Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Swamp_Thing on June 04, 2005, 01:19:51 am
-
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon on Friday released new details about mishandling of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, confirming that a soldier deliberately kicked the Muslim holy book and that an interrogator stepped on a Quran and was later fired for “a pattern of unacceptable behavior.”
In other confirmed incidents, water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; a guard’s urine came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran; and in a confirmed but ambiguous case, a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.
So, the reports were true after all, uh?
The Newsweek report was true, and the retraction was just a ploy to avoid the troubles that would and did arise from it.
I wonder what will Bush say about this now...
:wtf: :wtf:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8090656/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8090656/)
-
More stuff with the government lying, people taking religion way to damn seriously, and a few idiots that never think ahead. Boy is the world on edge right now:doubt:
History repeating itself once again I suppose.
-
Twenty to one says that many people will tell you that Newsweek are still bastards, 'cause it proves that the Quran wasn't flushed.
-
accuracy in reporting is a important. not being almost true.
-
Yes and adhering to the geneva convention is important, but it's not given much attention these days.
-
How did urine fly through the air vents? :wtf:
-
Only wish Al Quaeda adheard to the Geneva Convention as well as Iraqi insurgents. Honestly, the more I think about it, the geneva convention is an archaeic document that needs to be either pulled out of, or re written.
-
Why?
Are you against the fair treatment of prisoners, the protection of civilians and all the other rules that make war as gentlemanly as possible? Or would you rather have "Total War"?
You cannot save democracy, freedom and liberty by abandoning the ideals they represent.
Edit: Just because the enemy commits atrocious acts, does not mean you should. Once you do, what is the difference between you?
-
No, I am against ambiguous standards. Times have changed. When you have wackos out there that are not affiliated with any nationality. How do you treat them? What needs to happen is that the Geneva Convention should be re-written in a clear and unambiguous manner.
As per ideals, I don't think that there are any ideals at stake. The only possible one I can see is the complete and totally ignoring of the spirit of the law in regaurds to the geneva convention.
And futhermore, atrocious acts happen in war, but I try not to kid my self into thinking that can prevented or even curbed
-
[q]but I try not to kid my self into thinking that can prevented or even curbed[/q]
You're starting to scare me. You believe atrocities are inevitable, so why bother trying to limit them? Think about that. Just... THINK about it. You're essentially giving all military forces free mandate to murder, rape, torture, pillage and generally abuse anyone, anywhere, anytime.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
No, I am against ambiguous standards. Times have changed. When you have wackos out there that are not affiliated with any nationality. How do you treat them?
You imprison them without trial, deny them access to a lawyer, torture them, invent spurious why the convention doesn't apply to them and then claim you're taking the moral high ground.
-
They are not citizens of this country. So do they have rights?
It is like splitting hairs in the abortion argument. We are to assume because the fetus is not outside of the womb that they have no rights?
-
[q]They are not citizens of this country. So do they have rights?[/q]
They are human beings. Being American doesn't give you any more claim to basic human rights than anyone else.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]They are not citizens of this country. So do they have rights?[/q]
They are human beings. Being American doesn't give you any more claim to basic human rights than anyone else.
We don't have a legal responcibility to do so.
-
Erm, that's rather the point of the convention. Additionally, since you're such a moralist on abortion, wouldn't you consider it a moral responsibility?
-
Originally posted by redmenace
They are not citizens of this country. So do they have rights?
You're f**king kidding me right? If you listen to your own argument 9/11 was perfectly justified and every single country who didn't lose any citizens should have just ignored it then.
-
All is fair in love and war
As per the convention, members of al quada don't fit the definition of a POW according to the convention.
-
*shakes head and walks away*
-
Absolutely disgusting.
Does the same as Vyper
-
Believe it or not same hair splitting is used all the time in liberal causes. So don't act like you guys are taking a high road either.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
No, I am against ambiguous standards. Times have changed. When you have wackos out there that are not affiliated with any nationality. How do you treat them? What needs to happen is that the Geneva Convention should be re-written in a clear and unambiguous manner.
Art 4 covers all conflicts not covered by Art 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines who is a prisoner of war and, therefor, a protected person under GCIII. Those entitled to prisoner of war status include:
# 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
# 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
# 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
# 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
# 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
Does that clarify anything? nationality doesn't matter you still treat them humanely. As long as they are part of the group your fighting against they fall under the geneva convention. As far as I can tell terrorist organizations (though crazy) are still a group of armed forces. About people that they just went and got of the street or lone suicide.... I mean attempted suicide bombers they technicaly don't apply. If it were up to me though I think any of em that took any sort of active role in killing innocent people deserve what they get. And I still have a hard time seeing how misttreatment of a book is considered misttreatment against the prisoners.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
accuracy in reporting is a important. not being almost true.
Gimme my twenty :D
Edit : WTF ? redmenace, do you only hear yourself speak ?
*follows vyper and karajorma*
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Believe it or not same hair splitting is used all the time in liberal causes. So don't act like you guys are taking a high road either.
"Heh... you tell 'em, Marl."
Seriously, dude: no.
-
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Al Quada doesn't follow those requirements.
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
"Heh... you tell 'em, Marl."
Seriously, dude: no.
Umm, yes.
And I did not just now say that they were bastards. But they still ****ed up. It is like if I got on the witness stand and told a bold faced lie that was still partly true I should not be found to have pergured my self? In essence that is what you are saying G.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Umm, yes.
No. It's no wonder that everyone started to leave the thread when you began talking about 'the Left'.
So, Fritz, I look you square in the monocle and say: nein!
-
I criticize leftist dogmas that I know Kara and vyper suscribe to since, IMO they follow the same perverted hair splitting I am using.
-
I take exception to being called dogmatic. I've arrived at every opionion I hold independantly.
-
I didn't call you dogmatic but simply some of your political opinions.
But honestly, that was offensive and I am sorry.
-
Fair enough. Apology accepted.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Al Quada doesn't follow those requirements.
Of course, everyone at Gitmo is an Al-Quaeda operative, because they have been prov... oh shi
-
fine a person that is not a al quada member should, according to the geneva convention recieve a fair trial and access to a lawyer etc. But show me a taliban that infact
meets this requirement
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
-
Rather interestingly one of the brits who was held there for two years was "captured" in an afghani prison cell where he was being held on charges of spying for the United Kingdom :rolleyes:
Anyone want to explain what he was doing there?
-
*eats secret plan to invade USA*
-
I'd rather have total war than double standards
-
So you guys are saying that it's ok for us to torture them, as long as they tortured us first?
Wow, it's like preschool all over again. He stole my toy, so it's ok for me to steal his toy too.
-
double standards
-
Look, even I'm against al Qaeda and what they do, but I still believe in at least humane treatment of POWs. What if an American soldier or civilian was being held by al Qaeda? Wouldn't Christians go nuts if al Qaeda denied the prisoners their own religious rights, or if our people were being inhumanely treated, wouldn't there be some anger in America?
Double standards... just because America happens to be one of the most powerful nations on Earth, it doesn't mean that we have some God-given right to torture prisoners and insult other religions. While this only a small part of the armed forces doing this, it still doesn't make it right -- desecrating a holy book of another religion, while it might be sacred to some people, is just plain stupid -- hell, the Newsweek article itself got people killed.
We can't simply torture members of al Qaeda simply because they killed American troops, no matter how great our anger or animosity towards them. We condemned the NVA for the same actions when our troops were in their camps -- American troops and pilots killed NVA troops, so they Vietnamese were in the same shoes.
Being the most powerful military nation on Earth just didn't us the right to bypass law -- the US has done things in the past that would lead many in our military to be tried as war criminals (Asian Orange, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the fireboming of Tokyo), but we've always been immune because of our high stance in the world. We've done unethical things in the past, yet we only get off with a slap on the wrist (ala Nicaragua).
Red, I agree with you on a lot of other issues, and I see where you're coming from on this issue, but listening to what you're saying just makes me see exactly what I've described above. We can't torture al Qaeda in the manner of desecrating their religion (or at any extremes).
-
Let´s add a little tidbit to the discussion:
The last Amnisty International report on Human Rights compares GITMO to a soviet gulag. And a gulag is just a step short of a nazi concentration camp. So that should tell us how´s life on GITMO like...
I still can´t phatom how stupid the White House must think we are, to try and sell us the crap that a guard´s urine "somehow" blew into a vent and onto a prisioner. Don´t they have toilletes in GITMO?
:wtf:
-
we're prety much expecting inhumane treatment from them, there already is anger, so much so that I doubt there is much that would be able to raise it much higher.
America is the most powerful nation on earth, so they are expected to treat the most vile people ever to live as kings, AlQueda on the other hand is a band of terrorists so no one cares if they behead people or what have you.
double standard.
maybe if we saw some outrage over stuf they were doing we would care.
"I still can´t phatom how stupid the White House must think we are, to try and sell us the crap that a guard´s urine "somehow" blew into a vent and onto a prisioner. Don´t they have toilletes in GITMO?"
from what I read that didn't sound like they were excuseing the person it sounded like they were describeing in detail what he did, I doubt you'd ever hear the phrase "pissing on him" an any offical document. when I read that I read "a gaurd pissed on an inmate through an air vent" I didn't for a minute think anything else untill you posted this.
now the newsweek article made mention of a specific event, if that event did not happen, then thtey were wrong, even if they guessed close.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
America is the most powerful nation on earth, so they are expected to treat the most vile people ever to live as kings, AlQueda on the other hand is a band of terrorists so no one cares if they behead people or what have you.
double standard.
maybe if we saw some outrage over stuf they were doing we would care.
Everyone was outraged. When America went in to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden you had almost worldwide support.
Don't blame us if your leaders managed to squander all the sympathy the world had for America after 9/11 with their greed, lies and mismanagement.
As for double standards I suggest you put your own house in order before going on at the rest of the world. Stop harping on about liberty and freedom while torturing suspects before you start giving us the "poor me" speeches.
No one is happy to see AlQueda and the other fundies chopping peoples heads off except for other sick bastards like them but if America descends to their level how are you any better? Sure with the US's military might they might even win the war on international terror but what will you have lost along the way?
The really sad thing about people like you Bob is that you fail to see that some of the biggest speakers against this kind of thing speak out against it not because of a hatred of America but because we don't want to see your country make a mistake and end up paying a very high price because of it. Part of that is self interest of course. If America does become a tyranical state then the whole world will suffer but a large part of it comes from simply not wanting to see yet another country come under the shadow of fascism.
If you're wondering why no one points out every bad thing the terrorists do its because
1) No one gives a flying f**k if they manage to bugger up their own lives.
2) They're too far gone to help anyway.
-
well you see, your playing right into the hands of the facisti then, you don't say anything about them, but you pick at everything we do, it makes it seem like you can't be pleased so we stop careing what you have to say.
notice how we invaded Iraq, and nobody cared what the rest of the world had to say, I must say, well played.
-
Yes and look how well that went.
-
So what are we supposed to do Bob? Stay silent and let your country fall into darkness? Do we need to hold your hand because your nation is too dumb to realise that we hate the terrorists too? Do we have to continually reassure you that we hate the ****ers too?
Apart from Rictor when have you ever heard anyone on this board support the terrorists? Almost every single comment that mentions them includes an insult and yet you still think that people here don't think of these people as evil scum?
Fact is you're not listening. Your country is too wrapped up in it's hatred to pay any attention to what is going on.
Do you really think that the British think it's acceptable to chop peoples heads off? Do you really believe that there is any popular support for that kind of behaviour?
No one says anything about the beheadings because it's common sense that it's wrong. The Brits haven't lost their perspective on these matters but it certainly appears as though you Americans have when intellegent people like yourself defend the use of torture and imprisonment of people who may not be (and in some cases definately were not) guilty of doing anything against your nation just on the off-chance that they might have been!. The Brits don't think the beheadings are justifiable. We simply don't think you can use a vile and sickening act as an excuse to commit vile and sickening acts of your own (And then on top of that still proclaim that you are better than them).
Seriously Bob, try to stay true to the ideals on which your country was founded. All men created equal, all men having certain rights. Those are good words and I find it very sad that for the second time since WWII fear of a largely non-existant enemy has made the American people forget them completely as they run down a path that will never lead them to the security they want from it.
If you are willing to torture people then you are no better than the other side. And if you're no better than the other side why in hell should anyone outside of America give a damn who wins? It's that simple.
-
Hell, I'm about as right-wing as they come, and if this story is true, then I wholeheartedly disagree with what they're doing down there. If these actions were unsanctioned by anyone, court-martial the hell out of those involved. If they were sanctioned, then something much more serious needs to be done. Either way, I think the inmates down there should be legally charged with a crime; either indict them or send them back to where they came from. Those who said that "they did **** to us, so we should be able to return the favor" isn't a just principle are absolutely right. As much as I personally may have that reaction, and as much as I think it's perfectly human to feel that way, I know that isn't justice, and that doesn't represent the values that this country stands for. "An eye for an eye" went out of style a long time ago.
-
Token "I don't care" message:
I don't see why you guys are acting like they're terrible people. Sure it made your lives more difficult, but they also made their own lives better. And they're a better people for doing what they believe in.
/salute
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
from what I read that didn't sound like they were excuseing the person it sounded like they were describeing in detail what he did, I doubt you'd ever hear the phrase "pissing on him" an any offical document. when I read that I read "a gaurd pissed on an inmate through an air vent" I didn't for a minute think anything else untill you posted this.
Nor did i say they were, excusing the behaviour. What i did say, is that they must think we are all stupid to believe their explanation of what happened. I am not. If you choose to believe that somehow a soldier just happened to piss near a vent (don´t they have toilletes to do those things? What was he doing pissing 2 feet away from an inmate anyway?)), and that the urine "somehow" managed to get into the guy´s cell and splash both him and the Quran, then i´m sorry to say that you are too gulible.
It´s not about wether they excuse the behaviour or not ( they do), it´s about the ludychrist explanation they presented to us, the public. I have no doubt in my mind, that if this incident did infact happened (as the reports seem to suggest), it was a simple case of a guard pissing on the inmate on purpose, and the White House is spining it to look less damaging.
-
I haven't read any other sources on this so maybe I'm missing some key detail, but I don't see any explaining away in the exerp posted, it looks like it says in 'policy talk' that a gaurd pissed on a detainee. all I read is that one paragraph posted, so if it says somewere else that it was an accedent then the old ":wtf: yeah..."
-
Do you think that if everyone wasn't so scared of America they would be doing this?
I think we can safely call them POWs when you yourselves call it a 'War on Terror'
I also despise the new UK terrorism legislation for the same reasons.
-
On a side note...
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050605/2005-06-05T150218Z_01_N05312827_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-GUANTANAMO-AMNESTY-DC.html
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I haven't read any other sources on this so maybe I'm missing some key detail, but I don't see any explaining away in the exerp posted, it looks like it says in 'policy talk' that a gaurd pissed on a detainee. all I read is that one paragraph posted, so if it says somewere else that it was an accedent then the old ":wtf: yeah..."
I'm guessing the front grills of the holding cages can be called air vents, if you want to look at it that way.
-
I personally feel torture is inhumane and wrong, and that no one should be subject to it. I do believe the detainees at Guantanamo should have a fair trial. The problem lies in where they'd get a "fair" trial. You'd probably have to hold it in some Polynesian nation that has no idea about anything.
Also, punishing the ones that have committed the acts won't be enough. The ones that give out the orders should be held responsible as well. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. The subordinates usually take all the heat. If you look at what our military is comprised of, the chance of them being stupid is extremely high.
There are a great deal of us that don't agree with the #*!% that's going on down there, but it seems nothing short of overthrowing the current adminstration will do anything.
*Hangs head in shame* I am ashamed of what my country has become.