The war on drugs is silly. Would it surprise if you I told you that I'm all for legalizing most drugs?

Furthermore, if torcher didn't work over the last few centuries... why would anyone do it? Just out of malice and spite? Partly.... though it does work for interrogation and militaries around the world specialize in it.

Who are we to say what works and what doesn't in an interrogation scenario? There's guys out there that live that type of thing.

If sleep depravation was wrong, all schools in the nation should be banned from giving final exams and long-term projects. Puh-leaze!

The war on drugs is silly.

Of course it is, but it was just an example. The so-called "War on Terror" is silly too.

Would it surprise if you I told you that I'm all for legalizing most drugs?

Hey, why not? Legalize ALL drugs if you ask me.

Furthermore, if torcher didn't work over the last few centuries... why would anyone do it? Just out of malice and spite? Partly.... though it does work for interrogation and militaries around the world specialize in it.

So if it may work, why not do it in all prison situations? Why with just terrorists?

The ACLU doesn't see it that way and I think thats wrong. This goes to you too Toms, no right in the constitution shall be infringed regardless of how scary some people might think it.
Except the one about cruel and inhuman punishment. I see:rolleyes:.

Furthermore, if torcher didn't work over the last few centuries... why would anyone do it? Just out of malice and spite?
For example, yes.

If sleep depravation was wrong, all schools in the nation should be banned from giving final exams and long-term projects. Puh-leaze!
You're joking, right? If a student fails to organize his time so that he loses sleep over a project, that's hardly the school's fault. Not even in the same league as the horrors of Guantanamo, where inmates are forced to lose sleep.

And we're still not only discussing sleep deprivation, we're discussing the more severe cases of torture at Guantanamo, too. If you seriously think the worst thing happening at Guantanamo is sleep deprivation, you're more ignorant on the matter than you quite frankly have a moral privilege (sp.?) to be. There are beatings, sexual abuse, attack dogs, and so on and so forth. Focusing on the sleep deprivation is like saying that "all ibn Ladin did on 9/11 was hijack four airliners, how's that so bad?". Maybe that in itself isn't so atrocious, but he also happened to kill 3000+ people by using the planes as missiles.

So if it may work, why not do it in all prison situations? Why with just terrorists?
Exactly. I already covered that in last post, but it appears my opponents "missed" it.

As for POWs not being entitled to their rights: Just that you can do something, doesn't mean you're right in doing it or ethically justified in doing it. There was a time when Africans were not entitled to vote, too, you know.

This is a war.
Not a good enough argument. Just that you're in a state of war against a hyped-up enemy doesn't make it right to use extreme means.

Personally, for me the 2nd amendment is just as important as the 1st.
This is going totally OT but why?

I disagree with Jakob. If you're not a POW you don't have any rights and that sounds pretty cold but for me, with my family background and the people I know in harms way...it's pretty hard to feel sorry for them.

Just because you don't have any rights doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T have any rights.

And even if you shouldn't have any rights doesn't mean we should torture you.

And the NOT A POW category is a bit too broad for my liking.. as it includes me, you, aid workers, tourists, journalists, peace campaigners, and practically anyone else you might want to name.

If I had decided to do the same as a number of other peace campaigners and go to afganistan to try and campaign for peace, or show my support for the afgan people and opposition for the war.. and then had been picked up by US troops... (and had a big beard or looked muslim) then i could very well have found myself in guantanamo as one of these spurious "illegal combatants" and i'd have no decent way to prove my innocence.. no day in court.. and if i was eventually released after 3 years of living in a small cage and having sleep deprivation (which can be fatal BTW) torure then i might argue with you about what was right, legal and humane.

And the NOT A POW category is a bit too broad for my liking.. as it includes me, you, aid workers, tourists, journalists, peace campaigners, and practically anyone else you might want to name.

If I had decided to do the same as a number of other peace campaigners and go to afganistan to try and campaign for peace, or show my support for the afgan people and opposition for the war.. and then had been picked up by US troops... (and had a big beard or looked muslim) then i could very well have found myself in guantanamo as one of these spurious "illegal combatants" and i'd have no decent way to prove my innocence.. no day in court.. and if i was eventually released after 3 years of living in a small cage and having sleep deprivation (which can be fatal BTW) torure then i might argue with you about what was right, legal and humane.
That depends on how you would be 'campaigning' for peace. If you tried to oppose or obstruct members of the military, you could very well end up in GTMO...because you were aiding enemies of the United States. However, while I fall into the "not a POW" category, I have no fear of being hauled off to GTMO because there is no reason for the government to believe that I'm a terrorist or am conspiring to take action against the US or its war effort.

I happen to know some people who are showing support for the Afghan people, not by opposing US troops, but by helping the people of Afghanistan as missionary aid workers. In a nation such as the US with a right to freedom of speech, there are many, many ways to express opposition to the war without ending up in GTMO or any other prison. There are also many, many ways to show support for the people in Afghanistan and Iraq without being dragged off to GTMO. There are proper and improper ways to voice your opinion...and if you express your opposition to the war in an improper way, such as getting in the way of the US military, then you have to deal with the consequences of your decision.

Pentagon Releases Gitmo Detainees' Names

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Guantanamo_Detainees)


Are you happy now guys?

j/k

Personally, for me the 2nd amendment is just as important as the 1st.
I beg to differ (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2086216#post2086216).

Just because you don't have any rights doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T have any rights.

And even if you shouldn't have any rights doesn't mean we should torture you.
How about this: Since this is the fourth (give or take) time this has been brought up in this thread, it'd be nice if you torture-apologists actually addressed it.

I have no fear of being hauled off to GTMO because there is no reason for the government to believe that I'm a terrorist or am conspiring to take action against the US or its war effort.
But they have "reasons" to believe that others are threats when they really aren't.

The Road to Guantanamo is about a goup of people who were brought to the prison camp and tortured simply for being caught in a mosque known to be used for terrorist-recruitment. And that's just one example.

The Road to Guantanamo is about a goup of people who were brought to the prison camp and tortured simply for being caught in a mosque known to be used for terrorist-recruitment. And that's just one example.

But we all know that all muslims are terrorists so i'm not that worried about that.. they don't really count.

Of course, we are also holding everyone we can hostage, and treating everyone like that movie... right, we're just a bunch of Christian Fascists. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by rccar328:
Well, first of all, I believe their official classification is "enemy combatant." They are enemies who were fighting our soldiers, but because they weren't fighting in the uniform of a particular enemy nation, they don't classify as POWs. Therefore, they are not afforded the same rights as POWs. That's not me "passing judgment," that's just how it works.Of course it's you passing judgement, don't be silly. And what is this nonsense "that's just how it works"? What is that supposed to mean? The only reason that this is "how it works", is because your government has just recently decided that it is how it's going to work. And the merit of their decision is the subject of this debate. Do you really believe the US government's actions in this matter were inevitable? Do you really believe that those actions are beyond morality?

As to the more salient aspects of your argument: The shiny new terminology the US government has used when "classifying" these prisoners is an irrelevance. They're prisoners held by your government, and therefore fall under the protection of civil law, or military convention in time of conflict. That means they're either prisoners of the state, or prisoners of war. Your government is affording them the rights of NEITHER. That's illegal. It's illegal because it's counter to both US law and international law. It's counter to international treaties. It's tantamount to terrorism, to be frank. It's similarly illegal, it's similarly amoral, and it's similarly designed to "set an example" to others who would resist a US invasion force.

It's the sort of thing that the bad guys would do.

As to your argument regarding people not being "in uniform", as Toms has pointed out, it's a rather pathetic argument. Shiny mass-produced uniforms with polished buttons are not universally issued to combatants from poorer nations, even when those combatants are NOT engaging in covert manoeuvres. That doesn't mean they're not soldiers fighting in a cause, or for their nation.

Originally Posted by rccar328:
If you're a US citizen, then you are entitled to certain rights under the US Constitution, among them due process of the law and a trial by a jury of your peers. If you're not from the US, then the US Constitution doesn't apply to you, and you would fall under a different set of rules.Okay, so I come to America and steal your slice of apple pie... That means I can be imprisoned without trial, does it? ;) Please get off your constitutional horse. There is law and moral obligation above and beyond that which is guaranteed by your US citizenship. And, these are men that have allegedly commited "crimes" OUTSIDE U.S. JURISDICTION. Or is the whole planet merely the fifty-first state?

Originally Posted by rccar328:
By your statement above, you seem to be assuming that the US military is going around rounding up anyone they feel like rounding up...and that seeming assessment is entirely innacurate. These are enemy combatants who were fighting against the United States military.You assert that they were enemy combatants. Then they should be treated like prisoners of war.

Originally Posted by rccar328:
I refer to them as terrorists because many of them use terror tactics to try and drive US public opinion against the war, and many are, in fact, members of terrorist organizations. Maybe under a strict definition they wouldn't classify as "terrorists", but who cares? That's just semantics. Either way, they were captured while trying to kill US soldiers.Most of them weren't even captured by US forces, by all accounts. :) And you have no evidence to support your assertion that these men were "captured while trying to kill US soldiers." The US has used tactics that could be termed "terror tactics" in the recent engagements. The killing of unarmed prisoners, detention without trial of POWs... Does that make the whole US a "bunch of terrorists"? Of course not. Now start applying the same standards to others, as you apply to yourself.

Now you're admitting to yourself and to us that the detainees couldn't be defined as terrorists in terms of the strict definition of the word "terrorist". Yet you still think it's okay to call them terrorists? So basically, anyone you don't like is a terrorist. That's the inevitable extrapolation of calling people who DON'T qualify as terrorists, terrorists.

You can scream "semantics" all you like, but I call a terrorist a terrorist. Someone who isn't, ain't.

Originally Posted by rccar328:
Here's something about pundits: they can pretty much say whatever the heck they want, and that doesn't mean that it's true. Just because 9 out of 10 pundits agree that something is illegal, that doesn't make it illegal.
Oh, of course. You'd rather believe your government's illogical propaganda than the considered opinion of independent legal experts who are interviewed and quoted in the media. My bad. ;)

As to "the law", Go and google some articles from experts on US law, international law, even the US supreme court, as I recall. It's clearly counter to law. You just choose not to see it. CHOOSE, mind you.

Originally Posted by rccar328:
That depends on how you would be 'campaigning' for peace. If you tried to oppose or obstruct members of the military, you could very well end up in GTMO...because you were aiding enemies of the United States.It's scary that you think this is an acceptable state of affairs. So a Swedish anti-war campaigner that lies down in front of a tank could- in your view- be spirited off to Guantanamo and held indefinitely without trial for "aiding enemies of the US"? Heh. Terrifying.

-

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:
Well first of all I didn't bring up the ACLU, I heard people espousing them as righteous and I thought I'd bring up their duplicity.Once again, there is no "duplicity". You're confused. One COULD agree with the right to free speech AND disagree with the right to bear arms at the same time. There would be no hypocrisy there. Or do you regard the US constitution as "holy" in some way, and indivisible? Do you believe that you "either believe in the whole constitution, or none at all"?

Besides, it's a moot point. The ACLU doesn't "disagree with the 2nd amendment". They just interpret it differently to you.

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:
After all, guns don't kill people....people kill people.Please stop regurgitating NRA slogans and come up with something original. Here, I'll start the ball rolling by coining a new slogan for you: "Guns don't shoot people, people shoot guns!" Equally meaningless, pseudish and nonsensical as yours, I'm sure you'll agree.

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:
I stated that they do not meet the legal requirements to be treated as POW's.And you have no evidence for this claim. Neither does your government. They claim to be "at war" with terrorism, yet they deny the basic wartime rights of people they accuse of being terrorists.

Once again, they're either prisoners of the US state, in which case they should go through the civil court system, or they're captured enemy combatants, in which case they should be afforded the basic rights of any POW under standard military conventions. Pick one.

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:
I'll leave you with a quote from Jakob Kellenberger, President of the Red Cross. "There is a certain subcategory of individuals who have forfeited their protections under the Geneva Conventions and there is not an obligation to allow access to those individuals."That wasn't a quote from Kellenberger! You're fabricating! That was a quote from the US State Department's Sean McCormack! He's a US government spokesman! By god sir, that's a faux pas. Get your references right. Here's proof: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/66202.htm)

Kellenberger has been firmly anti-Guantanamo across the board, as far as I'm aware.

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:
The war on drugs is silly. Would it surprise if you I told you that I'm all for legalizing most drugs?It is completely unsurprising to me that as a republican, you are against the legalisation of ALL recreational drugs.

Originally Posted by Good Sir Knight:
Furthermore, if torcher didn't work over the last few centuries... why would anyone do it?And if burying a potato at a crossroads during a full moon doesn't work to get rid of warts... Why would generations of superstitious fools do it?

These are two questions with one common answer. That answer is one word: ignorance.

Torture does "work" if you're asking a very specific question, like "what is the combination for that safe over there". But as soon as the questions become more general, torture's effectiveness breaks down. The torturer will receive a lot of information punctuated with incoherent screaming babble, and some or all of that information may be completely fabricated by his victim in order to escape any more pain. Regardless of its "effectiveness" however, it's amoral in the extreme.

The dentist scene from Marathon Man illustrates this point beautifully, albeit fictionally. ;)

Of course it's you passing judgement, don't be silly. And what is this nonsense "that's just how it works"? What is that supposed to mean? The only reason that this is "how it works", is because your government has just recently decided that it is how it's going to work. And the merit of their decision is the subject of this debate. Do you really believe the US government's actions in this matter were inevitable? Do you really believe that those actions are beyond morality?

Look at what you're making a big deal of. Sleep depravation, maybe bathroom denial. That's not very pretty, but it's far from inhumane. I want to get one point through the skulls of you lot: We are *NOT* putting these people on the rack! We are *NOT* cutting them with sharp knives! We are *NOT* shocking them! Until you can find indisputable proof the contrary (and you won't), I refuse to believe what we're putting them through is torture.

Okay, so I come to America and steal your slice of apple pie... That means I can be imprisoned without trial, does it? Please get off your constitutional horse. There is law and moral obligation above and beyond that which is guaranteed by your US citizenship. And, these are men that have allegedly commited "crimes" OUTSIDE U.S. JURISDICTION. Or is the whole planet merely the fifty-first state?

Sir, if we get off our "Constitutional horses", then we miss the entire point of this. Isn't this whole thing about, basically, what rights POW's have? Such things are granted by the Constitution and it's amendments over here, last time I checked. POW's are exempt from this. So are illegal aliens. Sorry if that sounds ugly, but it's true. Denying this is stupid at best.

Oh, and yes, if you illegally immigrated and commited petty theft, you'd likely just get deported for illegal immigration. If you legally immigrated, well, I'm too lazy ATM to look up the penalty for petty theft, but it's small -- not that you care. After all, punishing you is inhumane. :)

You assert that they were enemy combatants. Then they should be treated like prisoners of war.

They are. Enemy combatents are interrogated, and sometimes it takes more that the politically correct "ask really really nicely" to get information.

Most of them weren't even captured by US forces, by all accounts. And you have no evidence to support your assertion that these men were "captured while trying to kill US soldiers."

Can you prove they weren't? Can you prove that they weren't masterminding attacks, or planning them, instead of the narrow "attacking at the time" view? I thought not.

The killing of unarmed prisoners

The B.S. meter is at a 95/100 level, at this point...

Oh, of course. You'd rather believe your government's illogical propaganda than the considered opinion of independent legal experts who are interviewed and quoted in the media. My bad.

You are misguided, sir.

1) Propaganda is not illegal. Show me a law that says, in summary, "thou shalt not propagandize" and I'll recant my view on this point.

2) Of course you believe "your" media is flawless, unbiased, always right. But you must realize that correctness in political matters is based soley on opinion and has no weight in any debate worth its salt.

I am having internet difficulties, and cannot finish the reply. However, I will summarize by saying that your incorrect views are understandable, if only by ignorance.

1) Propaganda is not illegal.

...


your government's illogical propaganda
Last I heard, the word Illogical was not a synonym for the word illegal.

Can you prove they weren't? Can you prove that they weren't masterminding attacks, or planning them, instead of the narrow "attacking at the time" view? I thought not.

Can you give me irrefutable proof that you aren't planning a terrorist attack against a US target at this very moment? No? Right, off to Guantanamo with you then.

Of course, we are also holding everyone we can hostage, and treating everyone like that movie... right, we're just a bunch of Christian Fascists.Edited and quoted for truth :xp:

Look at what you're making a big deal of. Sleep depravation, maybe bathroom denial. That's not very pretty, but it's far from inhumane. I want to get one point through the skulls of you lot: We are *NOT* putting these people on the rack! We are *NOT* cutting them with sharp knives! We are *NOT* shocking them! Until you can find indisputable proof the contrary (and you won't), I refuse to believe what we're putting them through is torture.
Sleep deprivation causes the neurones in the brain to overheat and suffer damage. Minor sleep deprivation can be recovered from relatively quickly, however major sleep deprivation can cause dementia or developent of permanent personality changes within the first few weeks. Sleep deprivation of several months is fatal.

http://www.filmtotaal.nl/images/newscontent/guantanamo/poster.jpg)

I don't know what the law (international or otherwise) in the USA says about illegal immigrants.. but i can't imagine that if police lined a group up and shot them.. or if a mob decided to firebomb their houses and kill them then it wouldn't be considered murder.

And POWs DO have rights under international law.. that is the point AL was making.. they have rights under one law or another.

Oh, and yes, if you illegally immigrated and commited petty theft, you'd likely just get deported for illegal immigration. If you legally immigrated, well, I'm too lazy ATM to look up the penalty for petty theft, but it's small -- not that you care. After all, punishing you is inhumane. :)
Illegal immigrants who commit crimes are often still jailed as the crimes fall under the US juristiction.. then deported once they serve their sentence.

But supposed crimes commited in a country outside the US don't fall under US juristiction..

They are. Enemy combatents are interrogated, and sometimes it takes more that the politically correct "ask really really nicely" to get information.
Which is illegal under international law because enemy combatants DO fall under the geneva convention... which is also the only thing protecting your soldiers when they are captured.
Though if you are arguing that because the bad guys don't always adhere
to the geneva convention then you should pull out of it too then that is a seperate issue.

Can you prove they weren't? Can you prove that they weren't masterminding attacks, or planning them, instead of the narrow "attacking at the time" view? I thought not.

:eyepop: :scare5: :drop2: *staffsaberist loses 100 respect points*


Killing of Unarmed prisoners -> The B.S. meter is at a 95/100 level, at this point...

ok, here goes:
Four soldiers accused of smothering an Iraqi general during an interrogation last fall have been charged with murder, bringing the total number of U.S. troops charged with murder in Iraq to at least 10.
The Army gave no details on what the soldiers are alleged to have done. But The Denver Post, citing unidentified military documents, reported earlier this year that Chief Warrant Officers Lewis E. Welshofer Jr. and Jefferson L. Williams slid a sleeping bag over Mowhoush's head and rolled him from his back to his stomach while asking questions. Also charged in the death were Sgt. 1st Class William J. Sommer and Spc. Jerry L. Loper.
Four soldiers from Fort Riley, Kan., were charged last month with murder in the deaths of four Iraqi civilians in two incidents. A soldier from 1st Armored Division in Germany has been charged with murder in the fatal shooting of a badly wounded driver for militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Another soldier was sentenced to 25 years in prison last month after pleading guilty to murder in the death of an Iraqi National Guard member. His unit was not identified.

Two other Fort Carson soldiers face courts-martial on manslaughter charges in connection with an unrelated death in Iraq — that of the drowning of an Iraqi civilian in the Tigris River.

Seven members of a separate military police unit face charges in the Abu Ghraib cases, including Pfc. Lynndie England — the female soldier seen in several of the infamous photographs —l who will be court-martialed in January.

In addition to the suspicious deaths in Iraq, the U.S. military is investigating several detainee deaths in Afghanistan.

An official said in September that the military was probing whether American soldiers abused an Afghan detainee so badly that he died last year at a special forces base in southeastern Afghanistan.

The military was already looking into at least three deaths in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, dating back to December 2003. It has yet to release the results of any of the investigations.

But a CIA contractor has been charged in the United States with using a flashlight to beat a prisoner who later died in the eastern town of Asadabad in June 2003.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/25/iraq/main645601.shtml)
(and thats just the ones they know about/have charged. )
I think this one is different to the ones mentioned above:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/15/content_409155.htm)
more on the drowning one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24325-2004Jul2.html)
and i'm sure a couple of british soldiers have also been charged with murders.

bs meter ok now?

of course, they are also abducting german citizens from abroad and taking them to afganistan to interogate:
http://indiamonitor.com/news/readNews.jsp?ni=11651)

I refuse to believe what we're putting them through is torture.Excellent, so now as long as we don't BELIEVE that it's torture, it isn't? "Yes, I am aware you may think we're torturing you by putting these elctrodes on your testicles, but we don't think so, and we want a confession"

Isn't this whole thing about, basically, what rights POW's have? Such things are granted by the Constitution and it's amendments over here, last time I checked. POW's are exempt from this. So are illegal aliens.Never heard of the Geneva conventions? Or are we exempt from those because we're the US of frickin' A?

Can you prove they weren't? Can you prove that they weren't masterminding attacks, or planning them, instead of the narrow "attacking at the time" view? I thought not.Not a big fan of the "Innocent until proven guilty" idea then? Or is that a right only US citizens deserve? The rest of the world is guilty of SOMETHING at this very moment, unless we can absolutely prove otherwise? I'll be sure to inform my friends in other countries that they are currently guilty of crimes against the United States, and should act accordingly.

your incorrect views are understandableI wish I could say the same about yours.

Can you prove they weren't? Can you prove that they weren't masterminding attacks, or planning them, instead of the narrow "attacking at the time" view? I thought not.
There was a case in Norway a long time ago regarding a kid who was put in isolation for 24 hours for carrying a spray can in his backpack. This was during an anti-tagging campaign.

Can you prove he wasn't going to go at some wall with that can? Nope. Should he be put in that cell he was put in? No.

Why not? Because democracy is about proving people guilty, not innocent.

If I carry a knife around in my backpack, maybe I'm going to kill someone - arrest and torture me :eek:!

And you still haven't answered my question: Is it OK to apply the same techniques ("guilty until proven innocent", "torture", and "no trial") to alleged rapists, murderers, robbers, and other non-terrorists suspected of having done something seriously wrong?

Never heard of the Geneva conventions? Or are we exempt from those because we're the US of frickin' A?
It appears so:rolleyes:.

It annoys me no end how the apologists of the Guantanamo torture defend themselves by saying what they're doing is "legal", for then to blatantly disregard the laws and Geneva Conventions in other cases (the bombing of a Pakistani village full of innocents for the sake of killing one single person, for example).

Spider Al: Killing of unarmed prisoners
StaffSaberist: BS level is at 95% now
Not at all. Remember the wounded POWs shot in that mosque some time ago?

And you can say that "it wasn't sanctioned or ordered by officers, so what's the point"?

1. US troops frequently does some very nasty things on this level with orders from above.
2. It is highly suspicious and disgraceful that you hear of atrocities from US troops all the time, and nearly never from those of, say Britain, France, Germany, or the UK. It's the same way person after person in the Republican Party is arrested or outed for some kind of corruption. Maybe Bush isn't behind it, but isn't it slightly alarming when a certain party - any party - has a high level of corruption? Especially when said party has a well-deserved reputation for disregarding civil rights, laws, and the Geneva Conventions?

I love how no torture-apologists addressed Spider Al's "moral law higher than the Constitution" bit...

Excellent, so now as long as we don't BELIEVE that it's torture, it isn't? "Yes, I am aware you may think we're torturing you by putting these elctrodes on your testicles, but we don't think so, and we want a confession"

Wasn't there somethingn about women interrogators smearing "menstrual blood" onto the prisoners to make them confess... something that the Islamic faith finds most offensive?

Let me predict a response to this beforehand: "It's not inhumane."

Right. Let me "defecate" and "piss" on you, then. (Sorry, I'm a dude, no menstrual blood available)

Never heard of the Geneva conventions? Or are we exempt from those because we're the US of frickin' A?

Amen.

Isn't this whole thing about, basically, what rights POW's have? Such things are granted by the Constitution and it's amendments over here, last time I checked. POW's are exempt from this. So are illegal aliens.

I love this logic.

OMG YOU'RE NOT AN AMERICAN! FREE FOR TORTURING! Schweet.

Sleep deprivation causes the neurones in the brain to overheat and suffer damage. Minor sleep deprivation can be recovered from relatively quickly, however major sleep deprivation can cause dementia or developent of permanent personality changes within the first few weeks. Sleep deprivation of several months is fatal.

Quoted for truth. A man recently stayed awake for 11 days. On the fourth day he began experiencing delirium and hallucinations.

The body cannot function without sleep, specifically REM sleep. If you don't dream, you go blah, to put it simply. Grouchiness in the first few days, leads to anger, outbreaks, yes permanent personality changes as toms stated, and eventually your brain goes bonk.

By the by...In litigiation regarding the availability of fundamental rights to those imprisoned at the base, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the detainees "have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control."[1] Therefore, the detainees have the fundamental right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.

In 2004, the Supreme Court rejected this argument in the case Rasul v. Bush brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, with the majority decision and ruled that prisoners in Guantбnamo have access to American courts to challenge the legality of their detention, citing the fact that the U.S. has exclusive control over Guantбnamo Bay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_control.political_cartoon.jpg)

The US constitution explicitly states that it isn't a comprehensive list of all rights, and that there are other rights that exist in addition to those mentioned in the constitution.

Usually foreign citizens are subject to the laws of a country they are in. A US citizen who killed someone int he UK would still be charged with murder.. and if a US citizen came to the UK (legally or illegally) and was killed his killer would still be charged with murder.

I agree completely with the courts that Guantanamo is US territory and therefore subject to US laws. To argue otherwise is plainly using weasly words and technicalities to deny the blatant truth.
US army bases and consulates are considered US territory... its onlybecaue the US base in guantanamo is an illegal occupation that they can claim it isn't. That is using one illegality to justify another.

It strikes me that if Russia or China (or saddam!) was abducting foriegn nationals, imprisoning people in inhumane conditions for questioning, holding people for 5 years without chargin them, keeping people in cages and so on then everyone would be up in arms... but because its the US and you are the "good guys" you find spurious ways to justify it.
I bet the Russians, Chinese and Bath party considered themselves the good guys just doing what had to be done to maintain stability and security as well...

I bet the Russians, Chinese and Bath party considered themselves the good guys just doing what had to be done to maintain stability and security as well...
...and let's not forget that according to Soviet/Iraqi/Chinese law, torture was/is "humane" and legal.

...Prisoners with makeshift weapons battled guards trying to save a detainee pretending to commit suicide at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba....

Once again... I find it really hard to care and I think the UN's time would better be spent unlocking the thousands of political prisoners around the world, not a bunch of people captured on a battlefield without their papers or uniform.

I hope they're real uncomfortable right now as the guards try to find out who planned it.... real uncomfortable. We really should let them have their hunger strikes but instead we treat enemy combatants better than our homeless.


http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/guantanamo_detainees)

Oh yeah. We try to save somebody from killing themselves (how could they know he was pretending?) and we get attacked. I suppose that makes us the SS... :rolleyes:

What the ?

Irrelevant straw man and red herring fallacies?

(reference)
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
~nizkor.org

I tell you what, if i had been stuck in there for four years I'd certainly be trying to hit the guards as hard as i could. Good for them.

I'm sure prisoners in chisese gulags occasionally revolt over their treatment.. that doesn't justify their treatment in any way.

Sorry, what was your point again???

Oh no it's not irrelevant, I'm just trying to show how rediculous and pre madonna it is to shout and cry over Gitmo when there are so many people languishing in prison over simply something they said.

Regardless, those folks were caught on a battlefield...not on their computer blogging or holding protests. Many of them swear to continue their jihad and everyone still has oh so much sympathy for them. People still have sympathy for them when they attempt an attack right in the prison:

I tell you what, if i had been stuck in there for four years I'd certainly be trying to hit the guards as hard as i could. Good for them.

People wonder why conservatives in this country often tell some liberals to move to Canada.....I know Toms is in the UK but there are alot of people that share similar feelings here.

Toms, which side are you on buddy? Is your opposition based on the principles of human rights or do you see the prisoners as minutemen defending their theocratic ideology?


Of course the Americans are the new evil empire...oh we'll come an getcha...watch out!

I'm a little late to be joining in on this debate, but I have a question to those who are for the torturing (or whatever you want to call it): If you crossed the border to Canada and offended the freedom of our country, and we locked you up and tortured you by sleep deprivation and being yelled at and interrogated for hours, would you be glad that we aren't beating you and getting electrodes attached to your crotch, because you're a 'threat to our safety'?

Actually yes I would be. Furthermore the inmates at Gitmo didn't "offend the freedom of our country." Most of them shot at our troops or participated in terrorist actions against coalition forces, including Canadians.

Now...lets just say that I blew a Canadian APC up with an IED and then tried to scurry off and got captured. Well then yes, I would be thankful that you were torchering me with Brian Adams and sleep deprivation rather than electrodes attached to my crotch.

Since I would be an enemy of Canada, I would do anything I could while in prison to hurt Canadians and that includes feigning my suicide to trap a few guards.

Actually yes I would be. Furthermore the inmates at Gitmo didn't "offend the freedom of our country." Most of them shot at our troops or participated in terrorist actions against coalition forces, including Canadians.
Shooting at troops who are 'defending the free world' seems somewhat offensive to me.

Now...lets just say that I blew a Canadian APC up with an IED and then tried to scurry off and got captured. Well then yes, I would be thankful that you were torchering me with Brian Adams and sleep deprivation rather than electrodes attached to my crotch.
But you would still deserve the right of not getting tortured, as a human. Surely you don't want to get yelled at and suffer from lack of sleep until you suffer a personality change or death?

What? Brian Adams? That really offends our Prime Minister, because we aren't that kind. We'd torture you with Celine Dion and force you to eat poutine, as well. Then put you in a room full of beavers with rabese.

Since I would be an enemy of Canada, I would do anything I could while in prison to hurt Canadians and that includes feigning my suicide to trap a few guards.
I can't argue with that, except for one thing: This question was directed to you, not what you would do if you were a terrorist.

Toms, which side are you on buddy? Is your opposition based on the principles of human rights or do you see the prisoners as minutemen defending their theocratic ideology?


In-freaking-credible logic there...

OMG THEY DID SOMETHING BAD SO NOW WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN TORTURE!!!11

...

Come on.

Okay, so let's say just for argument's sake that ALL EVERY SINGLE ONE of the prisoners were found fighting in Afghanistan. That automatically makes them dangerous terrorists right?

How can you know that?

Let's say that you're a young Arab male living in a small Afghan town, and some Taliban fighters come through. They take your family at gunpoint and force you to take a gun and fight for the Taliban. And then you get caught and shipped to Guantanamo... is that fair??

Sound far-fetched? Well how can you possibly know that it is or isn't if no one in Guantanamo is given a trial??

Who said life is fair? Name one 'war' where innocents weren't lost, you won't find one.

What you will find are wars that come close to that ideal, where the 'occupier' attempts and gives it's best shot at that. You can't be perfect, there will always be innocents lost.

The difference is that we try to avoid civilian casualties while they try to inflict them. That's the difference between the American military and the so called insurgents (terrorists).

Agreed. We do not resort to human shields, IEDs, or anything of the kind. Why do you think precision-bombs were invented? Because we are humane.

I'm not going to repeat myself on the severity of sleep-deprevation anymore; you know my opinion by now. However, I would like to address several points.

1. How is the USA "picking" its POWs?

While I cannot speak for any of the soldiers, not being one and not seeing firsthand, I can still say that the US doesn't flip a coin, here. The point that must be gotten across is that those who are taken prisoner were doing something to hinder the U.S. efforts in a usually violent way, either directly or indirectly. If the U.S. did choose at random, anyone who had a long beard would probably be imprisoned. Which everyone knows well is not the case, simply proven by the fact that there are long-bearded Arabs interviewed every day and AFAIK none are in Guantanamo.

So, there has to, at the least, be a system for catching insurgents. What other system will work? As all of us know, the most convenient method is to take prisoner any who attack the U.S. and all who are known to mastermind it. This system is not perfect, as I'll explain in Point 2, but it is as good, really, as we can get.

2. Can innocents forced to fight be captured erroneously?

The easy answer is: Yes! It's perfectly possible (likely, even) that at least, say... 1 in 11 prisoners was imprisoned because he was forced to fight. (Please, don't quote me on the actual number, that's just off the top of my head.) This is regrettable. However, it is impossible to determine who is a legit terrorist and who is an unwilling fighter, for two reasons:

1) He did attack/mastermind an attack after all.

2) Legit terrorists may say that they were unwilling, though they may or may not be lying to get out of prison.

In conclusion, what we do in the process of taking prisoners is far from perfect, but it's like Norton Firewall: Not the best, but better than nothing.

You know, this thread isn't about prisoners fighting back, or even about the methods that the US goes through in picking up the prisoners. It's about the fact that these prisoners are held without formal charges, without notification to anyone, and without a trial.

I do enjoy your efforts at not addressing the points that were brought up, though.

The ad hoc is pretty fun too. "We're not doing anything bad" ... "Yeah, well that's not really torture" ... "It's what's already going on so it's okay" ... "Yeah well life isn't fair"


torcheringI know it's minor, but it's driving me crazy. Torturing. Torture.
Torcher is a noun for someone who sets things on fire with a torch.

Agreed. We do not resort to human shields, IEDs, or anything of the kind. Why do you think precision-bombs were invented? Because we are humane.
So you avoid killing civilians, but the first chance you get you torture captives? Being humane in one way doesn't make you humane in another.

While I cannot speak for any of the soldiers, not being one and not seeing firsthand, I can still say that the US doesn't flip a coin, here. The point that must be gotten across is that those who are taken prisoner were doing something to hinder the U.S. efforts in a usually violent way, either directly or indirectly. If the U.S. did choose at random, anyone who had a long beard would probably be imprisoned. Which everyone knows well is not the case, simply proven by the fact that there are long-bearded Arabs interviewed every day and AFAIK none are in Guantanamo.
I don't know much about army procedures, but I believe a POW is 'picked' surrending (you know, that thing where they drop their guns and put their hands up?) or by still being alive after being rendered unable to fight back (like getting knocked out or having limbs severed). Don't quote me on this.

2. Can innocents forced to fight be captured erroneously?

The easy answer is: Yes! It's perfectly possible (likely, even) that at least, say... 1 in 11 prisoners was imprisoned because he was forced to fight. (Please, don't quote me on the actual number, that's just off the top of my head.) This is regrettable. However, it is impossible to determine who is a legit terrorist and who is an unwilling fighter, for two reasons:

1) He did attack/mastermind an attack after all.

2) Legit terrorists may say that they were unwilling, though they may or may not be lying to get out of prison.
Ever hear of child soldiers? Their all the rage in the Middle East, every dictator wants them. The idea is you run into a village and round up the boys, then you give them a few lessons in using a gun, and voila! instant army. All you need then is some indoctrination and everyone looks evil.

And since you don't know if they're evil or not, why not turn down the stereo a bit and let them get a 10 minute long nap every day or two?

In conclusion, what we do in the process of taking prisoners is far from perfect, but it's like Norton Firewall: Not the best, but better than nothing.
Good to see you can take prisoners, now how about you stop torturing them?

Agreed. We do not resort to human shields, IEDs, or anything of the kind. Why do you think precision-bombs were invented? Because we are humane.

Except when said precision-bomb is sent to a village packed with women and children to kill a couple terrorists hiding among them...

The point that must be gotten across is that those who are taken prisoner were doing something to hinder the U.S. efforts in a usually violent way, either directly or indirectly.

Okay, but why don't they get a trial? Domestic criminals, even when they get caught on tape robbing a store or shooting at cops, still get trials (innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc.). And yet these guys in Guantanamo, as bad as they may or may not be, are just locked up and thrown away the key.

ET: Ad hoc? I know it means for the purpose of... but I don't see what type of fallacy that correlates to... I think that's like status quo where the reasoning is to just let things remain the way they are...

Or maybe appeal to tradition..."we've done it in the past and we've been doing it so it's all good."

I do enjoy your efforts at not addressing the points that were brought up, though.

Seconded.

Someone stole my newspaper the other day. Because someone stole it, I can steal someone else's newspaper.

You know, this thread isn't about prisoners fighting back, or even about the methods that the US goes through in picking up the prisoners. It's about the fact that these prisoners are held without formal charges, without notification to anyone, and without a trial.

I do enjoy your efforts at not addressing the points that were brought up, though.

Oh so instead of looking at the issue holisticaly we need to narrow it down to one thing? Seems to me that you're trying to limit the scope of the debate which reflects rather poorly.

Furthermore it's been explained time and again that THESE PRISONERS DO NOT HAVE POW STATUS.

They have no rights, the very fact that they exist, that we know about them and that they're not in a mass grave is a testament to America's mercy.

I wonder how Chechen prisoners are treated?

I know you tire of examples from across the world but when analyzing controversial issues in American politics I like to read whats going on else where, what other large nations do, to compare.



I know it's minor, but it's driving me crazy. Torturing. Torture.
Torcher is a noun for someone who sets things on fire with a torch.

Thank you for the correction, I constantly misspell that word and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened again.

ET: Ad hoc?In philosophy and science, ad hoc often means the addition of corollary hypotheses or adjustment to a philosophical or scientific theory to save the theory from being falsified by compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.Basically, they just add on to their argument insubstantial items after someone has bunked their original statements to prevent them from having to admit that Gitmo is a violation of basic human rights.
Oh so instead of looking at the issue holisticaly we need to narrow it down to one thing? Seems to me that you're trying to limit the scope of the debate which reflects rather poorly.Not really, I'm trying to prevent you from running the debate in another direction and therefore avoiding having to address any of the points already brought up against your position.
Furthermore it's been explained time and again that THESE PRISONERS DO NOT HAVE POW STATUS.And it's been explained that your definition of them NOT being POW's is at best a tenuous use of semantics.
We are currently engaged in a "War on Terror" If we catch people engaging in terrorist tactics, then they are a prisoner from the terrorist side of the "War on Terror". Saying that they don't count and therefore have NO rights just because they didn't have matching uniforms is ridiculous.
And even IF your semantics game wasn't lunacy, and they DON'T qualify as Prisoners of War, and technically have no rights, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have rights.
and that they're not in a mass grave is a testament to America's mercy. I sincerely hope that was at least a LITTLE bit of a joke. We didn't kill them, so look at our mercy? Even though we haven't proven any of them guilty of any crimes, we still are within our rights to just shoot them and bury them?

And I DON'T want to hear what other countries do with their prisoners. Just because we're not as bad as someone else, doesn't make us good. It just makes us slightly less bad.

Regardless, those folks were caught on a battlefield...not on their computer blogging or holding protests. I already covered that, but OK:

Do you know that? Heck, until only recently the public didn't even know the names of the captives! As I already said, the Road to Guantanamo captives are but one example. Sent to Guantanamo and tortured simply for being in a certain mosque?

Oh my God, look at all those people in that gun shop, they must be there because they're planning to buy guns to overthrow the government! Off to Guantanamo with 'em:rolleyes:!

They have no rights, the very fact that they exist, that we know about them and that they're not in a mass grave is a testament to America's mercy.
Already been refuted. Read my refutation, and the refutations of the others here, and address them instead of merely re-stating what you've already said.

Who said life is fair?
I hate that clichй "argument":mad:.
It doesn't work here, budd'. Nice try, though.

Name one 'war' where innocents weren't lost, you won't find one.I'm thinking maybe the invasion of Denmark by the Nazis? It lasted only a few hours, with little resistance. But all that's off-topic. "People die in wars no matter how hard we try, so we can torture people" is a fallacious argument.

What you will find are wars that come close to that ideal, where the 'occupier' attempts and gives it's best shot at that.And then there's the US, bombing whole villages to kill a single Al-Q'aida officer, torturing prisoners, and generally not giving a damn about casualties, Geneva Conventions, the UN, civil rights, or anything else in their way.

The difference is that we try to avoid civilian casualties (...)
That's new to me.

That's the difference between the American military and the so called insurgents '(terrorists).'
What about insurgents who snipe American troops, lay mines in the path of British armour, and so on?

Toms, which side are you on buddy? Is your opposition based on the principles of human rights or do you see the prisoners as minutemen defending their theocratic ideology?
Toms is on the side of civil rights, freedom, liberty, and so on. He's not defending their cause, he's defending their rights as human beings. Big difference.

People wonder why conservatives in this country often tell some liberals to move to Canada.....I know Toms is in the UK but there are alot of people that share similar feelings here.

I'm not at all surprised that your response to people who question your viewpoint would be to tell them to get the hell out of the country... its strange that those who claim to be most fervently in favour of freedom and democracy never seem to actually have any respect for the values they represent.
Anyone who tells liberals (or republicans, or anyone else) to "move to canada" loses all rights to voice their viewpoint.

Toms, which side are you on buddy? Is your opposition based on the principles of human rights or do you see the prisoners as minutemen defending their theocratic ideology?
Not yours.
My UNDERSTANDING is based on the fact that I feel that prisoners taken from their own country, put in cages, tortured and held without trial have every right to attempt to fight back and escape.
I certainly would if I was in their position.

You brought up china previously. I suggest that YOU go to china, stand up for the rights of minorities and political activists.. stand in front of troops in tiananmen... get put in some chinese jail and treated inhumanely, possibly tortured, denied the right to a fair trial and see then how you feel about attempting to escape or fight back.
Not that you would have any of my sympathy as you would plainly be supporting enemies of the state, trying to undermine the government and obstructing the military from carrying out its patriotic duty.

Of course the Americans are the new evil empire...oh we'll come an getcha...watch out!
Don't like it? Then don't act like one.

Amnesty Internation condemns the US (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/23/amnesty.report.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)

You brought up china previously. I suggest that YOU go to china, stand up for the rights of minorities and political activists.. stand in front of troops in tiananmen... get put in some chinese jail and treated inhumanely, possibly tortured, denied the right to a fair trial and see then how you feel about attempting to escape or fight back.
Not that you would have any of my sympathy as you would plainly be supporting enemies of the state, trying to undermine the government and obstructing the military from carrying out its patriotic duty.

Wait wait wait wait... Let me make a pre-emptive guess as to the rebuttal...

"but you're not doing any terrorist activities or any violence so it's not justified!"


edit - ET: Thanks for clearing that up for me :)

I'm not at all surprised that your response to people who question your viewpoint would be to tell them to get the hell out of the country... its strange that those who claim to be most fervently in favour of freedom and democracy never seem to actually have any respect for the values they represent.
Anyone who tells liberals (or republicans, or anyone else) to "move to canada" loses all rights to voice their viewpoint.
Exactly.

"Guantanamo prison camp is an aberration under international law," Khan told AP. "It places people outside the rule of law. And it sends a message to other regimes around the world -- like Egypt or China -- that they too can ignore human rights. They too can lock people up in the name of national security."Exactly. Just like when the US invaded Iraq is created precedence that said "yes, it is OK to invade sovereign nations pre-emptively in violation of UN law!".

Growl.

Released by the ACLU? The same ACLU that attempted to make part of the pledge unconstitutional, for whatever reason?

Yep. That ACLU. The same ACLU, BTW, that defended the bastard Falwell... And the same ACLU that has repeatedly defended the rights of students to pray in extracurricular settings...

I am amused, but I somehow doubt that the ACLU is above falsifying a document or twisting its meaning.

Quite a claim. Perchance you could procure some - you know - evidence that the ACLU has done so in the past? Or are you just pissed with them because they wiped their ass with Behe in Dover?

Your article uses the ACLU as a source, and the ACLU is quite biased.

Biased. You use that word quite a lot. Please, do tell, in which way is the ACLU biased? And - perhaps more importantly - in which way does that affect the validity of their case?

If you don't like the messenger, go to the primary source.

(BTW, Why the hell does the ACLU need so many damn websites? I find it funny that republicans need only one,

Uh-huh (http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/02/just-released-campaign-finance-reports.html)

Only one website indeed...

Regardless of whether [the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp is] right or wrong, I think Amnesty Intl. and the rest are wasting their time on 300 [prisoners of war] when they could be leveling criticism on China for jailing innocent bloggers.

I quote the Amnesty International 2006 Yearly Report (http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/chn-summary-eng) [emphasis mine]:

The authorities became increasingly intolerant of reporting which covered sensitive issues or questioned government policies. There was a renewed crackdown on journalists and the media. Those reporting on sensitive issues or who challenged the status quo were at risk of dismissal, arbitrary detention or imprisonment. Broadly defined “state secrets” offences continued to be used to prosecute journalists and reporters. Restrictions on Internet use were tightened and dozens of people remained behind bars for accessing or circulating politically sensitive information on-line.

* Journalist Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in prison in April for leaking “state secrets”. He had posted to an overseas website Communist Party instructions on how journalists should handle the 15th anniversary of the crackdown on the 1989 pro-democracy movement.

Hardly a positive review. But perhaps you'll claim that the Amnesty is responsible for the relative paucity of media coverage of their own reports?

Or how about North Korea's real gulags?

Same report (http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/prk-summary-eng) :

Hundreds of North Koreans forcibly returned from China faced detention, torture or ill-treatment, and up to three years’ imprisonment in appalling conditions.

Prisoners reportedly died from malnutrition in labour camps for political prisoners and in detention centres, which were severely overcrowded. Prisoners charged with breaking prison rules had their food cut even further.

Nope, no criticism of the PRK at all. No, sir.

How about Belarus?

Still the same report (http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/blr-summary-eng) [and still my emphasis]:

Opposition groups were harassed and threatened. Protests at the failure of investigations into the “disappearances” of four people, widely believed to have been killed by state agents, were among those that law enforcement officers suppressed with excessive force.

* The youth opposition movement Zubr recorded 417 incidents of harassment, including detention, of their members by the authorities between January and December. Three members were expelled from educational establishments for their political activities.
* In April police Special Forces (OMON) beat and detained peaceful demonstrators who had gathered on the 19th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. A 14-year-old boy was allegedly pulled into a police van, so forcefully that ligaments in his hand were torn, and threatened for wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan “Free Marinich”.
* On 7 July police dispersed a demonstration to commemorate the anniversary of the “disappearance” of television camera operator Dmitry Zavadsky in 2000. His wife, Svetlana Zavadskaya, was reportedly punched in the face by riot police officers.
* On 16 September police attempted to disrupt a demonstration to observe the anniversary of the “disappearance” of opposition leaders Viktor Gonchar and Anatoly Krasovsky in 1999, and reportedly beat five Zubr protesters. One of them, Mikita Sasim, was treated in hospital for head injuries.

But no, sirree, the Amnesty only criticises peaceloving democratic countries.

You want to hear something funny? These reports were only a single Google search away. Wanna make a pool on how long it took to find them?

Furthermore, people in Gitmo were captured on a battlefield known as Afganistan. When someone is taken into custody during a war by a Geneva Convention signatory they are awarded rights only if:

1. They have papers proving that they are a soldier with a Geneva signatory.

2. They are wearing a uniform.

Funny that... Which Geneva Convention do you refer to? I happen to have found the text of the Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) that the rest of us refer to... (and that wasn't too hard either). I quote:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

[...]

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.

And:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Please, do comment on this turn of the evidence. I would really like to see you [s]try to weasel your way out of ignore outright appropriately consider this very much unbiased and primary evidence.

And yes, for the record, I will hold you to this. In every single friggin' thread, and every single friggin' response I make to one of your posts, until you have satisfied either my request that you comment on what's actually written in the Geneva Convention and its consequence for the legality of the Guantanamo Bay Holding Facility (and the similiar internment camps around the world). Or until Hell freezes over. Or until I become convinced that you're just another troll like rccar. Whichever comes first.

I'm tired of seing dishonest reich-wing shills dodge and weave and obfusticate whenever somebody pins them to the wall with solid evidence.

Combatants on the battlefield that are caught without their papers or uniform are considered spies at best.

This means that they can be lined up and shot immediately after there capture. This also means that the victor can torcher, degrade and basically do what ever they wish with the captured soldier.

Even if your classification were correct, which it manifestly is not, torture and degrading treatment of human being is still illegal (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm). (Link courtesy of the Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims (http://www.rct.dk/?sc_lang=en).)

Instead, we put them up in Gitmo. They live in conditions that would be heaven compared to how the homeless in this country live

Which is either patently false or telling as to the nature of American society. Considering that much of America is really a developing country, I'm inclined towards the latter interpretation...

Detainees in Gitmo are LUCKY to be there. They are LUCKY that they are torchered with sound, sleep deprivation..etc instead of electrodes on their crotch.

Oh, quite... They're lucky they're not in Abu Ghraib... Because there people are being tortured with electrodes on their privates.

Furthermore many detainees at Gitmo have vowed to continue their Jihad.

Hard numbers, bitte. And credible sources.

I know that I'm going to get a wave of criticism for this piece, feel free too... I'll be happy to respond.

I certainly do hope that you will... In particular the part about the real Geneva Conventions - as opposed to the FuxNewts-inspired faux ones you cited...

But I would prefer if you'd ditch the attempt to invoke the feeling that you're part of some unfairly-persecuted-and-besieged-minority. I've had enough of that kind of crap from people like you over the years, and I'm quite fed up with it, thank you very much.

The issue isn't keeping them in prison, it's treating them humanely in prison. And I'm all for that.

Excuse me? The issue is very much that they are being kept in prison without a friggin' trial. That's against the Geneva Convention, it's against the International Charter of Human rights, it flies in the face of your own friggin' Declaration of Independence (which, I know, is not a legal document - then again, considering the breathtaking arrogance displayed by certain players on the international stage, I sometimes wonder if the UN Charter is a legal document, or just something Bush and Blair (and Fogh) wipe their asses with...).

Major edit: Merged my three consecutive posts into one.

Our Search for Security Post-9/11 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5381698503276912483&q=guantanamo).

Various speakers on the post-9/11 environment. A recommended watch if only for how Carol rebutts the "ticking time-bomb argument" of 24 at 1:23:50.

- - -

There's an article up at the thinking place (http://tenkestedet.blogspot.com/) on why I feel torture should never be allowed. It draws on statements from ACLU, Amnesty, and Civil Rights Watch. It's in Norwegian, but I can translate it if anyone's interested.

Furthermore many detainees at Gitmo have vowed to continue their Jihad.I noticed that, too: The victims of that particular kind of mercy have a tendency to develop this inexplicable hatred of the people handing out said mercy. It holds true for people at Guantanamo, abused prisoners in US jails (another far-too-common problem), and torture victims elsewhere in the world. Most of them for some inexplicable reason decide they want to kill the people taking care of them.

Not that I get it. If I was an Islamic prisoner and this merciful, friendly democracy tortured me, I'd worship them for the rest of my life. Especially if they routinely desecrated my Holy Book:confused:.

Seriously, though: It doesn't shouldn't take rocket scientists to gather that when you torture someone, you produce animosity towards yourself. Try beating someone up on the street and see how friendly they are towards you afterwards.

- - -

Yet another very good speech on torture (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1538516179827521093&q=search+for+security).

The torture test (http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/torturetest/) (I got 5 of 5:cool: ).

- - -

I translated my article on torture, just out of interest:

When every second does not count
- why torture is illegal

In 24, every second counts. In reality, we've more time than that.

I'm currently planning a new TV series. It will revolve around the CTU unit in America, and will cover, hour by hour, the work of preventing a major terrorist attack. And it will be named 113880, after the number of hours from beginning to end.

That is, after all, how many hours it actually took to plan 9/11. 24 times 365 days times 13 years. Plus the extra days I did not include, which are caused by the phenomena of leap years. Not 24 hours.

I would like to thank right-wing-oriented FOX for giving me idea with their series 24, where Jack Bauer runs a torture centre to prevent an attack that will happen if the Geneva Convention isn't soundly broken and the "Amnesty Global" representative isn't tricked out of the building. Miracolously, it turns out that 99% of those who are put in custody (save from that one innocent employee) possess critical information about where the evil Arabs have hidden the atomic bomb. It also turns out that the only way to make them talk is to expose them to torture that'd make Red China's elite torturists blush.

The problem with 24 is that, according to focus groups performed by ACLU, a very large number of Americans have decided that torture can be allowed - and the main thing that convinced them, believe it or not, was the series 24.

It's been said that violent movies and games cause violence, and in this case it's actually true: A load of Americans support the Guantanamo torture due to the "ticking time-bomb scenario". This argument pictures a ticking bomb and asks if it might not be right to torture one single terrorist to save the lives of thousands of people.

Besides from the fact that most of those who are getting tortured in Guantanamo do not possess valuable information regarding common attacks, the main problem of the argument is that it does not actually take place in reality. We see this easier if we break the argument into, say, serven parts. In order to torture someone with the ticking time bomb-scenario as your justification, these points must be true:

There has to exist a bomb.
The bomb must actually go off unless disarmed.
The bomb must be able to be disarmed if found.
a. The prisoner you torture must know where the bomb is.
b. His cohorts must not have removed, detonated, or disarmed it since then.
The prisoner, when tortured, must reveal truthfully where the bomb is.
If you get the information out of the prisoner, you still need to have time to disarm the bomb.
There must be no other way of finding the bomb.

This scenario, with these seven points, has never and will never take place in reality. There is never going to be a moment where you only have a few hours left and must torture one or more detainees to learn where the bomb is.

Second, year-long research has shown one frightening thing: Torture cannot be controlled. If you give the go to practice torture only in emergencies, the requirements for when torture is allowed will become more and more loose, and the torture less and less mild. No one, not even the civilized democracies of Israel and USA, have ever managed to regulate and restrict torture. The research project "Stanford Prison Experiment" yielded the same result.

Where CTU in 24 can tame and regulate torture and only use it when it can save the world, reality is quite different. Torture control is like the control of a roaring avalanche, a sky-high tsunami-wave, or a run-away hundred-car freight train on its way down a long, steep slope.

That is why torture is never right.
That is why torture is illegal.

Source Material:
• Our Search for Security Post 9/11: Reflections on the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Beyond ("the ticking time-bomb argument is discussed in greater detail from 1:23:50).
• Amnesty International's "torture test").
• Stanford Prison Experiment.

Luckily in 24 they always seem to be torturing real bad guys, not mistakenly torturing innocent people.

It will be interesting to see the next series of 24, where it appears the shoe may be on the other foot, as it looks like Jack is going to be imprisoned and tortured by the chinese authorities.. i wonder if that will be seen as a good thing?

It occurs to me that the countries that use torture HAVE been those that are most secure: communist russia, iran, syria, china, north korea, iraq. With their torture and secret police they have definately been more secure.. or amybe thats because they are also the countries with no freedom.

Oh and Dagobahn, even IF detainees are being [tortured,] I couldn't care less.

They're not from a standing army and they fight like cowards.Yeah, they hide among civilians, fail to wear uniforms, and set up ambushes. Pretty much like these guys:
http://www.umass.edu/loop/images/upload/4232/Minute%20Man.jpg)

Before you bite my head off, I'm not suggesting any moral relation between the minutemen and the partisans in, say, Lebanon. But their fighting methods, which you condemn, are more or less exactly the same as those your minutemen and Norway's resistance fighters used - except, of course, they didn't routinely kill civilians.

But yes, that's a statue of a cowardly Minuteman terrorist. Hiding among civilians in his cabin, fighting without uniform, hiding in bushes and then attacking without warning. They even attacked a merchant ship carrying tea and threw the cargo overboard (surely if Hezbollah fighters stormed a US ship carrying Coca-Cola in a Lebanese dock and threw it all on the sea, you'd call it terrorism?). So, Bush-supporters, it's your job to re-write "1775 American Revolution" to "1775 War on Terror" in all US History textbooks.

Yet another reason to hate France, too: They supported the Minuteman terrorist units. They hated the fact, like the Minutemen did, that King George loved freedom:(.

To illustrate my point further, here's what FOX News might have reported if they had been a British channel and the TV had been invented at the time:
http://www.upcheer.com/images/foxnews/foxnews29.jpg)

Combatants on the battlefield that are caught without their papers or uniform are considered spies at best.

This means that they can be lined up and shot immediately after there capture. This also means that the victor can torcher, degrade and basically do what ever they wish with the captured soldier.Funny, then, how the US was so furious a few years ago when the crew of an AWACS plane over Chinese airspace crashed following a collision with a Chinese fighter jet and its crew of spies was detained by Red Chinese authorities. And those spies weren't even tortured.

So it's OK to detain and torture foreign "spies", but captured US spies need to be swiftly released. Hm-m-m:confused:.

To be honest, I can't tell if that is sarcasm or not. However, I will say this: I believe that it was good that it was brought up, but it needs to drop. There are other world events in the world. I find it highly disturbing that the Guantanamo story has been covered more than five times as much as the 9/11 attacks. Oh, 3,000+ civilians dead? Meh, a week's coverage, since it's extra big. However, the idea that there may be a mistreatment of POW's? Gets more coverage than I can count; it feels like more than a year.Just thought I'd address this before the thread died off.

You know what the people who survived 9/11, and the friends and family of those who died say? That there's too much coverage of 9/11. One girl who lost her father reported that her favourite channel post-9/11 was the Cooking Channel (or whatever its name). Not because she liked to cook, but because she had found out, after an eternity of browsing the channels, that it was the only "safe" channel to watch - the only one that did not broadcast her father's death.

Coverage≠Respect for victims. And that goes for all instances whe people die or get scarred for life.

Guantбnamo's still being covered because it's still going on. Once the base stops abusing prisoners and the guilty are out of office, the coverage will stop. Until then, keep it up.