our vengeance for Sept 11th? Do we target civilians to show our contempt for the targeting of civilians? Do we torture enemy soldiers to show our contempt for the torture of our own soldiers?

Timothy McVeigh didn’t follow our rules. So do we then take him out in a field and shoot him in the head?

By the very terms of the Geneva Convention, the prisoners at Gitmo, do not qualify as POW’s. They do, however, qualify as “Enemy Combatants”. As such the Geneva Convention does not apply

As such, the Geneva Convention does not COMPEL. It has, however, previously been applied to prisoners which did not directly meet its classification of POWs, such as the Vietcong. There has been a clear shift in policy here about how to deal with non-uniformed combatants.

Julia,

We treated McVeigh humanely by putting him in a prison situation where he could be put to death by his peers.

If the 9/11 guy we spoke about was the 20th guy involved, he was involved in the planning process. He is as guilty as the guy who drives the getaway car.

We should put this guy in a regular prison. Once word gets out who he is and what he was involved in, good old American justice will kick in.

John McCain was tortured by the VietCong. I am not surprised so many Republicans supported McCain getting tortured.

Steve:

The Constitution of the United States of America specifically forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Further, The Prison Rape Elimination Act was passed unanimously by both the House of Representatives and the Senate: “prison rape was denounced by congressional leaders as an unacceptable abuse that should not be part of any prisoner’s sentence.” This is the case even for those who were themselves convicted as rapists, molesters, or similar sex offenders. Basically, what it all comes down to is, the kind of “prison justice” you’re referring to is far distant from any truly American conception of justice.

It depends on what we mean by torture. We have discussed this before without result. Being uncomfortable, being humiliated, being harassed is unpleasant, but not torture. Anyone who has traveled tourist class during holiday season has suffered as much. We have to be a little more specific.

The thing about being straddled by a woman and having porn hung around your neck doesn’t sound like torture at all. People go to Las Vegas and pay money for those sorts of things.

What do we mean by torture?

Aldous
“I am not surprised so many Republicans supported McCain getting tortured.”
That is certainly over the top and immature. I may be the bigger fool for even responding to such a statement.

Jack said: “The thing about being straddled by a woman and having porn hung around your neck doesn’t sound like torture at all. People go to Las Vegas and pay money for those sorts of things.”

Talk about a narrow, culture-centric point of view.

How would you feel if you were held and force fed slugs & snails. They are a delicacy in some countries. I would consider it torture, however.

Julia,
I have NO sympathy whatsoever for the VC or the Vietnamese. The only people I care about are the GIs that had to go fight in that God forasken place.

Aldous,
YOUR NOT THE LEAST BIT FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tom:

My comment is completely reasonable. People tend to think of this as happening to “Them”, not to “Us”. By approving Guantanamo, you approve of torture being used on US Soldiers such as McCain.

And please stop quoting Chapter and Verse of the Geneva Conventions. The World does not need to be a Lawyer to know its illegal.

Jarandhel,

Where is this rape comment coming from?

When I said prison justice I was inferring beatings, sometimes stabbings, etc. I would not include rape as a form of prison justice.

Ron Brown,

“…why should we hold to an out dated piece of paper that no other country(Specaily our enimies) holds to any more?”

If I didn’t know you were describing the Geneva Convention, I could just as easily think you were describing the Bible, or the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence.

The reason we should hold to that out-dated piece of paper is simple — because it’s the right thing to do. We may, due to loopholes, be legally justified in abusing prisoners at Gitmo, but we are not MORALLY justified in doing so.

We defined certain rights in the US Constitution because we believed that people deserved those rights. We’re not required to preserve those rights in non-Americans, but we know it’s the right thing to do.

Why shouldn’t we do the right thing?

I think the point has been over presented about the Geneva Convention crap. Those who believe that agressive interrogation is a valid way to gain necessary information don’t give a damn about the details of the Geneva Convention.

Those of you who differ prefer to brand it as “torture” because it sensationalizes your position.

David points out astutely that torture has different meanings using food items as an example of what might be considered torture. Now I realize that food and battery cables hooked to your ears are quite a different matter so save yourself the time of responding with a missive about the degrees of pain and humane treatment.

In the real world, agressive interrogation and sometimes incarceration conditions are the norm in cases involving war and terrorism. No convention is going to change that regardless of who our who our UN Ambassador is.

We cannot handle people whom we deem as a threat to our natiuonal security with kid gloves. If they are in Gitmo or anywhere else under our jurisdiction, they are Prisoners of War. We can, if we choose keep them locked up until the war is over.

Aldous
There are no factual reports that torture is being done at Gitmo. We here all kind of propaganda about all kinds of situations. There is no torture going on at Gitmo. There are factual reports of our military treating the detainees with proper care. Maybe you need to re-evaluate the psycho-prop of AI.

Posted by Chi Chi: So, if they are neither of these, what are they? […] illegal combatants.

What they are, is people who can be questioned without having to have somebody sitting at each one’s elbow saying, “Don’t answer that!”

It might be worth noting that the information thus garnered has saved more than a few lives, not only American lives but also the lives of Iraqis and Afghanis.

I don’t think that torture is acceptable, even for bad guys. But whether it’s acceptable or not may depend on what a person thinks of as torture.

Posted by Zeek: Explain to me how the prisoners having it better than ever in GITMO is true in any context.

Three squares a day of religiously appropriate food, no work, a Koran to read …. Occasional interrogations, true. But not rigorous ones, like they’d expect in their native countries if they ran afoul of the authorities. And yes, they are housed singly, but they are housed in such a way that they can converse with one another.

To a guy who is used to working his malnourished rear end off just to get the inadequate food he usually survives on, I can see how this might seem …. pleasant, even. For a time.

I’m not going to try to claim that the long-term prisoners at Gitmo now are happy to be there, mind you. Probably they’d rather be free to blow up more civilians. Or American troops if they can get at them.

ET

Here is a different twist on the Geneva Convention. The GC is a treaty. The treaty has been broken by several nations and individuals in the middle east. Since the treaty has been broken by our adversaries, then we should not have to abide by the provisions of said treaty

posted by Norman L Evams: The Democrats in this country should be put in prison. They are the United States worst enemies

That’s a very dangerous attitude. If we could do it to them, they would be in a position to do it to us if they ever regained power. Let’s not give them any excuses, please.

ET

Jarandhel,

Where is this rape comment coming from?

When I said prison justice I was inferring beatings, sometimes stabbings, etc. I would not include rape as a form of prison justice.

Steve, your comment made a fairly direct implication of eye for an eye justice through the prison system. A system where McVeigh would be, as you termed it, “put to death by his peers”, by letting the murderers deal with each other. It is not a far cry to extrapolate that into letting the rapists punish the rapists, if we’re going to let the “good old American justice” of putting someone in the general population and leaking word of what they did determine their treatment in a prison situation.

You’re actually advocating beatings and stabbings, prisoners putting other prisoners to *death* at will, rather than needing a state determined death penalty to condemn a prisoner to death, but draw the line at rape in this prison justice scenario of yours? Is rape, to your mind, somehow worse than death or something? I’m really not following your logic here.

Aldous-
“All Republicans:
Have any of you ever been tortured? I find it amazing what excuses you spout. You have the Yellow Sticker on your SUV but you don’t volunteer to Serve. May I suggest sending your children to the Army to show your Support for the Troops? That way the poor slobs getting stoplossed can go home.” -This is the second time I have seen you say this. But I don’t understand as 60%+ in the military always vote republican. I think it is the left wing that opposes and does not fight for the freedom we enjoy.

“And please stop quoting Chapter and Verse of the Geneva Conventions.” How much closer to the facts can you get than to “quote” Why does this bother you? Terrorist are not POW’s they are not civilians, They are murderous thugs.

scottie:

While it is true that 60% of the Military mostly Officers are Republican, the fact remains that Recruiting has fallen short nearly 50%. Apparently, not enough of the 60 million republicans are enlisting to Spread Freedom.

I call upon all Republicans to make up the shortfall and volunteer!!! Your Country Needs YOU!!! Recruiting Bonus is now $40,000!!! 15 Month Deployment available!!!

Kindly post your name and email for any who are interested. Operators are standing by.

Aldous,
This Republican served with pride in the United States Army and his son is currently serving. I can also add that he is an MP and a damned good one.
David Remer,
Long time no see ol chum. Please tell me though David, you can’t possibly be a Clinton supporter can you?

Maybe if King Shrub and Co would be a little less secretive about everything they do, there would be less rumors and allegations. Why won’t they let Red Cross or Amnesty Intl. take a look around. If there’s nothing to hide, then Bushies would have nothing to fear. On the other hand……..

Nathan,

Posty’s comment above makes the pivotal argument here, as this controversy will continue to fester as long as this administration continues to stonewall on this matter associated with the war on terror - handling that would previously make it go away.

Yet, as exampled by your stated goal here ‘…to seek guidance and provoke discussion…’, my senior U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (Il) did just that on the floor today, and has been savaged by the Right ever since.

And your words Nathan, describe exactly how he’s being attacked:

It seems that too many in this country are concerned about the terrorists and prisoners instead of being concerned about the brave men and women fighting to protect our country.

JC:

I appreciate the sacrifice you and your son are making to this country. I, myself, have cousins who serve.

However, there is no denying the shortage of volunteers willing to stick their necks out for what they believe. We need more Recruits to Spread Freedom in Iraq. Can you supply me with the names and emails of people who you believe would contribute to the victory in Iraq?

Liberals are all fags or cowards anyway.

Seems like they could put an bi-partisan oversight board together and start separating fact from fiction. Sam Nunn, Bob Dole, and hell even Jimmy Carter. That would quiet it down some.

George, that’s a great idea. Unfortunately, President Bush has consistently resisted any form of legislative or judicial oversight.

Gitmo’s an executive branch prison. The Supreme Court made Bush charge the two American citizens being held, but non-citizens are in a legal black hole. Prisoners at Gitmo are detained and held at the whim of the executive branch - no checks and balances allowed.

Aldous, the Army is now accepting junior officer recruits up to 42 years old - and a criminal record is not a problem. When the acceptance age reaches 65, we’ll see a bunch of seniors filling the gaps who would otherwise be wasting their last years as greeters at Wal-Mart.

Was Timothy Mcveigh a “POW”?

What ever your answer is to the above question, you should have the same answer for those at Gitmo.

If you are a combatant on the battlefield and not wearing the uniform or identification of a sovereign nation, then you are a spy. It is lawful, under the Geneva Convention, to summarily execute spy on the battle field. I’d say a trip to Gitmo is more humane than what the Geneva Convention allows. Which means the USA is doing more than it “has” to.

It is my understanding of the Geneva Convention that it only applies to prisoners of war who meet certain criteria, such as wear a uniform, fight for a particular country, etc. If that is true then everyone who is screaming about the prisoners at Gitmo and the Geneva Convention need to pipe down because it would not apply to them.

Therefore, we should be allowed to behave as immorally as we please given there is no piece of paper binding us to ethical behavior. Nice.

I also do not believe that what is going on at Guantanamo Bay constitutes torture. It is perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, for them to make the prisoners “uncomfortable” if it means that we can get information that will allow us to save American lives.

What about the innocent? Fair treatment of detainees protects us all. Fair treatment of detainees ensures that we maintain a “moral high ground” to lend credibility to our fight against terrorism. Fair treatment of detainees is simply the right thing to do. With great power comes great responsibility.

It seems that too many in this country are concerned about the terrorists and prisoners instead of being concerned about the brave men and women fighting to protect our country.

Why do you cast the issue in black and white like this? I’m actually concerned for the moral fortitude of this country. My concern for suspected or confirmed terrorist detainees is merely a byproduct.

Despite all of this, I begrudgingly tend to agree with Rummy’s apologia on this subject: Gitmo is the most scrutinized prison camp in history. Most, if not all, allegations have been and will be looked into. The problem is that many cases are ending up with unsatisfactory results.

Jarandhel,

Upon reviewing my post I can see where you were able to draw the conclusion that rape would have been included.

While I may have explained it poorly my intent was to say that generally, prisoners tend to take actions are their own based on the severity of the crime they perceive another has committed. Given the violent atmosphere they are in, their actions are generally cruel and even lethal.

I am not advocating that this occur but, pointing out that it does. Like it or not it defies logic that a bunch of people in prison for murder and other heinous crimes would look at a Timothy McVeigh and decide that his crime is unforgivable (I guess they think that theirs are) and they administer their own brand of justice.

Let’s face the reality. Gitmo is a concentration camp, and the only way to close it is to change the leadership that sanctioned it’s use.

The Democrats in this country should be put in prison. They are the United States worst enemies

Maybe we can just gather them up, strip them of their wealth and house them in a ghetto (we need to save prison space for all the pot smokers, after all). Make them sew big D’s into their clothing. Then finally make them bathe in communal showers.

This horseshit gets tiresome after awhile.

Oh my. So sorry, Beagle. I had no idea that the war on terrorism was such a burden. I will write my representative presently and explain to him that we must make this fight more palatable, posthaste. Maybe decorate our smart bombs with Hello Kitty™ iconography. Maybe put some bows on the dogs that are used to intimidate detainees. We might have stopped doing that, but hey! with the bows, it would be okay again.

In all future military conflicts, I suggest the US institute a “Take no Prisoners” policy. It has become abundantly clear, if one folows the Democrat’s howls, and the whining of the Mainstream Media, that is the most compassionate thing we can do.

Ah yes, the “kill ‘em all and let god sort ‘em out” approach. Always fun, and very satisfying. Maybe we can finally use our nukes again.

When I said prison justice I was inferring beatings, sometimes stabbings, etc. I would not include rape as a form of prison justice.

Oh, the irony.

James:

The USA is doing what it “has” to. Meaning Torture.

The Rest of Planet Earth is doing what it “has” to. Meaning Let USA Go It Alone.

The Iraqi Insurgents are doing what it “has” to. Meaning Kill GIs.

The Republicans-at-Home are doing what it “has” to. Meaning Not Volunteer To Serve.

Zeek
Here’s one link of a released prisoner.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/08/wguan08.xml

Vic
I wont go off and be the smartass that I usually am to people who make assumptions (Yes, you ASSUMED that you KNOW where I get my opinions from, Fox news and Rush) It’s getting tiresome and you probably wouldn’t get it. If your still curious as to why we are holding prisoners, here’s a link that might explain.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050304info.pdf

The US Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note that it doesn’t say “that all AMERICANS…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….” Our government was founded on the principle that these Rights weren’t given to us by the government, but that they are UNALIENABLE human rights that we are born with.

If such is the case, then aren’t ALL people born with these rights? Shouldn’t we respect that, even if we’re not legally required to?

Bert-

I saw and read Durbin’s comments this morning. I do not think he was seeking guidance and provoking discussion as you suggest.

He has made his position clear that he believes that the treatment Mr. Qahtani received can be equated to the treatment given by a regime that had no concern for human beings. And he used names for political effect. He put the stake in the ground, no he’s got to stand on his comparison.

AP,

The evil theocratic empire, I mean the Bush Administration, agreed to the 9/11 Commission. Clinton agreed to a similar review of Waco. Both initially resisted them.

“He has made his position clear that he believes that the treatment Mr. Qahtani received can be equated to the treatment given by a regime that had no concern for human beings. And he used names for political effect. He put the stake in the ground, no he’s got to stand on his comparison.”

And, in my opinion, he SHOULD stand by the comparison. Enough with the Politically Correct politics. How close to Nazi behavior do we have to get before it becomes appropriate to call it Nazi-like behavior?

George, can you honestly tell me that the treatment of Gitmo prisoners sounds like what you would expect from a country that champions such things as:

* democracy
* human rights
* due process
* no cruel/unusual punishments
* rule of law
* freedom of religion

Legally or not, in order to protect America, we’re throwing away the very things that make us American.

Rob-

Again, your second question, whether or not this is treatment that we want for our society, is not the comparison that Durbin put forth and not what I’m challenging. If he would have spoken in those terms I would agree that a debate is desirable. As I said above it is a close call in my mind, similar to the drama in Guarding Tess.

Rather, Mr. Durbin stated that the treatment that one and only one person, Mr. Qahtani, received compares and is equal to the treatment afforded by the Nazi’s, Soviets in gulags, Pol Pot, etc. On that point there is absolutely no comparison.

Beagle
Best post of the thread!

“Close GITMO, move them all to a dormroom at Berkley, problem solved.”

Sounds good to me. Hell, most of them probably already attended school there, which would explain their hatred for America. lol!

“This horseshit gets tiresome after awhile.”

VERY well said my friend. But as long as they think it will help get more votes and get them elected back into power, they will continue to grasp to and exaggerate every little thing they can.

Gitmo?
Would have been used if gore or kerry were elected. The only difference being those who are against it now would be supportive or would be blaming the “evil” right wing military guys in charge of it.

Gitmo is fine with me…people there are being treated better than the guy who had his head sawed off with a steak knife. I can’t honestly believe that people are getting upset about this…after all that has happened. Durbin, Kennedy and all the others who put our country in danger by undermining our war effort ought to be tried for treason.

When one nation invades another nation, all in the invaded nation who resist invasion are combatants.

If the US were invaded by the Chinese, should the Chinese be permitted to treat American non-military citizens who take up arms to resist the Chinese as terrorists, depriving them of all rights and subjecting them to summary judgement and sentencing?

C’mon, folks, putting the shoe on the other foot is not a difficult exercise, so why do you resist? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Get some moral courage and live up to your faith, and stand up for human rights which you appear so hypocritical about in your selective support of some, and not others.

To A Common Man:

Problem one: The detainees are dangerous. They were apprahanded fighting againest US troops, and most likely will continue after they are released. thus it might be a good idea not to let them go.

Problem two:What county do they belong to? where do you release them to? Is any country willing to take resonablity and make assuances that they will not attack Americans in the furture. This is not a war between nations or a civil war. For a treaty to be in effect it has to be between nations.

Problem three:The opposition goals is our (the USA)destruction, Not independence. Their goal has not end because it is opposed to our goal, to maintain the US way of life.

Gitmo is not a concentration camp because these poeple are not unarmed, innocent civilians. They are terrorist.

The liberals do not have the will to take on these terrorist.

Because there is no treaty, no presendent

Would have been used if gore or kerry were elected. The only difference being those who are against it now would be supportive or would be blaming the “evil” right wing military guys in charge of it.

It’s always so easy to argue against your own imagination.

Winfield,

“Gitmo is fine with me…people there are being treated better than the guy who had his head sawed off with a steak knife. I can’t honestly believe that people are getting upset about this…after all that has happened.”

So as long as we’re not sawing off people’s heads, we’re fine??!! Are you sure you want THOSE people setting OUR moral standards?

Aldous:

“The Republicans-at-Home are doing what it “has” to. Meaning Not Volunteer To Serve.”

I am just curious. You keep bringing this up as a fact. Where are you getting this from that only Republicans are not volunteering to serve?

Sometimes, ones imagination is all that is left.
Especially when the other side of an issue knows what was stated is absolute truth but still refuses to acknowledge it as the truth.

Problem one: The detainees are dangerous. They were apprahanded fighting againest US troops, and most likely will continue after they are released. thus it might be a good idea not to let them go.

The Geneva Convention addresses this kind of situation. Such people are called POWs.

Problem two:What county do they belong to? where do you release them to? Is any country willing to take resonablity and make assuances that they will not attack Americans in the furture.

The process is quite simple, really:
Step 1 - Ask the detainee what country they “belong to”.
Step 2 - Ask that country if it is willing to accept them.
Step 3 - If the country says YES, ship them there. If the country says NO, return to Step 1.

Problem three:The opposition goals is our (the USA)destruction, Not independence. Their goal has not end because it is opposed to our goal, to maintain the US way of life.

I hate to say this in a civil debate, but that is BULLSHIT! The opposition’s goal is to get the USA out of their lives. If we stayed in our own land, they would have little reason to come over here. Instead, we constantly meddle in their lives, draining their resources, supporting their oppressive dictators when it suits us, and blowing people up when it doesn’t. Their goal isn’t to destroy us. Their goal is an arabic version of the Monroe Doctrine — leave us alone and let us sort out our own problems.

Gitmo is not a concentration camp because these poeple are not unarmed, innocent civilians. They are terrorist.

Really? When was this determined? Last I heard, none of them had been given a trial, so their guilt was uncertain.

The liberals do not have the will to take on these terrorist.

I can’t speak for the “liberals”, but I don’t have the will to give up those qualities that make America great in order to fight this war. If we have to give those things up to win, winning might not be worth it.

The evil theocratic empire, I mean the Bush Administration, agreed to the 9/11 Commission.

George, I’m not sure what that has to do with the fact that Gitmo is run by the executive branch with no judicial or legislative branch oversight.

Problem two: …Is any country willing to take resonablity and make assuances that they will not attack Americans in the furture.

Yeah, the guys we handed over to the Brits were tried and found to be totally innocent and they let ‘em go. We can’t have that. Innocent guys getting released… That’s just crazy.

Especially when the other side of an issue knows what was stated is absolute truth but still refuses to acknowledge it as the truth.

Still sounds like your arguing with what you imagine “the other side” is thinking, who they are, and what truth is (as if any of us would know).

“I am just curious. You keep bringing this up as a fact. Where are you getting this from that only Republicans are not volunteering to serve?”

I think the point is that the Democrats, Independents, etc. aren’t the ones saying we should fight this war. If the Republicans are so sure it’s the right thing to do, why don’t THEY do it and leave the rest of us out of it?

It’s easy to drive around with a ribbon on your car/van/SUV/whatever saying that you Support our Troops. But while doing that, you’re launching a preemptive war against a foreign nation at the expense of the same troops you claim to support.

I support our troops. I support them in their job of defending America. That is why I want to bring them back to America so they can get back to doing their jobs.

If no “torture” is going on and only acceptable methods of information gathering are being used, why can’t we have some transparency? Since the methods are completely acceptable there is no reason for secrecy (I’m not talking about sharing intelligence here, just openness about methods, etc.).

I can only think of 2 reasons for the shroud of secrecy surrounding what happens at Gitmo…
1. No bad things are happening. But we want the bad guys to think bad things are happening as a deterent or motivator for co-operation.
2. Bad things are happening.

Rob:

No, and they haven’t set our moral standards. We have taken huge casualties trying to be fair and just to these people. We have gone above and beyond morally. The military should have just kept the location of the detainees classified so that they could do their job keeping us safe without a bunch of people whining about the rights of guys that would slit your throat the moment you let them go.

“Problem two: …Is any country willing to take resonablity and make assuances that they will not attack Americans in the furture.”

Believe it or not, the French ARE doing alittle.

http://cbs2chicago.com/terror/terror_story_084115541.html

guys that would slit your throat the moment you let them go.

Wow! Winfield, if you have that kind of info on all 520 detainess, you need to tell a government official immediately! Be prepared to answer some questions about how you know.

I’d guess that if these guys were turned over to the legal system of any democratic country, the vast majority would be freed because of insufficient evidence that they’re guilty of anything but fighting against the US invasion of a Muslim country half-way around the world.

If they’re terrorists, try ‘em and fry ‘em. Otherwise, let ‘em go. That’s the American way.

Aldous,

I did not say the USA is doing what is “has” to.

I said the USA is doing MORE THAN it “has” to.

meaning capturing and imprisonning people at Gitmo is better than killing them on the battle field.

The “insurgents” are 75-90% non Iraqi, therefore terrorists, and have no protection under any LAWS of Land Warfare. new reports state that most of the suicide bombers are from N. Africa.

Have you seen the video of the 14 Thai laborers that had their throats slit by your favored insurgents? It can be found on M. Savage’s web site.

American Pundit,

“If they’re terrorists, try ‘em and fry ‘em. Otherwise, let ‘em go. That’s the American way.”

The first intelligent thing you have ever put on this blog, but smarter people would get info out of them first, and should use resonable any means necessary.

There are countries over here meddling in our lives, bankrupting our manufacturing sector, costing us jobs and all kinds of stuff. I’m mad!!! Let’s attack them. Let’s see what kind of treatment we get from China when we get captured. We have to deal with a GLOBAL economy. That’s just what it’s turned into…get used to it.

Kevin, the so called “prisoner” was 14 when they put him in GITMO. I should bloody well hope they didn’t treat him like crap, he wasn’t even part of the Taliban. Also, the implication that it was the “best time of his life,” is refuted by his comment that,

They stole 14 months of my life, and my family’s life. I was entirely innocent: just a poor boy looking for work

Now remember, this is criticizing the U.S. authorities, not the soldiers. In the same light, I do not hold the soldiers accountable when it should be their superiors that take the responsibility for abuse that goes on in prisons. So I stand by what I said, it is completely ridiculous to think that detainees in GITMO are having the time of their life.

American Pundit,

We know who these guys are, what they stand for, and what they want to do to us…this is no mystery.

The “insurgents” are 75-90% non Iraqi, therefore terrorists

That’s an interesting statistic, do you have a source that breaks down all the detainees by nationality? Could you post a link?

My understanding is that most of the detainees were picked up in Afghanistan, so it kinda makes since that most of them aren’t Iraqis.

Winfield, why would we attack China? Mexico is costing us jobs, and they’re a lot closer.

Whoa there turbo…I did say “countries”. China was the first country that came to my mind. After all, they do like to squash their own people with tanks and what have you. Mexico was, however, on my mind when I said “countries”.

Zeek-

As I posted in the blue the young kid, now 18, was re-captured last fall fighting with the Taliban near Kandahar.

David,
If the Chinese invaded the US I don’t think we would send in home grown terrorists to blow up our own citizens in retaliation. “We don’t like the Americans over here so we are going to blow up as many women, and children as we can to make a point” “We can call it a holy war so the world will try to understand why we kill our own people” Sorry David, this is one of those things that falls into the 98% category for you and me.

This has probably already been said but the terrotists are not POW’s because they are not fighting for any specific nation or state. This makes them a type of international criminal, or what they called them a hundred years ago - barbarians. They do not have rights which is why this administration does not classify them as anything but terrorists.

Zeke,
You wanted one fact and I gave it to you, of course it was typical of people of your views to pull one statement out of all that was said and use that as your source of refute.

Am I understanding you correctly that you believe that “Authorities” should be held accountable for the actions of all that happens underneath them? If so, you creating a new arguement.

Good point George in SC, How many were released and then recaptured fighting against our troops? Maybe we should just release them all and when they’re caught fighting our troops again or blowing up people the nay-sayers of Gitmo might even agree with holding them…….nevermind, That’s NOT a risk I’m willing to take!

Kevin

Let’s let them all go right now and then shoot them when they are fighting us next time.

David Remer:

The Geneva Convention brought out the long forgotten chivalrous nature of war workers (read soldiers) and put a stop to the heinous practice of capturing enemies as trading pieces and many times, killing and torturing with impunity. From here on, a captured soldier would be considered a part of fellowship of war workers albeit working for the competition.

I consider Geneva convention to have been a failure. It set the standards for warfare for the civilized world, but had no real teeth in it. Countries after countries have ignored it and enforcement has been feeble. Just ask Chuck Norris.

I agree with you that Joe citizen, armed or unarmed should be given the same treatment as a soldier. But I disagree that the same standard should be applied to all soldiers. The treatment should be commensurate with their moral ranking in soldierdom. Clearly a NATO soldier is entitled to a different treatment than say the Janjaweed of Darfur.

That is the moral backbone to the GITMO symptom. Watch for changes in the Geneva Convention soon after the UN mess is cleaned up.

American Pundit,

I said insurgents, you said detainees

Speaking about detainees, if they are taliban only, maybe they are afforded rights under the Geneva Convention. Did Afganistan sign the geneva convention? did the taliban ?

However, if they are al Quida, they have no rights under the Geneva Convention.

Americans can say anything to justify their position. Before you know it, they will tell you that your mother is a man and you will believe it! In case you don’t understand this… what I meant is that no American can see an issue with both eyes unclouded. So why provoke discussion?

Matty

http://tcap.blogspot.com/

I’ll bet senator McCain must agree that “shitting” in his pant while being kept as a prisoner in Vietnam must be just a little bit “uncomfortable”.

Matty

Winfield,
No we couldn’t do that! that might violate there rights! You know, the right to come over here and massacre thousands of people, or even capture some people in Iraq and lop their heads off. We should be more understanding, talk to them and try and figure out why they want to do that.

B.S. I’m tired of all these “less fortunate” people getting press about how they are treated while our soldiers are getting blown up by these same people!

We have the biggest stick in the world. This is why we will continue to have Gitmo. If someone wants to tell us otherwise, bring it on. Until someone ‘un-sticks’ us, we are going to continue to beat the hell out of people who screw with us.

Steve Smith said:
“We cannot handle people whom we deem as a threat to our natiuonal security with kid gloves. If they are in Gitmo or anywhere else under our jurisdiction, they are Prisoners of War. We can, if we choose keep them locked up until the war is over.”

The main problem with this and the rest of you who advocate “treating them dang terroists roughly” is
Just WHO gets to decide WHO is REALLY a terroist???
WHERE is the evidence (other than accusation) that any of these people “pose a threat to our natiuonal security”
Why are you assuming automatically (without trial, without ANY recourse to rebut the ACCUSATION) that EVERYONE who is detained is GUILTY???
TALK ABOUT AN UNAMERICAN ATTITUDE!!!

Innocent until proven guilty is a HUMAN RIGHT NOT JUST AN AMERICAN RIGHT
Our forefathers fought for HUMAN RIGHTS here in America — it doesn’t mean these principles ONLY APPLY in America — talk about Hypocritical.

And now BUSH is proclaiming that he wants to spread DEMROCRACY over the entire world, doesn’t that imply that these principles are GLOBAL???

The Left is not “whining” or “crying” for terrorists.
WE are STANDING UP for the RIGHTS of ACCUSED who have NOT YET been determined to be guilty of ANYTHING except BEING ACCUSED.

Consider this:
WHAT IF — your neighbor might get it in his head to Accuse you of child molestation —
WHAT IF our laws allowed you to be GUILTY just due to that accusation — and allow you to be interned for perpetuity — for the sake of “National Security” (safety of our children after all, from perverts like you, — oh yea, you were only accused, but by your standards, that makes you automatically GUILTY!!) bye-bye Mr. Pervert (Terrorist, Murderer, whatever)

Prisoner of War

NOUN: pl. prisoners of war

A person taken by or surrendering to enemy forces in wartime.
____________________________________
Now, what about Houghton Mifflin’s definition says that a person has to be representing a state or needs to have a uniform?

Hey Russ,

Your argument is called the slippery slope and it is unfounded.

If you are on the battlefiled in Afganistan and you have an AK-47, That’s a big difference than being accused of anything by your neighbor

Common man

your argument is a false appeal of authority.

The dictionary is not the Geneva Convention.

Nice try though

Those people are in that prision for a reason. I very seriously doubt that our people randomly plucked people off the streets in Afghanistan or Iraq or any other country and threw them in prison. War time is not Jacko on trial for butt-raping some boys. Would you like to have your hand cut off for stealing? I don’t think so. The problem with liberals is that THEY want to take over the world and tell everyone how they are supposed to feel and have everybody be all PC and touchy-feely toward everybody else. That is not going to happen. People are going to continue to be human, have differing opinions, and fight. We will never ‘all just get along’ on this Earth. Accept this. We have to continue to manage people who are seeking our demise. If we don’t, we are not being responsible for our children.

JC said: “If the Chinese invaded the US I don’t think we would send in home grown terrorists to blow up our own citizens in retaliation.”

Excuse me. I thought the terrorists were blowing themselves up as well. That beg’s the question, who are these in GITMO, still alive?

Your analogy doesn’t hold up to the light of reality JC.

Kevin, if what George says is true, I would question the accuracy of anything that comes out of that kid’s mouth. If he really was treated so decently by the Americans it would seem rather illogical for him to turn around and swear to fight them “to the very end.”

All that I know is that this whole situation is very murky. However, until the truth comes out I’m going to look at history and side with the claims that the prisoners are being abused.

Tony,

“…This makes them a type of international criminal, or what they called them a hundred years ago - barbarians. They do not have rights which is why this administration does not classify them as anything but terrorists.”

But they DO have rights, no matter whether they’re enemy combatants, criminals, terrorists, or what have you. Why? Because they are HUMAN! That’s what the phrase HUMAN RIGHTS means. It’s referring to those “unalienable rights” that our (and their) Creator endowed us all with….

… or do you just consider that line of the Declaration of Independence to be outdated bullshit?

Zeek:

Why in the heck do you people automatically assume the worst of our countrymen? We are a pretty decent people. Is it so far out of the rhelm of possibility that those prisioners are being treated well? Do you believe most of your neighbors and other countrymen you don’t know to be sadists? I guess that I should have asked this first, are you an American?

You know, it’s very interesting that the fourteen year old kid that was released was found fighting against us four years later. Everyone here seems to be assuming that means he was always a terrorist and his being held here was justified.

Anyone think of the alternate interpretation that he wasn’t a terrorist, but his experience of US “justice” at Gitmo convinced him that fighting against us was a good idea? Who knows, maybe he was even converted while he was at Gitmo itself, after all we make all that Jihadi reading material available to the prisoners. (Which seems odd, isn’t there a difference between providing for their religious beliefs and handing them propaganda that tells them to wage religious war against us?)

“Those people are in that prision for a reason. I very seriously doubt that our people randomly plucked people off the streets in Afghanistan or Iraq or any other country and threw them in prison.”

Actually, during wartime, your criteria tends to become less descriminate, not more. You detain anyone who you think MIGHT be a threat, whether you can prove it or not.

That’s the problem here. For all this noble talk of “these bastards cut people’s heads off”, I haven’t seen a SINGLE SHREAD of evidence that ANY of the 520 people in Gitmo cut ANYONE’s head off.

Do you think there’s a difference between “the poeple of the Middle East” and “the terrorists”? If you do, then why don’t we figure out which group each of the people in Gitmo belongs to? If not, then why don’t we just nuke the whole place and be done with it?

Is it not their religious belief to wage war against us? I’ve heard conflicting stories and never read the Muslim holy book. Is the Koran the only official Muslim holy book?

David:

Depends what you mean. There are other books that are seen as commentaries on the Koran, I think they are called hadith if I remember right, but the Koran is the only book that is roughly equivalent in sacredness to the bible in their religion. And no, it is not their religious belief to kill us. All Muslims are not jihadi. Jihadism is a primarily political movement that bases its philosophy around certain interpretations of the koran that are not held by all Muslims, roughly the way that groups like the Christian Identity movement (a racist christian subgroup) promotes their cause (white supremacy) using select interpretations of the bible that are not held by all Christians.

Rob:

Are you calling me a racist? Are you calling my fellow countrymen who are putting their lives on the line for my safety scum? Do regard the US military (as a whole) as anything other than professional? I think you are terribly mistaken.

Winfield,

I guess that I should have asked this first, are you an American?

Yes… Why? Do I sound Afghani to you or something?

Why in the heck do you people automatically assume the worst of our countrymen? We are a pretty decent people.

Hm… as people go, sure. As a species— eh— not so much. Don’t get me wrong, I know that many of our countrymen (and women) are very nice people. But the bad people here and there have the ability to corrupt entire systems. To me, it just seems historically safer to hope for the best but expect the worst.

Is it so far out of the rhelm of possibility that those prisioners are being treated well?

No. Which is why I sincerely hope I’m wrong about prisoner abuse because there is the possibilty that I am.

Do you believe most of your neighbors and other countrymen you don’t know to be sadists?

No. Should I?

Afterall, most of them had the sense to not become politicians.

Rob,
Just because YOU haven’t seen and evidence does not mean it doesn’t exist, and doesn’t mean that they didn’t conspire to do so ,or would have if not caught. Have you personally interrogated these people? Have you read any types of manuscripts documenting their interrogation?

And doesn’t your statement:
“Do you think there’s a difference between “the poeple of the Middle East” and “the terrorists”? If you do, then why don’t we figure out which group each of the people in Gitmo belongs to? If not, then why don’t we just nuke the whole place and be done with it?”
Support the reason to be suspicious of everyone? Maybe even you?

Winfield,

Are you calling my fellow countrymen who are putting their lives on the line for my safety scum?

Do you really think 100% of our soldiers are angels?

Winfield:

Actually, our people didn’t capture many of the detainees that are at Gitmo, they were given to us. Captured by other countries, often for bounties per head ranging from 3000 to 25000 dollars.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0531-10.htm

Are most of the people being brought in not brought in by common people? Don Rumsfeld is not over there arresting people. I have a feeling that the majority of the detainees at Gitmo were people arrested by common people just doing their jobs. I tell you with a great deal of certainty that politicians are not arresting people. Do you honestly think that our ground forces have been told to arrest 520 random people and torture them? Would they do that and not have it leak out?

Winfield:

Yes, they were turned in by common people. Common people often very poor and willing to turn in strangers for the money to feed themselves and their families “for a lifetime”, as they were promised. They were not arrested by our ground forces in many cases, they were captured by common people in countries like Pakistan and literally SOLD to the US. Read the article I linked to.

Our soldiers are definitely not all angels, but I’ll tell you something. They have protocol that they are trained to follow. They do it automatically. If they don’t, they die, and they know that. I have three very close personal friends in the army and they are very professional and are not abusing anyone. People who abuse get caught and punished. We have seen that already.

Yes, of course.
They were sold to us by people who were poor and hungry, They too are victims and the Evil United States are the ones to blame.

Haven’t we heard this same crap before?

Winfield,

People who abuse get caught and punished.

You have no way of knowing this. If you think you do, please share.

Zeek,
Have you not seen the trials of the people caught abusing and were sentenced? It might not be all the people that did the abuse but, they were tried and convicted. I wish we could catch all the people that did bad things but we don’t live in a perfect world do we.

Zeek:

You’re right. I have no way of knowing anything. I just happen to believe that there are enough good people running the show over there to not allow these horrible things to happen. Soldiers are people from our neighborhoods. They are not elite politicians, Hollywood, Jacko types. If you think that everyone is that evil, you seriously should start hanging around with some different people.

Winfield:

Abuse in any prison situation is predictable, as explained by Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist who who conducted the famous Stanford Prison Experiment:

“In 1971 I was in charge of the Stanford Prison Experiment, in which randomly assigned student volunteers in a simulated prison role-played prisoners and guards. Although everyone knew it was just an experiment, the line between simulation and reality was breached as it became a psychological prison of incredible intensity.

The planned two-week study was terminated after only six days because it was out of control. Good boys chosen for their normalcy were having emotional breakdowns as powerless prisoners. Other young men chosen for their mental health and positive values eased into the character of sadistic guards inflicting suffering on their fellow students without moral compunction. And those “good guards” who did not personally debase the prisoners failed to confront the worst of their comrades, allowing evil to ripen without challenge.

The terrible things my guards did to their prisoners were comparable to the horrors inflicted on the Iraqi detainees. My guards repeatedly stripped their prisoners naked, hooded them, chained them, denied them food or bedding privileges, put them into solitary confinement, and made them clean toilet bowls with their bare hands.

As the boredom of their job increased, they began using the prisoners as their playthings, devising ever more humiliating and degrading games for them to play. Over time, these amusements took a sexual turn, such as having the prisoners simulate sodomy on each other. Once aware of such deviant behavior, I closed down the Stanford prison.

Human behavior is much more under the control of situational forces than most of us recognize or want to acknowledge. In a situation that implicitly gives permission for suspending moral values, many of us can be morphed into creatures alien to our usual natures. My research and that of my colleagues has catalogued the conditions for stirring the crucible of human nature in negative directions. Some of the necessary ingredients are: diffusion of responsibility, anonymity, dehumanization, peers who model harmful behavior, bystanders who do not intervene, and a setting of power differentials.

Those factors were apparently also operating in Iraq. But in addition there was secrecy, no accountability, no visible chain of command, conflicting demands on the guards from the CIA and civilian interrogators, no rules enforced for prohibited acts, encouragement for breaking the will of the detainees, and no challenges by many bystanders who observed the evil but did not blow the whistle.”

For more information about this experiment, see:
http://www.prisonexp.org/

Isabelle:

So what you are telling me is that if I were placed in a situation where I were a prison guard, I would morph into a sick sadistic bastard? I highly doubt that. I have a little more self control and respect for human dignity than that. Please forgive me, but an experiment done in the early seventies at a university by a psychologist lacks quite a bit of credibility with me. I do appreciate the reading…

Winfield,

If you think that everyone is that evil, you seriously should start hanging around with some different people.

You asked me about this already and I already said “no.” What part of that didn’t you understand? I’ll try it again. I do not believe the majority of the people that I know are sadists nor do I believe the majority of the people I don’t know are sadists.

If you fail to understand it this time, I will just keep referencing the bolded words.

Kevin,

It might not be all the people that did the abuse but

But nothing, Kevin. The fact that we don’t live in a perfect world is exactly the point I’m trying to make. You think that just because a few people are disciplined for prisoner abuse that everyone is being disciplined. The truth is, there’s a lot of unnecessarily twisted shit going on that doesn’t get stopped.

I just have one question

Are the Iraqi insurgents following the Geneva Convention???? UMMMM I think the answer is a really big NO!

For anybody who has found themselves at Gitmo…your heads are still attached. That is better treatment than what some of our American prisoners (civilians and soldiers) have received from our enemies.

Winfield,

“Are you calling me a racist?”

No. I’m counting on my theory that you aren’t a racist to make a point. If you aren’t, as I suspect you aren’t, then you’ll realize that not all Middle-Easterners are terrorists. We can pretty easily document how many of the people in Gitmo are from the Middle East. But ho