Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on June 12, 2005, 05:27:28 pm
-
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1071202,00.html
Huh interesting, detainee says he is on a hunger strike, takes some water then says, I am not on a hunger strike :lol:
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1071230,00.html
This last one is Hilarious. They use Christina Agulera music to torture detainees. :lol: OH NO, is that against the Geneva Convention?
-
Sleep deprivation is against the geneva convention as a form of torture, IIRC.
Also so is "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment". Such as shaving the head & beard of a devout Arab (see also Article 34; prisoners should be given 'complete latitude' with regards to religious excercise)..
-
IIRC they are allowed to pray, they just didn't want him to break into their interrogation time.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
They use Christina Agulera music to torture detainees. :lol: OH NO, is that against the Geneva Convention?
Damn well should be!
-
BTW, the whole guards peeing on the Koran thing was apparently an accident. A guard was relieving himself outside the facility and some apparently got blown in an air vent, and subsequently into the cell a guy was reading in...
-
Old news.
-
I don't even bother reading these things anymore. It may very well be unfounded paranoia, but I just go ahead and assume that torture, the real kind, is a matter of course in Gitmo and elsewhere. No self-respecting military would refrain from it.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I don't even bother reading these things anymore. It may very well be unfounded paranoia, but I just go ahead and assume that torture, the real kind, is a matter of course in Gitmo and elsewhere. No self-respecting military would refrain from it.
Didn't I get refered to as absolutly disgusting the other day for making that observation?
No offense intended to you Rictor.
-
No... you were chastized for condoning it.....
-
Actually I remember saying it didn't violate the Geneva Convention, which I still maintain. I also said all is fair in love and war. I have just come to the conclusion that regaurdless of the conflict, attrocities happen. I try not and kid my self that we can try and curb or prevent it. Now, that does not mean I like, condone, promote or support the use of torture. In fact I stated that the Geneva Convention is archaic and either needs to be anulled or updated to reflect a change in the nature of conflict. As far as I can tell the Geneva Convention is not a "living breathing Document" and needs to be update to reflect modern times as with all laws.
-
That's OK, I know I'm disgusting. It hardly bothers me anymore, and people don't flinch nearly as much as they used to.
As for torture, I personally do not condone it, but I think it's stupid for Amnesty et. al. to keep coming out with these "Oh my God, they tottaly mis-treated the Koran" stories, like they're news. Of course they did, and much worse, it's a prison camp. The first step towards preventing it is aknowledging that militaries do torture people, and not act all outraged when it comes to light that inmates aren't recieving their proper dose of Vitamin B every day.
It's sort of like making a big fuss because someone drove faster than the speed limit, and not bothering to check that he has 10 chopped up bodies in his trunk.
The Geneva Conventions aren't too bad, as long as people stick to them. Which they don't of course, cause any half-way intelligent prison wouldn't let Red Cross (or whatever) inspectors within 100 feet of the bloody, mangled prisoners. And even if the world finds out, what exactly is anyone going to do about it. Provided it's not some little Third World ****hole, they can just tell anyone who cares to listen to **** right off and mind their own business.
-
Lost Innocence
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Actually I remember saying it didn't violate the Geneva Convention, which I still maintain. I also said all is fair in love and war. I have just come to the conclusion that regaurdless of the conflict, attrocities happen. I try not and kid my self that we can try and curb or prevent it. Now, that does not mean I like, condone, promote or support the use of torture. In fact I stated that the Geneva Convention is archaic and either needs to be anulled or updated to reflect a change in the nature of conflict. As far as I can tell the Geneva Convention is not a "living breathing Document" and needs to be update to reflect modern times as with all laws.
Actually, that's exactly the point; the Geneva Convention was written to set a series of static laws of warfare, which are not subject to revision based on political aims in later years. There is no change in the nature of conflict referred to; if you mean civillian or irregular terrorists, then there are specific texts in the Geneva convetion which do refer to that; IIRC they place them under - if not classed as PoWs - the civillian legal system of the country of capture.
(NB: the Geneva convention was last updated in 1977 with the 1st & 2nd protocols; I don't think it's that archaic)
What do you think needs to be changed from the Geneva convention, then?
-
Do you have a copy of the text?
-
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm / http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/texts.html
Edit; see also http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/p0703/$File/ICRC_002_0703.PDF!Open (last section in particular; note that this does not exempt nations holding terrorists from humanitarian responsibilities), http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/69MJXC and http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/42BCD4D3BEB459ABC1256E51003EAF49
- the latter 2 in/directly address Gitmo.
(also http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/terrorism?OpenDocument for the whole ICRC docs)
-
Now this is why I say it is ambiguous:
2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience.
I am of the opinion that this should be explicit.
-
This is nothing more than a frat prank, and an obvious sign of liberal bias in the media. Remember, this all was started by Clinton who approved of nebulous definitions for prisoners - besides, they're terrorists and the information they have is invaluable and could save lives of YOUR sons and daughters! Although the DemocRATs and LIEberals want you to believe this is systematic, no such proof is given. I'd bet the prisoners are more safe in our prison than what they would be if they were free, and we really can't risk to let them loose again. Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean are trying to put our boys in blue in shame, and are undermining the security of our great nation with their hippie talk.
-
Obviously the Americans have problems with the "principles of humanity" bit then?
It's so typical of the US to attempt to use something like this as a smokescreen to hide behind.
"We can torture terrorists and people we suspect are terrorists. The Geneva convention is hazy on how they should be treated. We need to change the Geneva Convention so that this loophole is closed."
All the time using the delay that would cause to get a bit more torture in.
F**king sickens me.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Obviously the Americans have problems with the "principles of humanity" bit then?
It's so typical of the US to attempt to use something like this as a smokescreen to hide behind.
"We can torture terrorists and people we suspect are terrorists. The Geneva convention is hazy on how they should be treated. We need to change the Geneva Convention so that this loophole is closed."
All the time using the delay that would cause to get a bit more torture in.
F**king sickens me.
Umm ok sure why not. Lets assume that they are being "tortured." I wouldn't right it off as villany of the american people. We, more or less, don't care much for those that themselves do not abide by international law or those that themselves don't care in regaurds to human rights. It is more or less an unwillingness to provide such things to someone who wishes, with every fiber in their being, to murder you. The reason we keep these murders, or if you prefer enemy combatants, is some, not all, posses knowledge of on going terrorist cells. Now before you go off and take some lofty and righteous tone, I don't condone the use of torture, but some feel, it is either an us or them. I hate to be pragmatic, but sometimes the ends justify the means. Yes, I know I am sick and perverted, but the world is sick and perverted and to fight war sometimes one has to become war. If I had a choice I don't think that even I would like to stand up and yes lets treat the very same people that are foaming at the mouth to kill me a lawyer, catv, a library, a chance to finish their highschool education, etc. I am dreadfully sorry that any of the past 5 years has happened.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
act all outraged when it comes to light that inmates aren't recieving their proper dose of Vitamin B every day.
You know, that wouldn't be a problem if they offered them vegemite - probably get some happier inmates too. :D
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
You know, that wouldn't be a problem if they offered them vegemite - probably get some happier inmates too. :D
Most likely they were recieving their vitamin C requirements in a cave in Afganistan either. :p
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Umm ok sure why not. Lets assume that they are being "tortured." I wouldn't right it off as villany of the american people. We, more or less, don't care much for those that themselves do not abide by international law or those that themselves don't care in regaurds to human rights. It is more or less an unwillingness to provide such things to someone who wishes, with every fiber in their being, to murder you. The reason we keep these murders, or if you prefer enemy combatants, is some, not all, posses knowledge of on going terrorist cells. Now before you go off and take some lofty and righteous tone, I don't condone the use of torture, but some feel, it is either an us or them. I hate to be pragmatic, but sometimes the ends justify the means. Yes, I know I am sick and perverted, but the world is sick and perverted and to fight war sometimes one has to become war. If I had a choice I don't think that even I would like to stand up and yes lets treat the very same people that are foaming at the mouth to kill me a lawyer, catv, a library, a chance to finish their highschool education, etc. I am dreadfully sorry that any of the past 5 years has happened.
I've said it several times and it appears I'll have to keep saying it because the various right-wingers who support gitmo always ignore it as an uncomfortable fact.
5 Brits were released from gitmo a little while back. No apology or anything. Just a "You're not terrorists after all so get out". That included one man who was arrested in an Afghan jail on charges of spying for the west.
How does he fit into your "They all deserve what they got cause they were trying to kill us" fantasy?
Or are you telling me that it's now okay to torture people who aren't terrorists as long as they might be. Cause if you're going down that road it's only a short step to arresting and torturing every muslim in America on the same charge.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
The reason we keep these murders, or if you prefer enemy combatants
You do know that the things that piss off most people is the fact that the people tortu- sorry, who are used to gather information, are, too often to forgive, innocent people taken near a battlefield ? Not as much people would raise a stink otherwise.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I've said it several times and it appears I'll have to keep saying it because the various right-wingers who support gitmo always ignore it as an uncomfortable fact.
5 Brits were released from gitmo a little while back. No apology or anything. Just a "You're not terrorists after all so get out". That included one man who was arrested in an Afghan jail on charges of spying for the west.
How does he fit into your "They all deserve what they got cause they were trying to kill us" fantasy?
Or are you telling me that it's now okay to torture people who aren't terrorists as long as they might be. Cause if you're going down that road it's only a short step to arresting and torturing every muslim in America on the same charge.
*Snickers*, "various right-wingers." Do you really want to go down that childish road, kara? I suggest not doing so since such actions can easily end up with us hosing the decks of Hard Light with testosterone. So take a chill.
I never said that they were all terrorists. I am sorry they were captive and not terrorists. But I ask, why were they in afganistan at that time? There is no excuse for the one spy in the jail, but concerning the ones that were defending the taliban which was defending Al Qeada, really, are these people innocent. Just don't try and characterize them as victims of circumstance. They made a decision to defend and support the Taliban militarily. Now if these people were taken prisoner without cause, it would be unjust for them to be in GITMO. Or just siting around afganistan, minding their own business when all the sudden some big bad American Gi didn't like the way he was looked at and sent him to Gitmo just because he could, their captivity would be unjustified.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
*Snickers*, "various right-wingers." Do you really want to go down that childish road, kara? I suggest not doing so since such actions can easily end up with us hosing the decks of Hard Light with testosterone. So take a chill.
I never said that they were all terrorists. I am sorry they were captive and not terrorists. But I ask, why were they in afganistan at that time? There is no excuse for the one spy in the jail, but concerning the ones that were defending the taliban which was defending Al Qeada, really, are these people innocent. Just don't try and characterize them as victims of circumstance. They made a decision to defend and support the Taliban militarily. Now if these people were taken prisoner without cause, it would be unjust for them to be in GITMO. Or just siting around afganistan, minding their own business when all the sudden some big bad American Gi didn't like the way he was looked at and sent him to Gitmo just because he could, their captivity would be unjustified.
you could give us some proof that they decided to defend and support the taliban you know
-
Originally posted by redmenace
*Snickers*, "various right-wingers." Do you really want to go down that childish road, kara? I suggest not doing so since such actions can easily end up with us hosing the decks of Hard Light with testosterone. So take a chill.
Since when has right-winger been an insult? :confused: Fact is that I haven't seen a single left-winger or centerist who supports Guantanmo Bay on this board yet I'm continually bringing up this point to the right wingers on the board who promptly ignore it.
Originally posted by redmenace
I never said that they were all terrorists. I am sorry they were captive and not terrorists. But I ask, why were they in afganistan at that time? There is no excuse for the one spy in the jail, but concerning the ones that were defending the taliban which was defending Al Qeada, really, are these people innocent. Just don't try and characterize them as victims of circumstance. They made a decision to defend and support the Taliban militarily. Now if these people were taken prisoner without cause, it would be unjust for them to be in GITMO. Or just siting around afganistan, minding their own business when all the sudden some big bad American Gi didn't like the way he was looked at and sent him to Gitmo just because he could, their captivity would be unjustified.
Janos is correct for once in that you need to give some evidence that they were supporting the Taliban.
Besides by your own arguments if they weren't terrorists and were only arrested for supporting the Taliban that makes them POWs and therefore their detention was a violation of the Geneva Convention.
-
I'd just like to add for the sake of argument:
An international aid worker could be in Afganistan for valid reasons.
A simple drug dealer could be inspecting the poppy fields. (Meaning that he is indeed a criminal, but no terrorist, and only a criminal under Afghan law. (And perhaps the law of is mother-country.)
A tourist caught up in the war. (Don't ask me what the guy would be doing there, some backpackers are a bit, off.)
And by your logic, every foreigner in Afganistan is a terrorist, unless he is in jail for spying for the west.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Now this is why I say it is ambiguous:
quote:2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience.
I am of the opinion that this should be explicit.
It is explicitly defined by UN convention such as the Universal Convention of Human Rights, the UN Convention against Torture, etc. Essentially the same conventions which are intended to stop your government torturing you, or detaining you without trial.
I'd point out that no-one in Gitmo is a terrorist. Because the fundamental principle of US law (although if charged as civillians they are, IIRC, really under the jurisdiction of the Afghani government) is 'innocent until proven guilty'. You've made a broad, sweeping generalisation which has no supporting evidence about the support of Gitmo prisoners supporting the Taliban. For example, the US paid the Northern Alliance bounties upon delivery of Al-Queda terrorists; there was no requirement for the NA to actually bring genuine terrorists, and indeed IIRC there is evidence they simply abducted innocent civillians.
A second point is that being an enemy combatant, is not in itself a crime; regardless of how reprehensible the army giving them orders. That is a fundamental principle of the Geneva Convention; it's akin to why Nurmeburg charged Nazis responsible for war crimes, and not every German who ever served in the military.
A third point is that, when anyone says 'it's us or them', then the automatic reaction is to go with 'them'; because - and I'm sorry if this is an insult - it's only an imbecile who views the world in such terms of black and white. With that attitude, you fuel the 'us and them' arguement of the other side, just as they fuel yours.
-
redmenace: I think that it's a bit ambigous in the case of Afghanistan. The place was overrun with warlords, and I don't equate the Taliban with al Queda. It's sort of like holding the rank-and-file German soldiers during WW2 responsible for the Holocaust. As far as I can see, a huge number of people in Afghanistan owned weapons as a way of life and ran with one warlord or another, the distinctions between which are minimal. The Northern Alliance are no less drug-runners or killers, they just happen to be "our bastards".
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Since when has right-winger been an insult? :confused: Fact is that I haven't seen a single left-winger or centerist who supports Guantanmo Bay on this board yet I'm continually bringing up this point to the right wingers on the board who promptly ignore it.
Eh, too many conversations with Kazan has made my ears cringe at that remark. Sorry, but when I hear that is makes me think of Politically Dogmatic simpletons with out any cognitive abilities. Basically the core of the republican party.
The rest of the posts I will have to answer later because I just got back from doing about 8 hours of mind numbing legal data entre.:mad2:
-
*bump*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4623249.stm
Although they are still torturing prisoners in ways that should be made illegal in the Geneva Convention... damn Harry Potter books, I always thought they were evil.
-
Albeit it's highly unlikely they'd give touring VIPs anything but the best possible image.........
-
In response, Vice-President Dick Cheney told CNN that the detainees were well treated, well fed and "living in the tropics".
The tropics! OMGBBQ SEND ME TO GITMO NOW!!!111
-
They watched the interrogation of three suspects, including one in which a detainee was read a Harry Potter book aloud for hours until he turned his back and put his hands over his ears.
Wouldn't this fall under cruel and unusual punishment?
-
Club Gitmo Gear! (http://store.rushlimbaugh.com/)
Get all your Club Gitmo gear, including the Java Jihad Coffee mug!
Click Here (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/clubgitmo.guest.html) for the Club Gitmo brochure.
Now THIS is illustrating absurdity by being absurd :nod:
-
From a completely apolitical point of view: Guantanamo is useless. Period.
Any serious terrorist group has internal rules on interrogation, so that they have to keep being shout for at most a week before anything they know becomes useless... Keeping someone there for months won't do any good.
So in short terms not only you're "misstreating" the people inside, you're also torturing the taxpayer wallets with millions spent on an useless (aside from the paid holiday that is for the army guys there) activity.
Next time get lessons from the French or Israelis, who happens to be the top experts on the field...