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

roger wrote:

They are either POWs or they are criminals. One or the other, and either way entitled to some rights - criminals less than POWs, but still rights.

If you surf back a few pages, you will notice that I tried hard to point out something similar to Scrat: No matter what they are, nobody doubts they are humans and have human rights -- including the right not to be imprisoned without a trial.

It turned out to be an excercise in futility.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Sofia wrote:
They were caught in progress of fighting a war.

How do you know? All you have is one interested party's account of it, and the account happens to support the case of said interested party. Nothing you, or I, as citizens can use for forming a qualified opinion.

0 Replies

Political prisoners in Cuba abd elsewhere are rpisoned to some kind of law - even, if we should call that "no law".

I can't remember in recent history of a nation, which captured humans outside their territory and kept them in another place, more or less without rights.

Quote:

During the troubles in Northern Ireland the UK imprisoned many hundreds (perhaps over a thousand) mostly IRA captives for several years - all without judicial process of any kind.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I can't remember in recent history of a nation, which captured humans outside their territory and kept them in another place, more or less without rights.

That depends very much on what you mean by recent. I can quickly think of about ten examples during the 20th century, starting with the Boer War and continuing through WWI, WWII, the French colonial wars in Algeria, Korea, and others.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

gozmo wrote:

These men have not been charged.

They get no sympathy from me.

There's the misunderstanding. They dont get no sympathy from me, either. But there's a difference between sympathy and rights. Whether they are POWs or criminals, as Roger says, either way they are entitled to some rights - nothing to do with sympathy.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Eating and dressing better than they were before--must be America.

Yes, those red suits and shackles they're wearing sure look fetching ... they go with the cages, and everything.

(Sorry, but that one was just too much.)

Sofia wrote:

It was discovered that al-Quaida thrived in Afghanistan, aided and financed by the Taliban. The Taliban were given the choice to take care of the al-Quaida in their borders, or to be considered their allies. They chose to ally with al-Quaida--and are therefore partners in their crimes.

Several problems there.

One: the US at some point in time hosted, even financed, people who after receiving their intellgence and military training returned to Guatamela, Nicaragua etc to bring their lessons into practice. These "contras" were guerrilla's - no uniforms there. Illegal combatants, so to say.

Now, question one - do you think it was justified for the Nicaraguan government to imprison these guerrilla's for, say, two years without charging them of anything, without any trial, any attempt to establish their guilt and without any legal rights for them?

Thats just the ununiformed guerrillas themselves - the equivalent of the Al-Qaeda volunteers in this equation. Now there's the Taliban - the government that aided and abetted Al-Qaeda. The equivalent of that would be - the US government, in this equation, more or less. Allies and "partners in crime" with the ununiformed fighters in question - do they fall under the same rules, no rights? If Nicaraguan troops had landed in Georgia and captured the American trainers at the "School of the Americas" (or whatever it was called), and kept them without any trial or even charge or legal rights at all, wouldn't you protest?

(Thats actually too much honor for the Taliban, in this equation - it was hardly the Taliban who trained Al-Qaeda, rather the other way round).

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Sofia wrote:
Eating and dressing better than they were before--must be America.

Yes, those red suits and shackles they're wearing sure look fetching ... they go with the cages, and everything.

(Sorry, but that one was just too much.)
As silly as they may look to you, the quality of their clothing is improved in Gitmo.

Sofia wrote:
It was discovered that al-Quaida thrived in Afghanistan, aided and financed by the Taliban. The Taliban were given the choice to take care of the al-Quaida in their borders, or to be considered their allies. They chose to ally with al-Quaida--and are therefore partners in their crimes.

Several problems there.

One: the US at some point in time hosted, even financed, people who after receiving their intellgence and military training returned to Guatamela, Nicaragua etc to bring their lessons into practice. These "contras" were guerrilla's - no uniforms there. Illegal combatants, so to say.

Now, question one - do you think it was justified for the Nicaraguan government to imprison these guerrilla's for, say, two years without charging them of anything, without any trial, any attempt to establish their guilt and without any legal rights for them?
I realize when you are out to overthrow a govt, and are caught--these things can happen. Of course, when it happens to people I agree with--I don't like it.
Thats just the ununiformed guerrillas themselves - the equivalent of the Al-Qaeda volunteers in this equation. Now there's the Taliban - the government that aided and abetted Al-Qaeda. The equivalent of that would be - the US government, in this equation, more or less.
You stretched that so thin, it snapped. The equivalent would be us harboring a terrorist organization, and refusing to allow the government of its' victims to take them into custody. I followed your meaning in the analogy, but it was not a fair one, IMO.
Allies and "partners in crime" with the ununiformed fighters in question - do they fall under the same rules, no rights? If Nicaraguan troops had landed in Georgia and captured the American trainers at the "School of the Americas" (or whatever it was called), and kept them without any trial or even charge or legal rights at all, wouldn't you protest?

(Thats actually too much honor for the Taliban, in this equation - it was hardly the Taliban who trained Al-Qaeda, rather the other way round).My opinion on training the contras--It is less 'our deal' when there is an active group already fighting. So, we have a dog in the fight and give them a little training... We didn't harbor murderers of innocent citizens from justice. Sorta surprised you link these two so closely.

0 Replies

Nimh,

You are looking for inconsistencies, and you will no doubt find them. However consider for a moment my question about their relative significance. What about the IRA prisoners the UK held for several years without charge or trial in Northern Ireland during the '80s? What about Castro's political prisoners? China? Iran? North Korea?

With respect to the Contras, they were Nicaraguans who had started their own counter revolutionary movement. We helped them as you described. Those who were caught by the Sandanista government generally did not fare well at all. I don't recall any wave of European solicitude or sympathy concerning their treatment by their Sandanista captors.

If the Nicaraguans invaded Georgia we would put them on the Atlanta metro, and they would never be heard from again.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Nimh,

You are looking for inconsistencies, and you will no doubt find them. However consider for a moment my question about their relative significance. What about the IRA prisoners the UK held for several years without charge or trial in Northern Ireland during the '80s? What about Castro's political prisoners? China? Iran? North Korea?

With respect to the Contras, they were Nicaraguans who had started their own counter revolutionary movement. We helped them as you described. Those who were caught by the Sandanista government generally did not fare well at all. I don't recall any wave of European solicitude or sympathy concerning their treatment by their Sandanista captors.

If the Nicaraguans invaded Georgia we would put them on the Atlanta metro, and they would never be heard from again.

Drawing attention to these injustices strengthens the case against Camp Xray.

0 Replies

aside from the "they were worse about doing it then we were" begs the question of "is it right to do it"

0 Replies

Nonsense. That isn't what I wrote anyway.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

A war is being waged against us by a supra-national body of zealots, who avow their goal is our destruction. They claim the right to use any and all weapons and techniques against us, some that are accepted forms of warfare, some that are not (and have already done so). . . .

True of some, George, maybe true of many, or even most. True of the ones at Guantanamo? We don't know. They haven't been charged with anything.

I bet they are guilty of something. Out of all the prisoners taken in Afghanistan, these were selected for special treatment, and probably for good reason. It's time to make the criminal case or concede they are prisoners of war.

Edit to correct quote codes

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

As silly as they may look to you, the quality of their clothing is improved in Gitmo.

Silly? No, it doesnt look silly to me. It looks scary. Absolutely gives me the shivers, a picture like that. Of course, one's seen pictures like that, in reports from some godforsaken regimes ... 'nough said.

Look, you can make the argument that they deserved it, if you so please (and perhaps they do; thing is, we cant know, cause they havent been charged of anything yet) - but to say that they're better off in Gitmo is stretching it. I mean, google up a picture of Afghans in Kandahar and compare "the quality of their clothing" to red overalls and shackles.

Sofia wrote:

You stretched that so thin, it snapped. The equivalent would be us harboring a terrorist organization, and refusing to allow the government of its' victims to take them into custody. I followed your meaning in the analogy, but it was not a fair one, IMO.

My opinion on training the contras--It is less 'our deal' when there is an active group already fighting. So, we have a dog in the fight and give them a little training... We didn't harbor murderers of innocent citizens from justice. Sorta surprised you link these two so closely.

Heh, yeh it was a bit thin. But yes, I can link the two closely, even with your replies in mind - I dont see the disconnect you're stating. Thats because I consider the Contras to have been a semi-terrorist organisation - I mean, yes, one man's terrorist is another's guerrilla fighter - but when a group relies overwhelmingly on firepower and terror tactics rather than popular support in spreading havoc, I think a group veers towards the terrorist - and this was IMO true for the Contras, especially in the early 80s. Not to slide into discussing virtues and vices of the Contras, but suffice to say that to the Nicaraguan government, the Contras were as easily identifiable as terrorists as Al-Qaeda is to the American, Moroccan or Indonesia government.

Now, the US was inviting Contra leaders to flee back to the States when "the earth became to hot under their feet", as we say, and provided them with funding and training. So yes, the equivalent I suggested was exactly of the US "harboring a terrorist organization, and refusing to allow the government of its' victims to take them into custody". Or do you think the States would have agreed to extradite its Contra "students" to Nicaragua, if its government had charged them with this or that bloodbath? Because there were enough bloodbaths. The US did harbor murderers of innocent citizens, no doubt.

Not all that much difference, in principle, then, with the Taliban harboring Al-Qaeda operatives - for them, too, it was a case of seeing that there was "an active group already fighting" (Al-Qaeda) and deciding, for ideological or opportunistic reasons, to adopt it as its "dog in the fight". Only difference is in scale - they had the undisputed leader himself, Osama, and Al-Qaeda didnt just mess up some Central-American banana country - it made New York explode.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

However consider for a moment my question about their relative significance. What about the IRA prisoners the UK held for several years without charge or trial in Northern Ireland during the '80s? What about Castro's political prisoners? China? Iran? North Korea?

Yes - all wrong!

(See, that was an easy one ;-))

And yes, I'd wish there was as much political outrage and public attention over Castro's political prisoners down the hall as about the Gitmo prisoners.

Otherwise, like Blatham I dont believe in excusing one's own behaviour by comparing it to that of the nastier regimes in the world. We know that North-Korea and China and Cuba and the Iranian military/police dont afford their opponents much any right. How does that make it in any way OK for us not to, either?

Note also that the notorious miscarriages of justice against (purported) IRA'rs (you've read the book, seen the movie) probably only benefited the IRA and complicated the Brits' efforts to fight it, in the end.

georgeob1 wrote:

If the Nicaraguans invaded Georgia we would put them on the Atlanta metro, and they would never be heard from again.

0 Replies

The new motto of the United States:
But the other guys do it!

0 Replies

roger wrote:

I bet they are guilty of something. Out of all the prisoners taken in Afghanistan, these were selected for special treatment, and probably for good reason. It's time to make the criminal case or concede they are prisoners of war.

The problem is that the term "prisoner of war" has been given special and specific meaning under the Geneva Convention, and according to those rules these people BY THEIR ACTIONS AND CHOICES are not entitled to treatment as "prisoners of war". That does not mean that they simply default to the status of prisoners of a criminal justice system, since that is also something which they are not.

Now, I wonder whether you've considered this...

If we afford all the benefits of Geneva to any and every combatant regardless of how egregiously he may have broken the covenant required of him by Geneva, then Geneva becomes meaningless. If a soldier knows he will receive the same treatment whether he follows the rules of warfare or does not, what incentive has he to follow the rules?

Under Geneva, combatants are required to wear uniforms so that civilians do not become targets.

Under Geneva, medical vehicles, buildings and garb are never to be used to camouflage military equipment or personnel, so that these will be as safe as possible within a war zone.

Etc.

Do you really want to do away with these protections of the civilian populations of the world in order to bestow upon a lawless group of thugs protections they chose not to deserve? That's the choice you are advocating.

0 Replies

Nimh said the picture of detainees looks scary.

Do you have prison in The Netherlands? What is so scary about that picture? When a guard is outnumbered by the prisoners he is responsible for--they have to kneel, so the guard is less likely to be overpowered...

And, to be clear about 'godforsaken regimes'-- No, you must not have seen their reports. There were no bright red, clean jumpsuits involved. There were just skulls and bones.

0 Replies

Since I know per personal view Dutch and German prisons (had a key for the German and was invited to the Dutch, not to get wrong ideas :wink: ) - they not only look different to those in the USA, but even the latter look different to that place in Cuba.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

When a guard is outnumbered by the prisoners he is responsible for--they have to kneel, so the guard is less likely to be overpowered...

I know of one guard, who did such in a German prison: he lost his job, but stayed where he was ... 24/24 (no, he was imsrisoned in another prison).

0 Replies

Walter-- since you have first hand info, I am very curious to see how things worked in German prisons.

If one guard is responsible for transporting/controlling ten prisoners--you say he cannot tell them to kneel if he suspects there is about to be a problem? How did you control the population? How did you stop inmate fights? How did guards maintain control?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know