Prisoners 'killed' at US Base

By the way, the purpose of keeping these people in Guantanamo is not punishment. As far as I understand, there are two objectives:

obtaining information on al Qaeda
preventing them from dangerous activities

Lawyers are irrelevant in such a case. No one wants, IMO, to bring these people to court.

0 Replies

steissd, perhaps you are not aware that the US helped to write the conventions of war/treatment of POW's, if there are violiations, they are violations of our own sense of fairness and civility regardless of the enemy. when we make the laws we are indebted to obey them.

0 Replies

Tartar wrote

"Far better that we all try to modify our own behaviors and policies in ways which will help us avoid provoking others into attacking us, thus making "necessary" the process of "getting information."

Now here is a truly simplistic idealistic position----did you ever stop to consider there are reasons to be attacked other than our provocation. Like---they want what we have or just because their bible says we should be killed and on and on----your dream world has caused you to become comatose.

0 Replies

Mr. Hinteler, no one argues that they are not equal or that they belong to some "inferior race" (for very simple reason: there are no inferior races, all the people belong to the same biologic species). They are kept in Guantanamo because they pose a security danger; it has nothing to do with inequality.
Those that were brought there erroneously, are being released and returned home. I think, they could receive some compensation for the procedure they have erroneously undergone.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

trespassers will wrote:
dlowan wrote:
What is the relevance of the comments about there being no box for cause of death unknown? Surely blunt force trauma is not something that occurs in the absence of intent - whether it be suicide or homicide?

I have no idea what happened to whom, but just to offer a point of fact; blunt force trauma can result from objects falling and striking a person and other instances where no other person caused said trauma. So yes, blunt force trauma can and does result in the absence of intent.

Er, yes, Trespassers - however, surely any competent pathologist is able to distinguish between the kind of trauma resulting from a fall, and that arising from a blow or blows!

Er, yes, dlowan, but I was not suggesting that the person fell, but that one can sustain a blow from an object that was not inflicted by another person, such as the blow you might receive from a heavy object falling and striking you on the head.

The notion that "blunt force trauma" absolutely indicates assault is not supportable. (This is just a statement of fact, and is not intended to suggest that these men were not killed by someone. Whether they were or were not is still a question mark.)

0 Replies

Dyslexia, these conventions are product of Western mentality, and they can be implemented if there is a war in Europe or in America (Heavens forbid). Unfortunately, such approaches prove their inefficiency in the Third world.

0 Replies

so our laws are arbitrary and capricious, obeyed at will? i think not.

0 Replies

Saddam has not attacked us. We have no justification for attacking him. The best we can do is, "We think he might attack us sometime."

0 Replies

Walter - Torture is legally defined and does not include being uncomfortable or being denied adequate sleep. (If you differ with me on that offer us specific documentation to prove it.) Further, your citation of rules for "law enforcement" personnel has no bearing on the action of military personnel.

0 Replies

With all respect but where is the proof Afhan Taleban fighters were involved in the 9/11 attacks? Where are the brains of Taleban? Where Mullah Omar? Where is Bin Laden? What does an Afghan peasant knows about hijacking a plane?

What right do US soldiers have to drag them to Guantanamo bay?

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

They want to kill or enslave you. Opportunistic treatment of them, without regard of complicated judicial procedure is a mere self-defense. The only alternative to defeating and intimidating them is surrender and subsequent slavery.

They (the enemy) argue:
No, you want to kill and enslave them, any opportunistic treatment of you is self defense. The only alternative to defeating and terrorizing you is surrender and subsequent slavery.

0 Replies

crime that is a legal term per se, I believe that if he is captured alive, he should be tried in the open process with participance of defense attorney.

0 Replies

Tartar wrote

"Far better that we all try to modify our own behaviors and policies in ways which will help us avoid provoking others into attacking us, thus making "necessary" the process of "getting information."

Here you are making a grand general statement.

Saddam has not attacked us. We have no justification for attacking him. The best we can do is, "We think he might attack us sometime."

Here you are specific---trying to cover your rear-----sorry it won't fly. Maybe you'd best stick with other peoples arguments out of biased web sites.

0 Replies

Saddam has not attacked us. We have no justification for attacking him. The best we can do is, "We think he might attack us sometime."

When was the attack? Did I miss something?

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Saddam has not attacked us. We have no justification for attacking him. The best we can do is, "We think he might attack us sometime."

When was the attack? Did I miss something?

We attacked Milosovic when he had not attacked us nor was ever likely to do so. Where was your angst then?

0 Replies

Here's a point of view, that most of you will probably not understand, not having walked in my shoes. My ambiguety.
...One part of me feels empathy for any human beig subjected to torture, especially when the people we are talking about fervently believe they are doing the right thing.
...Another part of me knows from experience and observation, that police in this country routinely beat, torture, and murder African-Americans, and I believe other people of color, and we are citizens, so its insulting that it wouldn't be considered for foreigners that killed 3000 americans in one fell swoop. This position is more emotional, than intellectual.
...Having said this, I know it is still possible that they may treat the foreigners more humanely. After all in WWll, german POW's were treated with more respect, than African-American war heroes. It's the american way.

0 Replies

Dreamweaver MX wrote:

They (the enemy) argue:
No, you want to kill and enslave them, any opportunistic treatment of you is self defense. The only alternative to defeating and terrorizing you is surrender and subsequent slavery.

Dreamweaver, this proves that they are to be defeated and tamed.
When they are defeated, and they realize that there is no way to defeat the Western societies, then they could be negotiated with, to establish some mutually acceptable modus vivendi.
Just an example from the Middle East history. A peace treaty of Israel and Egypt became possible after the Egyptian troops were defeated four times: in 1948 (Israeli Independence War), 1956 (Suez campaign, IDF acted together with armies of the UK and the pre-Gaullist France), 1967 and 1973. President Sadat was smart enough to realize that there are no possibilities to defeat Israel. Therefore, he came to conclusion that it is better to sign a peace treaty.

0 Replies

Right where it is today, Tres.

0 Replies

Booman, point well taken

0 Replies

Booman wrote:

...police in this country routinely beat, torture, and murder African-Americans...

Booman, does this mean that the White or Asian criminals get another treatment from the cops?
By the way, three-four years ago I saw a documentary about the NYC police. Many of the New York cops were African-American themselves.

0 Replies

Prisoners 'killed' at US Base

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know