The Afghan Taliban detainees - Lawful or Unlawful Combatants - Page 4




View Poll Results :Are the Taliban Lawful or Unlawful Combatants?
Unlawful 6 37.50%
Lawful 10 62.50%
Neither Combatants or NonCombatants 0 0%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
June 23rd, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/A34519-2004Nov8.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X-Ray - 64k - 22 Jun 2005

news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/3238624.stm

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/khadr/readings/gitmo.html

Here is some of the sources, this covers the rules for interogation and the rules of the trials. Pershing, I am not asking for a source for the classification of the prisoners. But rather the sources for your trial rules and the numbers of prisoners taken, their disposition and what they have been charged with. Most of the prisoners themselves do not know the charges against them, how do you?
June 23rd, 2005  
CSmaster
 
and according to TIME magazine,

U.S troops uses Psychological "tortunes" such as insulting the prisoner's religion belief and other ways to break down the prisoner mentally


men, i dont think U.S guards in other prisons are allowed to do that
June 23rd, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
and according to TIME magazine,

U.S troops uses Psychological "tortunes" such as insulting the prisoner's religion belief and other ways to break down the prisoner mentally


men, i dont think U.S guards in other prisons are allowed to do that
Guantanamo is NOT "other prisons," and was never intended to be. It serves a unique purpose, holds individuals unique from your average everyday criminals, and must necessarily be run in a unique manner as a result.

However guilty or not guilty you believe the terrorists being held there are, I fail to see how insults can be considered torture by any rational being, the prisoners' feelings being hurt does not in my mind constitute the degree of mistreatment (or in fact any undue treatment at all) that would make it torture.
--
Boots
June 23rd, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
In order to even serve on a military tribunal for these prisoners you need a top secret security clearance. That means no press, no observers, and all the public would hear is a verdict. Sorry, but the rest of the world is going to take to that even worse then them simply being detained. It's a simple matter of politics, it is more acceptable to hold them then to try them because people don't know the reality of the situation.

Here's a link that says 595 prisoners in Cuba before the 2005 releases: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5388908/

As there were clearly more then 595 men in the entire Taliban army. I shouldn't have to point out and that entire Talibani army isn't at Guantanamo.

Secondly, the United States has repeatedly said that the detainees are unlawful combatants. Hence, they are not there for serving as a regular soldier.
June 23rd, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
and according to TIME magazine,

U.S troops uses Psychological "tortunes" such as insulting the prisoner's religion belief and other ways to break down the prisoner mentally


men, i dont think U.S guards in other prisons are allowed to do that
Guantanamo is NOT "other prisons," and was never intended to be. It serves a unique purpose, holds individuals unique from your average everyday criminals, and must necessarily be run in a unique manner as a result.

However guilty or not guilty you believe the terrorists being held there are, I fail to see how insults can be considered torture by any rational being, the prisoners' feelings being hurt does not in my mind constitute the degree of mistreatment (or in fact any undue treatment at all) that would make it torture.

United Nations Convention Against Torture:

Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
June 23rd, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
So an insult can cause "severe pain or suffering?" These men are not only adults, but have spent most of their lives killing other human beings, I find it hard to believe that telling them they smell funny would generate too much anguish.
June 23rd, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
hehehee, okey, said like that sounds wiard... I was thinking in religious insults, the use of dogs to scare, sensorial privation and so on.... May be one day with this entertaiment will be fine, but I guess that during four years could be a bit anoying. Okey, do not misunderstood me, I am not saying to let all those fanatics free, just to treat them with a bit of humanity.
June 23rd, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
They are actually treated with a good deal more humanity than they, in my opinion, deserve. Their physical well-being is looked after, they are well fed, clothed, and sheltered, they are allowed and even encouraged to openly practice their religion, and a good deal of consideration is paid to giving them the opportunity to adhere to whatever they personally believe as far as calls to prayer and the availability of the implements necessary to their worship are concerned.

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/terror564.html
June 24th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
So an insult can cause "severe pain or suffering?" These men are not only adults, but have spent most of their lives killing other human beings, I find it hard to believe that telling them they smell funny would generate too much anguish.
In the 1980's in response to public outcry and civil litigation brought againt the US Army, Drill Sergeants were no longer able to insult a trainee but instead was forced to make it clear that he was "criticising" the group at large or the private's "actions" not the person's self. Although I personally believe this to be total horse puckey (if you can't stand being yelled at how the heck are you going to take getting shot at?) it does establish a precedent. In today's US Army Basic training privates are given yellow cards for when they feel "stressed" and need a break. So we do have a strong precedent here for the use of insults constituting abuse. No matter I personally disagree.

www.hackworth.com/article04032002c.html

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...3_Army,00.html
June 24th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
how do u know they are terriosts yet, have u had a fair trial?

innocent until proven guilty, that is ur law and u try to impose on other nations, why U.S does not follow its own rule

and also according to TIME magazine, they force the prisoner to stay up all night and there were some physical brushes like pushing (and large potion of the log of that prisoner was still classified, maybe more secrets will be revealed)

by the way, i think it is a serious kind of insult to pee or "accidentally spill" pee on Koran, imagine u r locked up and somebody pee on Bible and says "where the hell is ur god doing now"

pretty inhumane huh?