Times Mag Reveals Gitmo Torture

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke,

Also there is an exception under the Geneva convention for not having to always be uniformed. If you look under the specific articles of the Geneva convention it should be there.

 

And this is the real argument, how they should be classified.

 

The internment of Japanese American's really has nothing to do with this. And it has been ruled unconstutional as well.

 

Winodj,

 

Because the people who believe in GITMO do not believe that they are changing their standards. They believe that this is the way it should be, just as many believed that slavery was correct, or seperate but equal. In each case people had opinions that reflected their standards.

 

I will not be so quick to try and judge some one for their standpoint, as perhaps my position will eventually become the one that was historically incorrect. I can only try and defend the position I believe true, to the best of my abilities, and hope that what I believe is right.

 

SB

 

 

Article 4 of the Geneva Convention lays out what is required for a prisoner to be entitled to its protections. Terrorists do not meet the criterion as it is laid out.

 

 

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

 

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

 

(B) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

 

© That of carrying arms openly;

 

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

 

 

 

I have the entirety of Article 4 posted on page 3 of this thread so you can go back and verify for yourself but the rest of it deals with those who are part of an organized Army or merchant marine.

 

Back to the Nazi's for a moment the Supreme Court heard all the evidence in the case and ruled them to be enemy belligerents just the same as the Bush Administration has classified the foregin terrorists we have today.

Edited June 14, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[JUGGERNAUT]

First off terrorists are not classified as POW's so citing the geneva convention articles pertaining to POW's is useless. They are criminals of the state. Nothing more.

 

After Saddam was defeated Iraq's sovereignty was destroyed. It became an occupied country subject to the laws pertaining to the occupied nations based on the region the crime was committed. Today with Iraq's sovereignty restored criminals are subject to the laws of Iraq first. They are only subject to the laws of the occupied nations when the Iraqi government grants that right.

 

Gitmo does not operate under civil law. It operates under military law which in a hostile region amounts to martial law. Martial Law empowers the state to suspend indiv rights when the crime amounts to an act of treason or threatens national security.

 

All that being said the UN has a say in the matter. There exists a UN Convention Against Torture that applies to individuals in general. It does not distinguish between POW's, criminals, or civiilians. It has been ratified by some 65 nations including the USA but 55 states have not ratified it. Here is the list of nations that have not:

http://www.irct.org/usr/irct/home.nsf/unid/JREW-6CNK9N

 

The Vatican has ratified it as well. But it has never come before the general assembly for a full 190 member vote & therefore has no teeth. A nation volunteers to ratify it and abide by it. Other than media exposure there is no consequence for failing to do either.

 

It is not simple to abide by either. (Sweden) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4568041.stm - This is a country that has ratified the Optional Protocol to the this convention as well. This is the first measure to provide real teeth to the convention. By ratifying this protocol a nation subjects itself to UN inspections.

 

As of last year the OPCAT is 16 votes shy of the 20 need for ratification by the General Assembly. When/if that happens then all members of the UN will be subject to inspections as specified in the OPCAT.

 

The US, China, Cuba, Israel, Japan, Nigeria, Vietnam, & Syria have voted against the OPCAT. Another 37 nations abstained from the vote. Add that to the 55 nations that didn't even bother to ratify the UN convention on torture to begin with & you have 92 of the 190 member nations opposing such inspections. Yet it only takes 16 more to ratify the OPCAT to make it mandatory.

 

When you consider the cost in blood & money America has had to bear as a result of 9/11 my feelings on this are mixed. In general I support the OPCAT but I think there should be short-lived exceptions for nations that are victims of a major act of aggression or treason. A nation has a right to protect itself beyond the wisdom of the UN & extracting information from terrorists is a big part of that.

[Soxbadger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I#Ar...risoners_of_war

 

Here is Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, the exception is included in there.

 

Article 44. -Combatants and prisoners of war

This is the most controversial section of Protocol I. More specifically the paragraphs 3 through to 5. It is the primary cause for US administrations not adopt this protocol.

 

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

 

( a ) During each military engagement, and

 

( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

 

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).

 

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

 

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.

 

This is a large extension of the laws of war because of the second sentence of paragraph 3. It has been generally accepted that to be a belligerent in a conflict one must be recognisable as such. As is stated in the first sentence, without such identification not only are belligerent occupation forces open to attack from combatants posing as civilians, but enemy civilians are more likely to be attacked by belligerent occupying forces who can use the legitimate legal defence that they thought they were engaging an enemy combatant. In general police are trained to asses the situation and only to fire if certain of their target's hostile intent, while soldiers are trained to asses a target and to fire if not certain of their targets peaceful intent.

 

The important part is:

 

***Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: ***

 

And no, the prisoners being held at GITMO have not had a trial like the Nazi's in your case. If the GITMO prisoners had a trial and were convicted that would be a completely different argument. The Bush administration is arguing that they can hold and detain them indefinitely with out charges.

 

SB

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I#Ar...risoners_of_war

 

Here is Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, the exception is included in there.

The important part is:

 

***Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: ***

 

And no, the prisoners being held at GITMO have not had a trial like the Nazi's in your case. If the GITMO prisoners had a trial and were convicted that would be a completely different argument. The Bush administration is arguing that they can hold and detain them indefinitely with out charges.

 

SB

 

 

The Bush Administration wants to try these people in front of military tribunals, as was done with the Nazi infiltrators. Unfortunately the left keps on throwing up legal challenges to the process so it is THEY who are denying these people their day in court. In the meantime those who are determined to be of no value or determined to be innocent have been released back to their home countries.

 

Additionally. These people try NOT to distinguish themselves from the civillian populace. They do their very best to blend in and their weapons consist of suicide car bombs, roadside bombs and ambush style shootings.

 

Again Article 4 states that to be afforded the protections of the Geneva convention they have to meet the criterion laid out which, as I've said several times already, they do not. Like I said. They have no rights any way you want to cut it and they are very fortunate that it is the US which is holding these people as other nations would not be so lenient with them.

[Rex Kickass]

Nuke:

 

This is where you and I differ. Even though many, although by all means, not every person interred at Guantanamo Bay deserves treatment much harsher than we give them, it doesn't mean that we should give them harsher treatment. It doesn't mean that the level of treatment that we give them is currently acceptable.

 

Why? Because we're the United States of America and we are supposed to set the standard when it comes to respect towards other people, citizens or not - enemies or friends.

 

Some people say that our constitution and basis of our country is a Christian ethic. If this is true, although I believe it to be much more secular, the biggest Christian rule I know is to treat others as you would be treated.

 

If captured Americans were treated the way we treat enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay, would you be happy with that situation?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If captured Americans were treated the way we treat enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay, would you be happy with that situation?

 

 

THEY SHOULD BE SO LUCKY!!!

 

Instead of providing them religously correct meals, religous materials, good shelter and sanitation and even pointing the direction of Mecca out so they can pray properly all they do when they get a hold of one of our people is beat em within an inch of their life then chop off their heads and post the video on the internet and show it on Al Jazerra.

 

 

If we were interested in reciprocating the way terrorists treat our people we would really torture these scumbags, no sleep deprivation or dripping water or any of that other soft ass crap Amnesty is whining about now, I'm talking serious f***ing pain and suffering. Then we can hang them by the dozen and show video of it on CNN and Fox News. That sort of treatment is what these terrorist scum truly deserve.

 

BUT.

 

As you said we are better than that and we treat the people in our custody remarkably well. Far better than they deserve considering their activities before imprisonment included car bombings, setting roadside bombs, blowing up civillians by the bucketful, assassinations of government officials, plotting to kill American civillians in terrorist attacks etc...etc...

 

Save your tears for those who deserve them like the innocent civillans these people have murdered or conspired to murder.

 

:rolly

Edited June 15, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Rex Kickass]

There are hundreds of people who were in Guantanamo Bay who had no connection to Al-Qaeda whatsoever. That were picked up in random sweeps and found to have no useful intelligence to offer and were still kept for months and given that "soft ass" treatment after they were determined to be no threat at all.

 

Again, saying "it isn't murder" isn't adequate to me to justify the treatment of foreign prisoners. And, what you might have noticed, is that I don't know if this "torture" that Time magazine describes is torture or even unacceptable. I do know that other confirmed methods at Guantanamo Bay and other prison camps were unacceptable. I do find the "same rules don't apply" attitude of our administration unacceptable.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

There are hundreds of people who were in Guantanamo Bay who had no connection to Al-Qaeda whatsoever. That were picked up in random sweeps and found to have no useful intelligence to offer and were still kept for months and given that "soft ass" treatment after they were determined to be no threat at all.

 

Again, saying "it isn't murder" isn't adequate to me to justify the treatment of foreign prisoners. And, what you might have noticed, is that I don't know if this "torture" that Time magazine describes is torture or even unacceptable. I do know that other confirmed methods at Guantanamo Bay and other prison camps were unacceptable. I do find the "same rules don't apply" attitude of our administration unacceptable.

 

 

People who we've deemed no threat or to have no value were released. That continues to be the policy. Again. We treat their people FAR better than they treat ours and they are most fortunate to be in our custody. They whine about being tortured in Guantanamo? Let em get busted in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Jordan. HEH. Then they can have some REAL torture to deal with.

 

We go way out of our way to accomodate their religon, we go way out of our way to provide food, shelter, sanitation etc....etc... for them. Would anyone else do that much for us? Of course not.

[Rex Kickass]

My point apparently keeps going over your head. OK, then.

 

"Better than" is not the same as "good enough."

 

That being said, I'm not saying anything about the current conditions of Guantanamo Bay - so please save the "should they get fine wine and cable TV?" stuff, thanks.

Edited June 15, 2005 by winodj