Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LAWCobra on March 12, 2004, 07:28:49 PM
-
Ex-Guantanamo Detainee Claims Mistreatment
Fri Mar 12, 7:29 AM ET
By AUDREY WOODS, Associated Press Writer
LONDON - A Briton released from the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, said he was beaten, humiliated and interrogated for up to 12 hours at a time during two years' detention.
In a newspaper interview headlined "My Hell in Camp X-Ray," Jamal al-Harith said guards known as the Extreme Reaction Force "waded into inmates in full riot gear, raining blows on them" as punishment.
The water and food was foul at Guantanamo, and sometimes as punishment, water taps in the cells would be turned off, al-Harith, 37, said in the interview, which was published Friday in the Daily Mirror.
The U.S. military repeatedly has denied that Guantanamo prisoners have been mistreated. The U.S. government says the roughly 640 prisoners are at Guantanamo because of suspicions they have links to Afghanistan (news - web sites)'s fallen Taliban regime or the al-Qaida terror network.
Al-Harith arrived in Britain Tuesday night on a military flight with four other Britons freed from Guantanamo.
"He has been detained as an innocent person for a period of two years. He has been treated in a cruel, inhumane and degrading manner," his lawyer, Robert Lizar, told reporters.
He was regularly interrogated by FBI (news - web sites) and CIA (news - web sites) agents, and later Britain's MI5 intelligence agency, the newspaper said.
"They would shut off the water before prayers so we couldn't wash ourselves according to our religion," said al-Harith, 37, a convert to Islam. "We were only allowed a shower once a week at the beginning, and none at all in solitary confinement. This was tough because you are supposed to be clean when you pray."
"The whole point of Guantanamo was to get to you psychologically. The beatings were not nearly as bad as the psychological torture," al-Harith told the paper.
The families of the returnees have said they were mistakenly caught up in the U.S. war on terrorism.
Al-Harith describes a stay in an isolation unit known as an ISO, where those accused of misbehaving were kept in solitary confinement with just a mat and towel.
The newspaper also carried an account of what led to al-Harith's arrest.
The paper said al-Harith went to Pakistan weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States to learn about Muslim culture. Al-Harith was in Quetta near the Afghan border when the U.S. bombings against the Taliban began. He paid a driver to take him to Turkey, but was stopped in Afghanistan by an armed gang who accused him of being a spy after they saw his British passport and jailed him, according to the newspaper.
After the Taliban fell, he stayed with the Red Cross in Kandahar arranging to go home but was picked up by the Americans and interrogated. He was finally sent to Guantanamo Bay, the newspaper said.
Al-Harith said he arrived at the U.S. military detention center in Cuba on Feb. 11, 2002.
"I tried not to think about my family for two years because it hurt so much," the paper quoted him as saying. "I tried to contain everything. It was very difficult, but I survived — and I survived well."
The Mirror said al-Harith was divorced and has three children ages 3, 4 and 8.
Britain and the United States are continuing discussions about the remaining four Britons at the camp. Britain has insisted its nationals either receive fair trials or be returned home.
-
Suspicios enough to detain I would say.
And if that is the worst account of treatment I would say the US did pretty well.
-
Oh yes, and I of course believe everything he has to say. NOT!
Kind of ironic that others returned to Afghanistan said just the opposite after their release, they claimed they were treated well and fed well.
dago
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Suspicios enough to detain I would say.
And if that is the worst account of treatment I would say the US did pretty well.
You ok Pongo?
-
Im fine. If I was looking for terrorists I would have arrested him even by his own account. And I was trying to find out if he was a terrorist and the worst I did was keep him from washing befor he prayed. I dont think I would fear any international scrutiny of my actions. By this guys own account he was highly suspicios and treated with kid gloves. Terrorsts are real you have to look for them. I think if this is typical of the stories out of Cuba then they are fine. In fact they could get alot rougher then that and I would be fine.
I would rather the US takes these suspicios people and finds out what they can in a defensible way then turn them over to Syria for torture.
My issue has always with the invasion of iraq. Not the war on terror.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If the part about the beatings is true then that is over the top. The rest didn't seem too cruel or unusual. However I am categorically against detention without charge or trial, and the detention of military personnel without granting them POW status.
Charge is terrosrism. Really all charges are based on suspicion - he was suspicious. And so he was arrested.
Trial? He was released wasnt he? So were others. They were investigated, found not to be guilty and now relesead. Thats a trial...
They were kept for so long because need to investigate. No bail for such people, of course.
The only thing missing is some old golf playing judge.... They got their trials....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Charge is terrosrism. Really all charges are based on suspicion - he was suspicious. And so he was arrested.
Trial? He was released wasnt he? So were others. They were investigated, found not to be guilty and now relesead. Thats a trial...
They were kept for so long because need to investigate. No bail for such people, of course.
The only thing missing is some old golf playing judge.... They got their trials....
Quite frankly Grun that is complete and utter bollocks. They were never charged under any form of recognized law, they were kept in detention for 2 years without any trial and without access to legal or consular representation. The Geneva convention has rules even for illegal combatants: they must face a competent and fair trial to determine there status. This did not happen.
Why were they kept in Guantanamo rather than the US? Because the US knew that they were breaking US and international law. They had to be kept in a place where only the rule of the US military applies, rather than rule of law. The whole thing is incredible cynical. How can we in the west lecture other countries about due process and then do things like this?
If they are terrorists charge them and try them using a recognized legal system. If they are illegal combatants charge them and try them under the rules of the Geneva convention. If they have committed other crimes they must also be charged and tried. If not they must be prisoners of war and treated accordingly. We can't just detain people indefinitely on the whim of some military commander or politician.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You seem to have a strange interpretation of the concept of trial. AFAIK a trial usually involves a judge, jury, prosecution and defense, conducted publicly for all to see.
They arte not criminals.
The whole point of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence.
The fact that that a bunch of them are released proves that is going on.
You guys are stuck on the trappings of a courtroom and thats stupid.
These guys are not criminals, theyt dont belong in courthouses. Would yiu have your wife on a jury trying these people? Would you have your son be the prosecutor? Or your father a judge in a cese like this?
911 was not a crime... rcognized legal system my ass...
Pointless posturing and windowdressing like the UN.... These people are getting their freedom if they are innocent. Thats the point of a trial....
You guys are really unbelivable, I bet you were there watching 911 on TV saying to yourselves, "oh gee thats illegal, I bet it's against the fire code too...."
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm with Pei on this one Grun. Your version of "due process" smells too much of Lubyanka for my taste. I would rather live with increased danger of terrorism then let my government restrict my freedom of due process of justice.
What is this "my" talk? The people sent to gitmo sure arent average folks randomly plucked off the streets of America or Europe...
Now look i understand your concerns, but really dont feel they aply in this special case with extremly bad people involved. With that in mind I consider the fact that a good number of people are released to be clear evidence that a trial process is in place to determine guilt or innocence. I'm happy with that, considering the circumstances.
-
Grun, it was a crime. A terrible, horrible crime. So was what the Nazi's did in WWII. However much you hate them it doesn't make it right that you are detaining people outside any legal system. Either something is legal or it is a crime. This even applies in war (as the Nazi's found out a Nuremburg).
The one thing that makes the western world better than the rest isn't money and power. It isn't capitalism or democracy. It is the supremacy of civil law: everything we do must be meet the highest standards of legality. From this everything else follows: life, liberty and happiness. The US was founded on this: the Constitution enshrines rights and freedom in law.
By ignoring law we start on a road that leads to Saudi Arabia and China: where the word of a government official or a military officer is enough to convict any citizen.
The War Against Terror isn't just about life and limb, it is a war for our way of life against a way of life we find repugnant. If we make ourselves physically safe but in doing so turn our countries into tyrannies then we will still have lost.
-
Originally posted by Pei
Quite frankly Grun that is complete and utter bollocks. They were never charged under any form of recognized law, they were kept in detention for 2 years without any trial and without access to legal or consular representation. The Geneva convention has rules even for illegal combatants: they must face a competent and fair trial to determine there status. This did not happen.
Why were they kept in Guantanamo rather than the US? Because the US knew that they were breaking US and international law. They had to be kept in a place where only the rule of the US military applies, rather than rule of law. The whole thing is incredible cynical. How can we in the west lecture other countries about due process and then do things like this?
If they are terrorists charge them and try them using a recognized legal system. If they are illegal combatants charge them and try them under the rules of the Geneva convention. If they have committed other crimes they must also be charged and tried. If not they must be prisoners of war and treated accordingly. We can't just detain people indefinitely on the whim of some military commander or politician.
Very well put Pei! I have been trying to see both sides of the coin, but as you put it, if they were guilty then simply charge and punish them. I was leaning towards defending their imprisonment but you've enlightened me the other way now!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If the part about the beatings is true then that is over the top. The rest didn't seem too cruel or unusual. However I am categorically against detention without charge or trial, and the detention of military personnel without granting them POW status.
In order to be a POW you are required to give your Name, Rank and Serial No. The reason of which is to distinguish yourself from a terrorist or sabatour. Funny thing about these detainees, they can't provide a rank and serial number. Now by law they can be tried before a military tribunal and if found quilty, executed. This clown doesn't like how he was treated.
-
Originally posted by Pei
Grun, it was a crime. A terrible, horrible crime. So was what the Nazi's did in WWII. However much you hate them it doesn't make it right that you are detaining people outside any legal system. Either something is legal or it is a crime. This even applies in war (as the Nazi's found out a Nuremburg).
The one thing that makes the western world better than the rest isn't money and power. It isn't capitalism or democracy. It is the supremacy of civil law: everything we do must be meet the highest standards of legality. From this everything else follows: life, liberty and happiness. The US was founded on this: the Constitution enshrines rights and freedom in law.
By ignoring law we start on a road that leads to Saudi Arabia and China: where the word of a government official or a military officer is enough to convict any citizen.
The War Against Terror isn't just about life and limb, it is a war for our way of life against a way of life we find repugnant. If we make ourselves physically safe but in doing so turn our countries into tyrannies then we will still have lost.
Just what legal system would you use to prosecute the animals
that just murdered 200 innocent people in Madrid. If they are part of a terrorist organization that is world wide and are part of planning other acts of terrorism. Would you provide a legal defense that requires you give their lawers discovery rights. In other words tell them what you know about their organization, and how you came about that information. Of course this is all in open court you can't have secret trials.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If you don't have a rank and serial number you're usually a civilian. That "clown" is a subject of the United Kingdom and was illegally detained by US forces.
This British subject is in a terrorist training camp in afganistan training to kill. Thats your idea of a civilian? Those U.S. Marines are not there to advise this moron of his rights. I would give him the right to remain silent permenately...Now look closely at your own post you want to give this CIVILIAN pow status???
Your going to fight terrorism by treating them like shoplifters? Better hope they don't get pissed at Norway.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No I'm going to fight terrorism by not letting them turn me into what you sadly have become. You have lost your war on terror.
I haven't lost a damn thing.......Now what is it,Civilian mass murderer or POW, if he's a POW wheres his rank and serial number?
-
You have to understand. weasel wouldnt mind the US becoming a state like china or saudi arabia.
Unfortunately alot of americans see no problem with violating human rights laws as long as they do not affect people with the same skin color and religion as themselves.
Holding people for 2 years in a prison with no trial and no formal charges is quite disgusting.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
I haven't lost a damn thing.......Now what is it,Civilian mass murderer or POW, if he's a POW wheres his rank and serial number?
If they are not POW's then they should be tried in civilian courts. And held in federal prisons.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
You have to understand. weasel wouldnt mind the US becoming a state like china or saudi arabia.
Unfortunately alot of americans see no problem with violating human rights laws as long as they do not affect people with the same skin color and religion as themselves.
Holding people for 2 years in a prison with no trial and no formal charges is quite disgusting.
LOL.... the frog boy wants to play...what are they Civilians or POW's.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
In order to be a POW you are required to give your Name, Rank and Serial No.
What kind of cereal was in the box this was printed on?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
If they are not POW's then they should be tried in civilian courts. And held in federal prisons.
So you would give their lawers discovery......you do know what that is?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
What kind of cereal was in the box this was printed on?
Left coast...yea I would expect you wouldn't know this simple fact.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
You have to understand. weasel wouldnt mind the US becoming a state like china or saudi arabia.
Unfortunately alot of americans see no problem with violating human rights laws as long as they do not affect people with the same skin color and religion as themselves.
Holding people for 2 years in a prison with no trial and no formal charges is quite disgusting.
I kind of like the what they have done at Guantanamo myself. to the men and women at Guantanamo.
-
Whether or not they orignally detained legally or legally is not the point. Their nationality is not the point (though I note that the only US citizen to be detained under similar cirumstances is getting a proper civil trial). There men may or may not be legal combatants, they may or may not be terrorists, they may or may not have committed other crimes. The point is that we have developed systems for dealing with proof of guilt and punishment either civil or military. The reason these systems exist it to ensure that those with the power to convict and punish do not abuse these powers. In time of war military trials are accepted but even then the accused has a right to a speedy trial and the right to defend himself properly. If we cannot convict them fairly then they cannot be convicted. I cannot accept the word of a government or military official and a kangaroo court as proof of guilt. This is because it allows for detention, conviction and punishment as a matter of policy rather than a matter of justice. Even if that policy is protection it is still not acceptable. It is even more heinous if it is a policy of revenge and public opinion. Detention, conviction and punishment as goverment policy is tyranny.
The 200 people killed in Madrid were murdered. The 3000 killed in New York were murdered. The 38 people killed at Omagh were murdered. The 270 killed at Lockerbie were murdered. The 6 million who died in the Nazi death camps in WWII were murdered. Murder is both a civil and military crime. It should be procecuted according to the appropriate laws. Terrorism is not a separate crime: it is the act of commiting a crime or crimes in order to terrorize a goup of people into acting in certain ways. The use of the word terrorism should not give the government carte blanche to do what it likes (which is what many goverments in the western world seem to be doing).
While the prisoners in Cuba are the most obvious example of this trend, there are many other. The UK is currently holding a number of supsected terrorists without trial. The laws introduced in 2001 were made to allow this, and the latest suggestions by the Home Secretary are even worse. I also think that the UK and other goverments with citizens in custody there are more than happy to let the US do their dirty work for them and take the blame.
For centuries the course of politcal development in western countries (and the US and UK in particular) has been towards stonger civil law and limitation or arbitary excercise of powere by the state. Current goverments are using the word terrorism to reverse this. I am extremely worried by this.
-
Originally posted by Pei
Whether or not they orignally detained legally or legally is not the point. Their nationality is not the point (though I note that the only US citizen to be detained under similar cirumstances is getting a proper civil trial). There men may or may not be legal combatants, they may or may not be terrorists, they may or may not have committed other crimes. The point is that we have developed systems for dealing with proof of guilt and punishment either civil or military. The reason these systems exist it to ensure that those with the power to convict and punish do not abuse these powers. In time of war military trials are accepted but even then the accused has a right to a speedy trial and the right to defend himself properly. If we cannot convict them fairly then they cannot be convicted. I cannot accept the word of a government or military official and a kangaroo court as proof of guilt. This is because it allows for detention, conviction and punishment as a matter of policy rather than a matter of justice. Even if that policy is protection it is still not acceptable. It is even more heinous if it is a policy of revenge and public opinion. Detention, conviction and punishment as goverment policy istyranny.
The 200 people killed in Madrid were murdered. The 3000 killed in New York were murdered. The 38 people killed at Omagh were murdered. The 270 killed at Lockerbie were murdered. The 6 million who died in the Nazi death camps in WWII were murdered. Murder is both a civil and military crime. It should be procecuted according to the appropriate laws. Terrorism is not a separate crime: it is the act of commiting a crime or crimes in order to terrorize a goup of people into acting in certain ways. The use of the word terrorism should not give the government carte blanche to do what it likes (which is what many goverments in the western world seem to be doing).
While the prisoners in Cuba are the most obvious example of this trend, there are many other. The UK is currently holding a number of supsected terrorists without trial. The laws introduced in 2001 were made to allow this, and the latest suggestions by the Home Secretary are even worse. I also think that the UK and other goverments with citizens in custody there are more than happy to let the US do their dirty work for them and take the blame.
For centuries the course of politcal development in western countries (and the US and UK in particular) has been towards stonger civil law and limitation or arbitary excercise of powere by the state. Current goverments are using the word terrorism to reverse this. I am extremely worried by this.
All that you say has been debated ad nausium. We are unfortunately in a unique situation. If this were a conventional conflict, rules of war would apply such as the geneva convention, and other International laws. We are not in a conventional conflict. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply because they are not legal combatants. They cannot be tried as civilians because of the rules of evidence, The simple act of providing discovery to the defense would compromise national security by giving the terrorists information on who, what, when where and how our CIA operates. Incidently the CIA cannot investigate within the U.S. Any evidence provided by the CIA would be inadmissable. The way our legal system is structured any terrorist tried in open court would walk. The one US citizen that went to court did not go on trial. He pled quility to avoid the charge of Treason and face a possible sentence of death or life in prison. The one terrorist that we have on trial has been in custody for over 2 years and we can't proceed with the trial because of discovery issues. I really hate to say this, but I believe some people in this forum would have considered the breaking of the enigma code an invasion of privacy.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Pei. My thoughts (and fears) exactly.
You continue to have happy thoughts up there in the Northlands Scholtz. We'll continue to take care of business down here.
By the way there is no declared war, therefore no geneva convention. If we declared war on, say.. Afganistan we could have wiped it of the map. What part of my post that said the Geneva conventions doesn't apply don't you understand?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The problem isn't that you're taking care of "business" down there. The problem is that your taking your "business" elsewhere too.
Your Anti-American is showing a little...What a really scary word.
Hegemony. It means One Super Power.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What part of you're and ignorant idiot do you not understand?
WOW that cold air really affects your brain...Which Country are we at war with, please let us know so we can get down to business. By the way please pick one with a lot of oil ...you know us Americans and oil..he he
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The prisoners held are mostly from your war with Afghanistan and Iraq. That you don't know that is not surprising.
No declared war on either, by the way ...
Article 17
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You are beyond reasoning. Say hello to Martlet and Steve.
Didn't know about article 17..required name date of birth serial number I.D. Card..etc....One last closing factoid the war in Iraq was simply a continuation of the conflict of 91. The Iraqis where in repeated violation of the 91 cease fire. In order to prevent the total destruction of the Iraqi armed forces they agreed to a cease fire that included a (No Fly Zone) in both the north and south areas of Iraq. They repeatedly violated the cease fire agreement by fireing on coalition aircraft. 91 conflict resumed, Sadass crawled in a hole. End of story.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Pei. My thoughts (and fears) exactly.
dont fear just because you are weak.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Weaselsan, your "rank and serial number" criteria is about the most ignorant thing I have seen posted yet on this bbs. The Geneva Convention is pretty inclusive when it comes to defining who has the right to POW status.
Lets make this post offical...read this very slowly and carefully so you can retain it.
Article 17
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
-
to the USA
to the people of Guantanamo!
-
Pei has pretty much said it all...
Anyone who has any doubts should look at the Bali terrorists...scum like Amrozi and his compatriots were tried in open court and justice was served.
Tronsky
-
I'm just happy we have Guantanamo
-
Yeah... I'm happy we have the drug war too.
...and the Patriot Act.
...and John Ashcroft.
...and cancer. The world would be more crowded without cancer.
-
Just to clear everything up, but this guy wasn't released because he was innocent.
They released him because they didn't have enough to convict him.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Just to clear everything up, but this guy wasn't released because he was innocent.
They released him because they didn't have enough to convict him.
I'm sure the difference will make Pei feel all warm and cuddly.
-
I'm just saying, don't go all flocking to his side because he went to the media and told a few tall tales.
-
The far secondary object of detaining them was proving thier guilt. The primary purpose was to break the terror networks. He was not on trial. He was a person suspected of being an enemy of the US in war. So he was detained and interrogated for that purpose. I just aggree that he was behaving very suspiciosly post 9/11.
-
My head hurts and I have a sore throat. Time for salt-water gargle, tea with lemon and a nappy.
-
Weaslesan, if all the users on this forum tipped the FBI off and said that you were a terrorist, would you be happy spending 2 years locked away without any trial? The problem with being detained without trial is that it's simply one persons word against anothers without clear obvious proof.
Whether the persons held are guilty or not, there has been no trial to convict them and if they were guilty then why were they not prosecuted immediately?
And before you say, we've been living with terrorist threats for over 30 years and we are sympathetic to those who suffer from them. (imagine our thoughts when IRA terrorists used to get funded by Irish Americans and nothing was done about it. It wasn't until 911 when terrorists/freedom fighters were alienated).
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Weaslesan, if all the users on this forum tipped the FBI off and said that you were a terrorist, would you be happy spending 2 years locked away without any trial? The problem with being detained without trial is that it's simply one persons word against anothers without clear obvious proof.
Whether the persons held are guilty or not, there has been no trial to convict them and if they were guilty then why were they not prosecuted immediately?
And before you say, we've been living with terrorist threats for over 30 years and we are sympathetic to those who suffer from them. (imagine our thoughts when IRA terrorists used to get funded by Irish Americans and nothing was done about it. It wasn't until 911 when terrorists/freedom fighters were alienated).
1.We don't detain on a simple acusation...2.Funding IRA (terrorists) is illegal, anyone doing that are terrorists themselves..3. Anyone who refers to terrorist scum as a freedom fighter deserves no response from me.
-
If what the suspect says was true he was extremely unlucky. First to be captured by the Taliban and considered a spy and then to be detained by the allies and treated as a potential terrorist.
Weasel makes a good point on the question of disclosing evidence in cases against terrorists and this is something which the UK has had to grapple with for many years when trying suspected IRA members. In order to attempt to get as fair a trial as possible under the circumstances witnesses would be able to testify anonymously, certain documents could only be disclosed to the judge and some hearings were held in camera (without the public having the right to be present). The point is that there are methods to have trials for suspected terrorists in which the prosecution does not have to compromise national security - they may not be as open as trials for say, shoplifters, but at least there is a trial.
That is not what is happening in Gitmo. I think this is because the purpose of Gitmo is not as a 'holding pen' for people awaiting trial, it is to gather intelligence.
I feel extremely sorry for innocent individuals at Gitmo who were in the wrong place at the wrong time but where intelligence is urgently required to address an immediate problem, then it has to be a price worth paying. We all know that it is just a matter of time before another atrocity is visited on civilians in the west. If holding a handful of people under questionable legal justification helps to prevent that, then I have no problem with it.
I say, good job America on this one.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Lets make this post offical...read this very slowly and carefully so you can retain it.
Article 17
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
If you win on that point, it would just mean that they're civilians according to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War:
Article 4
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.
Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.
And that means that moving them to Gitmo is very naughty indeed:
Article 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons do demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
-
Beaten for 12 hours at a time..I wonder what the interrogators watch rotation was..standard 4 hours at a time or 6? It would be awfully tiring beating scum for 12 hours.
-
Is this message board the "ATTACK U.S. Policy" board? Geez..I don't read much of anything else but a bunch of people sitting on the sidelines in far off places taking jabs at us for one thing or another.
-
Coolrider, They are only 'scum' once they've been convicted. If you are any advertisement for what the US stands for, then I'm afraid you are just perpetuating the PR disaster that has been US foreign policy following the invasion of Iraq.
One of the incredible things I find about many people from the US that post on this board is that they are very anti-US government when the deprevation of their rights is at stake (that's why we all *must* have guns) but somehow, when non US nationals' rights are involved, very different rules apply.
In this instance, I happen to think that getting intelligence from people incarcerated in Guantanamo bay (despite a two hour argument with my wife on the subject tonight who takes an opposite view) is, on balance, preferable to not having intelligence at all.
But we should not be proud of what is being done there, or demonise the people who are being interrogated without having faced a trial to establish their innocence or otherwise.
Ravs
-
are we to trust the word of ex-prisoners on their treatment? Have you gone to GTMO? I've been there since this all started and even I as a member of the security force (on temp assignment) wasn't allowed near the compound..any media that might have got to see anything is going to make it out to be worse than it is..because the truth is not on the media's agenda.
Non US nationals that are our prisioners of war get treated far better than our pow's have in the past. After all being in the spotlight all the time forces us to follow the rules
-
I was not talking about the treatment of the prisoners. I was expressing dismay that you referred to them as 'scum' when they had not undergone any open inquiry into any criminal acts or associations they have have undertaken.
I entirely agree that the US treats POWs better than many countries and is to be commended for it, but you seem to have convicted these people out of hand when, by your own admission, you havn't even heard what they have had to say in their defence.
Ravs
-
Frankly I don't care what they have to say.Shouldn't have been at the wrong place at the wrong time acting suspicious
1. I am not an Anti-Government American...I do not condemn our government for the patriot act and the little liberties that no one really notices are gone. I do not bad talk a president that as far as I'm concerned is just doing the job the WORLD should have embarked on a long time ago.
2. I think I can speak for alot of Americans when I say that the world seems to enjoy it when someone attacks us...it sorta numbs your feelings towards non-US Nationals.
3. Trying to get a majority vote for actions we think are neccesary in the UN is time consuming and impossible..why bother. We are the current Roman Empire and like all empires the time will come when we too fade away..such is the fate of all world powers throughout history..so all you Anti-US people can look forward to that (though I hope it is long after I'm gone)
-
Coolrider, I'm beginning to wonder whether what I am posting somehow magically gets translated into something else when you read it, because you are answering different points to the ones I have made.
But to deal with the points you have raised:
1. I happen to think the Patriot Act is a healthy thing, so long as it is healthily opposed, so that when the threat is gone, the act gets repealed. And as for the world, we should have done a much better job in building bridges rather than destroying them. This whole sorry situation which we have now is, IMO, just an extension of the history of foreign policy that the west has conducted in Middle East affairs, probably going back to the Crusades.
2. You have no idea how heart-broken the world was when 9/11 happened. Let me give you a few examples. In London, on the way to work the next day people were reading the newspapers and openly crying on the tube. Never seen that before. My relatives in Malaysia called me, they were in tears too. There was lots of empathy for America then.
3. I am not anti-US. I just think you have a schizophrenic idea of human rights. Yes you are an empire and yes, it won't last forever, but have a horrible suspicion that mankind might not last the course (for ecological reasons) over the next 100 years or so.
Ravs
-
Yes the patriot act should be repealed or scaled back when this time of crisis is over.
However as far as the worlds view of Americans...The British seem to be our only real supporters after all our nation is Your's little brother and we have even failed ourselves at time (war between the states is a good example).
I didn't accuse you of being anti-american..I was originally making a comment about alot of other peoples posts.
I only refered to them as scum because I feel that most of them probrably do have some shady connection to all this..we jsut don't arrest random people contrary to popular belief.
I may have misinterpeted some of your thoughts and changed the corese of this discussion at times. after all we seem to be battleing in two seperate forums at the same time and ZI may be getting posts mixed up
I agree that any intellegence..even that gathered at GTMO is better than none..
I think we may have put your prime minister on the spot during the past few times he was here attending one of W's joint sessions of congress (I think W put some words in his mouth) that involved you guys more than necessary.:D
I cannot type for **** so excuse the misytakes.:D
-
Also we Americans do care about ourselves more than anyone else and that may be where you get the idea that we are funny when it comes to our Human rights records.
-
good. Finally talking to each other rather than at each other.
But be careful about preconceptions about people being in the wrong place at the wrong time. As human beings we are not perfect and we do make mistakes. However, we have to be big enough to admit the mistakes when we make them. Judicial systems of enquiry have been built up over hundreds of years and we can't throw them away lightly. So don't call anyone 'scum' until you've had a chance to hear their story. Who knows? One day, it might be you.
Ravs
-
i will try to look at differently when it comes to the POW's..I agree that it is taking an awful long time to get thjis figured out
-
"Mistakingly caught up..." How the **** did they get there in the first place? YOU WERE ON THE WRONG SIDE *******.
-
lol! if only world problems were this easy to solve.
Life is bloody complicated.
Ravs
-
Life is bloody complicated
AGREED:aok
-
off to bed now. Take care and nice talking to you.
Ravs
-
you too...nice to have an intelligent discussion for a change
-
Originally posted by Pei
Quite frankly Grun that is complete and utter bollocks. They were never charged under any form of recognized law, they were kept in detention for 2 years without any trial and without access to legal or consular representation. The Geneva convention has rules even for illegal combatants: they must face a competent and fair trial to determine there status. This did not happen.
Why were they kept in Guantanamo rather than the US? Because the US knew that they were breaking US and international law. They had to be kept in a place where only the rule of the US military applies, rather than rule of law. The whole thing is incredible cynical. How can we in the west lecture other countries about due process and then do things like this?
If they are terrorists charge them and try them using a recognized legal system. If they are illegal combatants charge them and try them under the rules of the Geneva convention. If they have committed other crimes they must also be charged and tried. If not they must be prisoners of war and treated accordingly. We can't just detain people indefinitely on the whim of some military commander or politician.
Then tell them to put on a uniform.