Another Abu Ghraib?

Answer 1) No, I am saying that it is not your job to regulate myself or any other moderator or member of this forum. If you feel I need some regulating, contact Redleg, that's his department.

I see no point in going that far as it wasnt a major deal however as much as I expect moderators to uphold the rules I also expect them to abide by them (kind of funny as really this is a little microthread of what the main thread is about)

Answer 2) No, because the crimes for which these people are being detained are in an entirely different class than normal criminal law, and the perpetrators and suspected perpetrators are themselves in a different class and are not protected by the rights of citizenship.

How do you come to that conclusion?
They are being held by the US and deprived of coverage of laws that are as much international as they are US specific essentially these laws are ones that within free societies are available to all as part of being civilised.

You seem to be under the impression that the detainees were chosen at random, rather than being legitimately bad people, you don't really get your name on the type of s**tlist that would send you to Gitmo without doing some pretty definitely bad things.

To some degree I do believe they were chosen at random as without fail everyone that has been released through home (Specifically the UK and Australia) government pressure has been released after short questioning, if these people were indeed "dangerous" men I am pretty certain neither of these countries would just turn them loose.

To be perfectly honest none of this justifies detaining people for years without trial it is a practice we have come to expect from third world dictatorships and until recently the US has fought against.
 
[quote="Redneck
And you constantly jump from "allegations" and "probablies" to statements that the United States IS doing or HAS done something. I realize there is a language barrier here, so hopefully this will help future discussions:

US violating Human Rights is not a probability is a fact. You just have to watch the news. US has ratified the Geneve Convention, and US is violating it very usually(Guantanamo,Abu Ghraib...)
You say that I use the words of others, okey, you were born with all the info you use in your brain or did you read it somewhere?? I guess you read it, so you are using the words of others as well. Your problem is that you can not accept certain facts.
The people that are violating human rights in guatanamo and in Irak are soldiers of the US and they are representing your country.

You still do not have arguments or allegations.You do not say anithing.
 
No, YOU have yet to say anything of substance. You have yet to prove any of your accusations against my country and my service. As I said before, the legitimate violations (your favorite subject, Abu Ghraib, being chief) have been dealt with, but to reiterate:

THE PERPETRATORS WERE PUNISHED AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE ACTIONS NOR THE POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES OR HER MILITARY AS A WHOLE

Gitmo is NOT a violation of human rights, as those detained there are 1) not being deprived of the basic human necessities, 2) LEGITIMATELY detained terrorists, 3) do in fact have access to the world and humanitarian groups through the machinations of certain bleeding heart groups who, wonder of wonders, are not denied access to these prisoners by the evil United States government (as far as viewing them and the conditions in which they live).

Full house: Logic over Reason.
Your deal.



And Monty, I full heartedly believe that the detentions are in fact justified, and are nothing whatsoever like the detaining of political prisoners by dictatorships (since when is being arrested for protesting the same as an arrest for aiding or participating in terrorist attacks? just curious, I don't think I got that memo).
 
THE PERPETRATORS WERE PUNISHED AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE ACTIONS NOR THE POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES OR HER MILITARY AS A WHOLE

I think you are using the Ostrich defence here the fact still remains that that these acts are widespread and I think it fair to say that they are very representitive of US intelligence gathering whether it is "government" sanctioned or not is rather irrelevant given that it is obvious they know it happens but arent stupid enough to put it on paper.

Gitmo is NOT a violation of human rights, as those detained there are 1) not being deprived of the basic human necessities, 2) LEGITIMATELY detained terrorists, 3) do in fact have access to the world and humanitarian groups through the machinations of certain bleeding heart groups who, wonder of wonders, are not denied access to these prisoners by the evil United States government (as far as viewing them and the conditions in which they live).

You are most correct Gitmo is not a human rights violation, the violation are the actions which are carried out there and unfortunately you seem to have the attitude that because they are in prison they are guilty and therefore deserve all they get which is rather a primative view on things.


And Monty, I full heartedly believe that the detentions are in fact justified, and are nothing whatsoever like the detaining of political prisoners by dictatorships (since when is being arrested for protesting the same as an arrest for aiding or participating in terrorist attacks? just curious, I don't think I got that memo).

I fully believe that the majority of those detained there should be there as well however the fact that there is no recourse for those that shouldnt be there to clear themslves is a major error because the simple fact of the matter is neither you nor I have any idea why they are there other than because your government has determined they are a threat on nothing more than the fact that they were detained by the military intelligence.

PS this is a military intelligence that sold you and your government a war over WMD's and the impending Iraqi nuclear threat none of which ever existed so I am not entirely sure I would be betting the house on them being right in this case either.

Straight: Reality over Blind patriotism.
Your deal.
 
I think there is some confusion here over what Totrture is as compared to Humilation Tactics. While I agree that the Service Members in question (who have been punished. Lets throw that out there again) were wrong. Humilation and torture are two very very different things. Naked Photos do not torture make.

As far as terrorists go. I care less what means is used to extract intel from the bottom feeders if saves one innocent life.
 
I think there is some confusion here over what Totrture is as compared to Humilation Tactics. While I agree that the Service Members in question (who have been punished. Lets throw that out there again) were wrong. Humilation and torture are two very very different things. Naked Photos do not torture make.

I would agree, but what do you rate dog bites, electric shocks and deprivation of sleep as?.

So far no one is claiming to have fingernails ripped out or hot pokers, racks and iron maidens but the gap between being too soft and full blown torture is narrowing every time a "humiliation" moves to the next phase.

As far as terrorists go. I care less what means is used to extract intel from the bottom feeders if saves one innocent life.

I agree completely hell take them all out and shoot them for all I care but first "PROVE" they are terrorists thats all I would ask otherwise despite a sense of higher morality you are no better than those you hunt.

To quote someone famous:

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
 
MontyB said:
I think you are using the Ostrich defence here the fact still remains that that these acts are widespread and I think it fair to say that they are very representitive of US intelligence gathering whether it is "government" sanctioned or not is rather irrelevant given that it is obvious they know it happens but arent stupid enough to put it on paper.


Full house beats a straight.

So it's a "fact" because you say it is? Damn, I haven't been getting any of these memos.

How about providing some proof for your allegations?
 
I take it for some reason you are incapable of reading any of the 5 links I posted first off or do you think that by not reading them your denials will be valid?.

I see no point in your responses at all if all you plan to do hide behind denial and ignorance.
 
i don't play poker so;


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/

a secret 1992 report written for then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney warning that U.S. Army intelligence manuals that incorporated the earlier work of the CIA for training Latin American military officers in interrogation and counterintelligence techniques contained "offensive and objectionable material" that "undermines U.S. credibility, and could result in significant embarrassment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse#United_Nations_Law_application

The United States has ratified the UN's Convention Against Torture and the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. Although the Bush Administration has argued that prisoners taken in Afghanistan did not qualify as prisoners of war under international law, Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to the President, has stated: "Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States recognizes that these treaties are binding in the war for the liberation of Iraq." ("The Rule of Law and the Rules of War", New York Times (op-ed piece), May 15, 2004).

The Convention Against Torture defines torture in the following terms:

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... information or a confession, punishing him for an act he... has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him. (Article 1)
From the perspective of this definition, one very important photograph is the one shown to the right: a hooded prisoner, standing on a box with electrical wires connected to various parts of his body. The prisoner was reportedly told that he would be electrocuted if he fell off the box. The army claims, however, that the wires were not live and that the prisoner at no time faced actual electrocution, only the threat thereof.

If the prisoner believed the deception and was sincerely convinced that he faced the possibility of execution, then the situation would seem to constitute "mental suffering" as defined in the Convention. The motivation of the act would also appear to have been to obtain a confession or to intimidate or coerce him – purposes referred to in Article 1. Debate lies in the Convention's use of the adjective "severe" to qualify the suffering and the difficulties inherent in determining whether the suffering felt by the photographed prisoner was severe or mild.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse#More_evidence_of_torture

Reaction from the US administration characterises the Abu Ghraib abuse as an isolated incident uncharacteristic of American actions in Iraq; this view is widely disputed, notably in Arab countries, but also by organisations such as the International Red Cross, which says that it has been making representations about abuse of prisoners for more than a year. A former military intelligence officer with experience at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib alleges (see external link - "Cooks and drivers...") a systematic failure caused by a combination of inexperienced troops arresting innocent Iraqis, who are then interrogated by inexperienced interrogators determined to 'break' these apparent hard cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay

The U.S. classifies the prisoners held at Camp Delta and Camp Echo as illegal enemy combatants, but has not held the Article 5 tribunals that would be required by international law for it to do so. This would grant them the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), as opposed to the more common Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) which deals exclusively with prisoners of war. On November 9, 2004 US District Court Judge James Robertson ruled that the Bush Administration had overstepped its authority to try such prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal and denying them access to the evidence used against them.

Three British prisoners released in 2004 without charge have alleged that there is ongoing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution being committed by U.S. forces at Guantánamo Bay and have released a 115-page dossier detailing these accusations [1] (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/guan-a06.shtml). They also accuse British authorities of knowing about the torture and failing to respond. Their accounts have been confirmed by two former French prisoners, a former Swedish prisoner, and a former Australian prisoner. In response to accusations, US Navy Secretary Gordon England has claimed that a Navy inspector general has performed a review of the practices at Guantánamo and concluded that it was "being operated at very high standards."

Former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg, freed last month after nearly three years in captivity, has accused his American captors of torturing him and other detainees arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Mr Begg, in his first broadcast interview since his release, claimed that he “witnessed two people get beaten so badly that I believe it caused their deaths”.


The report points out several activities which, it said, were "tantamount to torture": exposure to loud noise or music, prolonged extreme temperatures, or beatings. It also reports the existence of a behavior science team (BSCT), also called "Biscuit", and the fact that the physicians of the base communicate confidential medical information to the interrogation teams (weaknesses, phobias, etc.), resulting in the prisoners losing confidence in the medical team of the base.
 
Well, not all of us have the luxury of being a peaceful place like New Zealand. Surrounded by miles and miles of sea with nothing worth taking once taken.
Life can get ugly where a lot of us others live.
 
MontyB said:
I take it for some reason you are incapable of reading any of the 5 links I posted first off or do you think that by not reading them your denials will be valid?.

I see no point in your responses at all if all you plan to do hide behind denial and ignorance.

No, I failed to find any proof in your sources that the events at Abu Ghraib were symptomatic of the overall behavior/policy of the United States government or military (since that appears to be clearly what you are insinuating).


As far as Guantanamo Bay goes (leaving aside all of the "alleged" events), the issue seems to be more one of what is justified rather than one of exposing torture of some innocent victim of American oppression. Does "exposure to loud noise" or breaches of privacy/confidentiality really semm to you to be something that is unwarranted given the situation? In case you've forgotten, a mere few thousand of my nation's civilians were murdered a couple years ago, let alone the deaths caused by that organization and others like it in the following time. I have seen you complain about the security and intelligence failures that allowed this to happen, but you equally loudly complain about all proposed and actual remedies. The Patriot Act and watchlists violate privacy, Gauntanamo is the hellish scene of loud music and lights, interrogation techniques are too mean. Until a viable alternative has been suggested and as long as they keep my country safe, I could care less about these supposed travesties.
 
Ah ok I was wrong you are capable of reading but not comprehension.

I think the easiest answer here is that there are those of us that believe that to defeat terrorism you shouldnt sink to their level and then there are those such as yourself who are so wrapped up in patriotism and blind faith that you think you will win peace through war.

Sadly we will never agree and I really cant be bothered sinking to the level of your argument so when you are prepared to be honest let me know I would love to continue this discussion when your argument consists of something more than the end justifies the means.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Well, not all of us have the luxury of being a peaceful place like New Zealand. Surrounded by miles and miles of sea with nothing worth taking once taken.
Life can get ugly where a lot of us others live.

Very true and the reason for that is that we dont go around pissing the world off.
:)
 
nulli secundus said:
untitled32mb.png

If you look at where I circled in red. It is obviously a foreigner being pulled along by the jet as they take off for interrogation.

Really? Seems like landing gear to me...
 
MontyB said:
the_13th_redneck said:
Well, not all of us have the luxury of being a peaceful place like New Zealand. Surrounded by miles and miles of sea with nothing worth taking once taken.
Life can get ugly where a lot of us others live.

Very true and the reason for that is that we dont go around pissing the world off.
:)

Why does everyone seem to give so much crap about what America does thousands of miles away that will never affect a soul in New Zealand or Norway?
I know full well that "not so pleasant" things happen in my country as well. The only difference is probably the lack of international exposure.
"The world" needs to re-evaluate their blind judgement upon the US. Remember that many of these countries who judge America have been guilty of even worse crimes in the past when THEY were under pressure. Germany, France, Belgium, even the UK and oh of course, AUSTRALIA. You've ALL done some absolutely inhuman stuff before. Right now what the Americans are doing is nothing compared to this stuff and the cause is a HECK of a lot more noble.
As far as cruelties in the world go, Abu Grahib is NOTHING.
What does Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc. have in common? They're very peaceful places with no potential for war on home soil... at least that's the way they see it themselves. So you have no right to judge those of us who actually have something on the line.
 
MontyB said:
Ah ok I was wrong you are capable of reading but not comprehension.

I think the easiest answer here is that there are those of us that believe that to defeat terrorism you shouldnt sink to their level and then there are those such as yourself who are so wrapped up in patriotism and blind faith that you think you will win peace through war.

Sadly we will never agree and I really cant be bothered sinking to the level of your argument so when you are prepared to be honest let me know I would love to continue this discussion when your argument consists of something more than the end justifies the means.

You might want to slow down there hero.

There are those of us who are willing to actually do something to bring security to our people and freedom to the peoples of foreign nations, and there are others, like yourself, who are so wrapped up in pointing out where the strong have stumbled that you think you are contributing to the world.
 
I don't believe the leftist rhetoric about American causes for war all the time.
I believe that very often America intervenes to make life better for those who are less fortunate.
When people saw the starving people of Somalia. Who answered the call? The USA did. Everyone knew the horrors going on there but only one country had the guts to do anything about it. There was nothing to gain from the Somali operation other than the improvement of lives of Somalis
Just why did America actually go through the trouble of trying to make Afghanistan a better place for everyone and for the first time, even the women? The USA did. If it was just Taleban stuff they would have left right after smashing them to bits, no? Why waste money on those expensive projects to help Afghanistan help itself and to bring an end to the tribal conflicts there?

I know a lot of our countries contribute, but at the point of the spear it was the US.
 
There are those of us who are willing to actually do something to bring security to our people and freedom to the peoples of foreign nations.

Wait a sec I will try to get some rousing and patriotic music in the background while I try not to laugh and to be perfectly honest I am not likely to be overly influenced by a man who's sole understanding of the world more than likely comes from watching Fox news while polishing his gun collection.

[/quote]
 
Back
Top