What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

Not to lecture you, Sofia --

but "The Hanoi Hilton", which is what you were talking about, was located in Vietnam, several thousand miles southwest of Korea. And I did say that you are correct to say the United States is better than that. I just objected to holding them to such low a standard. The standards the United States committed itself to are the ones defined in declaration of independence, the US constitution, and the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, which it has co-written and signed. By that standard, your country falls way short, and my point is that it shouldn't.

As to trusting Rumsfeld's word and Omar's, my point was not about trusting one over the other, it was about trusting none of the two at all. The fact is, we don't know what the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were doing in Afghanistan because all we have is propaganda. And it looks like we'll never find out what they did, because they're not getting a fair trial to find out.

0 Replies

Thomas writes: "I, on the other hand, hold America to the standard of a democracy that upholds the rule of law, national and international. By that standard, I find it wanting."

I lean towards Thomas, no question about that. But my ancestors and I agree that we want to see America hold itself to the standards it proclaims for itself. We are at increasing distance from who we'd like to think we are. Our alienation deeply affects not only prisoners at Guantanamo and democratic movements in Latin America we're noted for having put down, but it affects our kids, our culture, our dealings with each other. This kind of alienation is America at its most dangerous -- to ourselves and to the world.

0 Replies

I am continuously amazed at the ability some have to sympathize with the enemy. The prisoners in Gitmo weren't just plucked off the street in downtown Kabul. They were captured while trying to shoot our soldiers during a war. They are also not the only ones captured during the war. They are the ones that were captured and found to be too bad to be released back into the country because they would just grab a gun and attempt to kill more US soldiers. The inability to undertsand that boggles my mind.

These are people who operate as terrorists. They wear no uniform, follow no recognized rules of war, try to blend in with the general population and attempt to cause trouble by attacking their enemy. They chose not to operate under the auspices of the Geneva convention, and therefore are not entitled to its protection.

0 Replies

McG -- How do you know this about them? How do you know "these are people who operate as terrorists"? Is this generally known, or is it information given out by their captors? How do you know they chose not to operate under... the Geneva Convention? We DO know that American captors in this case did not, but how do you know how the prisoners chose? Because American captors told you?

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

McG -- How do you know this about them? How do you know "these are people who operate as terrorists"? Is this generally known, or is it information given out by their captors? How do you know they chose not to operate under... the Geneva Convention? We DO know that American captors in this case did not, but how do you know how the prisoners chose? Because American captors told you?

So, We can either believe the whacked out, brainwashed, starving, threatened, angry afghan terrorist, OR, the leaders of our country, who WE elected...hmmmm...I will side with our guys, you can side with theirs. That's freedom for ya. Everyone is free to believe what they want, no matter how insane or incredibly misguided those beliefs are.

You have to trust someone eventually. I trust our military in this case.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Tartarin wrote:
McG -- How do you know this about them? How do you know "these are people who operate as terrorists"? Is this generally known, or is it information given out by their captors? How do you know they chose not to operate under... the Geneva Convention? We DO know that American captors in this case did not, but how do you know how the prisoners chose? Because American captors told you?

So, We can either believe the whacked out, brainwashed, starving, threatened, angry afghan terrorist, OR, the leaders of our country, who WE elected...hmmmm...I will side with our guys, you can side with theirs. That's freedom for ya. Everyone is free to believe what they want, no matter how insane or incredibly misguided those beliefs are.

You have to trust someone eventually. I trust our military in this case.

Brilliant analysis. Our options are to either a) believe our government/military, because after all, their opinion would be completely unbiased and they have never lied about anything else, b) believe the starving whacked out enemey. Of course, acknowledging that we simply do not know enough to make a decision, well, that would be ridiculous!

What we do know, however, is that these actions violate the Geneva convention. But that is okay because we are Americans, and therefore, these rules only apply when it is convenient for us.

0 Replies

What we also know is that the best tools we have to determine fairness, or right/wrong, in this issue, are not in the hands of the prosecutors (the current administration in the US) or the captives (about which we know nothing, and to whom the administration will not allow us access). The best tools are in the hands of the international courts. That's why the Geneva Convention is there; that's why the UN is there. And that's why (it's evident to me) the Bush administration wishes to discredit both. They shown that once again they just don't want to admit they've made a costly mistake -- costly in human terms, costly in political terms.

0 Replies

How do our actions violate the Geneva convention?

If they do, wouldn't you think there would be a commision started regarding that issue? Our position is VERY legal, maybe offensive and immoral to some, but legal none the less.

You say we don't know enough to make a decision...you are absolutely right. Therefore, we should leve this up to the people that DO know enough about it...you know, like the government and military who specialize in these issues and have all the facts.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

How do our actions violate the Geneva convention?

If they do, wouldn't you think there would be a commision started regarding that issue? Our position is VERY legal, maybe offensive and immoral to some, but legal none the less.

You say we don't know enough to make a decision...you are absolutely right. Therefore, we should leve this up to the people that DO know enough about it...you know, like the government and military who specialize in these issues and have all the facts.

To avoid further embarassment I suggest you do some research. Although, now that I think about it, nothing can cure your blind faith in the establishment. When in doubt, trust whoever is in power to make the right decisions. Your position is somewhat reminiscent of Brittney Spears, "I just think we should, like, trust the president and support everything he does."

0 Replies

So, by your reply, I figure that the US has NOT violated the Geneva convention in any way and the only way for you to avoid admitting that is by throwing out insults.

Thanks for playing.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Sofia -- the point is not how our current actions compare with someone else's. The point is how our current actions compare with what we want others to believe about us, what we say about ourselves, what we like (and are taught to) to believe about ourselves as a nation. We cannot allow the incursions on civil liberties and human rights which we are now witnessing while holding onto convictions about who we really are.

I think you are glossing over the entire question of what civil liberties and what human rights are these detainees entitled to? Many on the left continue to compare them to suspects being held in a criminal court in the US, but that is NOT what they are, and they are not entitled to be treated as if they are something they are not.

They are not criminal defendants, and are not entitled to be treated as such.

They are not Geneva-defined POWs, and are not entitled to be treated as such.

They are--by rational reports I've read--being afforded far more comfort and privileges than their questionable status entitles them to.

I know you don't FEEL GOOD about their situation, but how do you FEEL about their desire to murder every last one of us? And no, I'm not writing that we have no obligation as human beings to treat them as human beings, but I think that we are doing that and then some, and it is clear to me that others of you will complain so long as one of these detainees remains in detention. At the end of the day, it's just another chance to trash the US, right?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So, We can either believe the whacked out, brainwashed, starving, threatened, angry afghan terrorist, OR, the leaders of our country, who WE elected...hmmmm...I will side with our guys, you can side with theirs.

I think this is another core point which you and Sofia and Scrat aren't getting. The question is not whether your leaders are more credible than the Taliban. They probably are. The question is, why are we in a position where we have to trust war propaganda, when we could be in a position where we'd only have to trust the outcome of a fair trial? The answer to that, as best as I can make out, is that the American government doesn't want a fair trial.

The Bush administration wants monkey trials, or no trials at all. And that sucks.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So, by your reply, I figure that the US has NOT violated the Geneva convention in any way and the only way for you to avoid admitting that is by throwing out insults.

Thanks for playing.

The convenient redefinition of who qualifies for protection under the convention would be a place to start. More later, gotta go now. Also, I did not insult you, I merely pointed out some observations about your stance. You would know if I chose to insult you.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

So, We can either believe the whacked out, brainwashed, starving, threatened, angry afghan terrorist, OR, the leaders of our country, who WE elected...hmmmm...I will side with our guys, you can side with theirs.

I think this is another core point which you and Sofia and Scrat aren't getting. The question is not whether your leaders are more credible than the Taliban. They probably are. The question is, why are we in a position where we have to trust war propaganda, when we could be in a position where we'd only have to trust the outcome of a fair trial? The answer to that, as best as I can make out, is that the American government doesn't want a fair trial.

The Bush administration wants monkey trials, or no trials at all. And that sucks.

Just a suggestion Thomas, but maybe your time would be better spent trying to figure out what you don't understand rather than telling me and others what we don't understand.

Personally, I wasn't aware that the US "wanted" trials of any kind. You continue to suggest that these people are being detained as criminals and should be charged and tried as same. THEY ARE NOT.

I think the goal is to DETAIN them, extract what information we may and then decide whether they should be charged and tried or simply let go. Is it possible that a completely innocent person is rotting in Gitmo today? Not likely, but possible, sure. Innocent people rot in jail in the US after getting full due process; they are not mutually exclusive.

I think plenty of people are keeping an eye on how these people are being held and treated, and I consider their conditions more humane and comfortable than they deserve. I further remain convinced that nobody has challenged their status because these people are convenient pawns of the left... much like the so-called "poor" in this country. The goal is not really to change their lot, but simply to point to their lot as "proof" that your political opponents are evil.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I think you are glossing over the entire question of what civil liberties and what human rights are these detainees entitled to? Many on the left continue to compare them to suspects being held in a criminal court in the US, but that is NOT what they are, and they are not entitled to be treated as if they are something they are not.

They are humans, and what they are accused of is a penal offense, as evidenced by America's demonstrated intent to imprison them for it. According to the declaration of Human Rights, that entitles them to several things, such as being presumed innocent until proven guilty, and a fair trial. While they are not technically criminal defendants, the Liberals are approximately right about the rights they have, while the "Conservatives" are way out of the mainstream of international law.

Scrat wrote:

They are--by rational reports I've read--being afforded far more comfort and privileges than their questionable status entitles them to.

Here's another fallacy. Just because we don't know *exactly* what rights they're entitled to, it doesn't follow that they have none, and that everything beyond that is a courtesy to them. (Interesting parallel to the war on Iraq here: Before the Bush administration went to war on Iraq, they knew there were large expenses coming up. But they didn't know the exact amount, so they assumed the cost was zero, and put that number into their budget for 2003. Much to their surprise, they ended up being $80 billion short, and had to ask Congress for more cash.) Anyway, I'd appreciate a reference to your "rational reports"

Scrat wrote:

I know you don't FEEL GOOD about their situation, but how do you FEEL about their desire to murder every last one of us?

You don't know that, because your only source is the Pentagon's war propaganda, or reports based on the Pentagon's war propaganda. The accusation you make here has never been tested in a court, so for all we know, these guys could have been just victims of some random marine with an axe to grind. My point is not that they are but that it's unknowable for us at this point, and that Bush et.al. want to keep it unknowable.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Personally, I wasn't aware that the US "wanted" trials of any kind.

Neither am I. But while you consider this a feature, I consider it a bug. That's a value judgment on which we won't find agreement, and of course don't have to.

Scrat wrote:

I think the goal is to DETAIN them, extract what information we may and then decide whether they should be charged and tried or simply let go. Is it possible that a completely innocent person is rotting in Gitmo today? Not likely, but possible, sure. Innocent people rot in jail in the US after getting full due process; they are not mutually exclusive.

Okay, that's a starting point -- though open-ended detention is a violation of human rights too. I agree with you when you say that criminals in US jails are unlikely to be innocent, though it's of course possible that they are. But why is that so? In my opinion, it's because they had a fair trial that weighted the evidence for and against them, and that would have let innocent defendants gone free. That's why fair trials are such a Good Thing: they tend to bring out the truth.

This is not what happened in this case. The Afghanis in Guantanamo Bay were arrested under much more messy circumstances, which makes the arrest of innocents much more likely. In addition to that, there has been no functional process to determine if they're innocent. That makes it *much* more likely that the USA is imprisoning innocents without knowing it.

So, to be pompous about it, I'm arguing with your epistemology here, not just your legal opinion.

0 Replies

Thomas - Fair enough. We may be skirting a form of agreement, if not agreement itself... :wink:

I think we both consider the current status of these detainees to be an imperfect solution with potential for abuse and poorly defined parameters which, if not resolved might result in (what I would call) real and serious human rights violations.

Where I think we differ is that I look at the context in which this imperfect solution is being implemented and am able to accept it as a necessary evil (far more necessary than evil). I suspect that you consider it more evil than necessary, and I can respect that opinion while not sharing it.

0 Replies

The afghanis in Gitmo have been processed before being brought to their new homes. Not every Taliban fighter that was arrested was sent to Cuba. Only those, that through interrogation or obvious offence, that needed to be further detained were sent. There was a process that those detainees went through. It was just done by the military and has been kept confidential so as not to put any further US soldiers or citizens at risk.

I do not believe in any deeply rooted conspiracy by either the US administrator OR it's military in detaining these people.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Where I think we differ is that I look at the context in which this imperfect solution is being implemented

Close, but not quite. I have tried to look at the context and found out there is no credible source for the context to look at. I also observed that the Bush crowd appears to go out of its way to make sure there will never be a credible source. I'm talking about a fair trial and its outcome, of course. You say you do have such credible sources -- I assume that's what you meant by "rational reports" -- and I would still appreciate a reference to them.

Scrat wrote:

I suspect that you consider it more evil than necessary, and I can respect that opinion while not sharing it.

I don't know what to consider these Afghanis because I don't know what the facts of the matter are. As I said, these facts are unknowable at this point, and the Bush crowd is working hard to keep them unknowable. As soon as decent evidence is available, I'll let you know whether there's a difference of opinion left between us. I'm not holding my breath for the evidence to come forward though.

McGentrix wrote:

Only those, that through interrogation or obvious offence, that needed to be further detained were sent. There was a process that those detainees went through. It was just done by the military and has been kept confidential so as not to put any further US soldiers or citizens at risk.

1) Interrogation is highly unreliable way of assessing facts. The Catholic Church has tried it extensively under the trademark "Inquisition". The process didn't work very well, eventually leading to an improved system which involves a defense attorney, an impartial judge, and public access to the courtroom to keep everybody honest. 2) If the process was confidential, none of us is in a position to judge its merits. So again, we don't know what was going on, and it's deliberately being kept unknowable.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Interrogation is highly unreliable way of assessing facts.

"Interrogation" can simply mean asking questions. It doesn't always involve rubber hoses.

0 Replies

What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know