Full Version: Treatment of Gitmo Prisoners
The United States has once again been shot at by Amnesty International for the treatment of Gitmo Prisoners
Question to all:
Do you think Gitmo Prisioners are being treated fairly?
Question to all:
Do you think Gitmo Prisioners are being treated fairly?
Goamerica, can you please provide a link with information regarding Amnesty International's claims? 
QUOTE(goamerica @ Mar 5 2003, 05:14 PM)
The United States has once again been shot at by Amnesty International for the treatment of Gitmo Prisoners
Question to all:
Do you think Gitmo Prisioners are being treated fairly?
Question to all:
Do you think Gitmo Prisioners are being treated fairly?
If they're still breathing then they're getting better treatment than they gave their victims.
Funny, I could have sworn that the 9/11 hijackers were all killed.
They're soldiers in a war. They declared war on the West AND the U.S. declared war on them. So why are they not treated as Prisoners of War?
They're soldiers in a war. They declared war on the West AND the U.S. declared war on them. So why are they not treated as Prisoners of War?
They are terrorists and I have no sympathy for them.
How are SOLDIERS fighting a WAR terrorists?
Besides, the debate isn't whether or not you respect them. The U.S. was a willing participant in the Geneva convention and should be held up to that standard. The line between the forces of "good" and "evil" (as postulated by the current U.S. administration) can only be blurred by a contravention of rights that the U.S. promised to guarantee over 50 years ago.
Besides, the debate isn't whether or not you respect them. The U.S. was a willing participant in the Geneva convention and should be held up to that standard. The line between the forces of "good" and "evil" (as postulated by the current U.S. administration) can only be blurred by a contravention of rights that the U.S. promised to guarantee over 50 years ago.
Camp Delta frightens me. It is a disappearance camp. We do not know what goes on there. We do not know who is there. This is a dangerous type of activity to let our government practice with no limits. Detainees need to have some type of legal status. They need some type of due process. And we need to better define how we are going to treat the different categories of suspects, combatants, terrorists, and people who have valuable information. All of these things should be able to be evaluated by either congress or the judicial system. If this requires new rules or a new type of due process, let's make one. Those people have families and they have natural rights. If they are guilty let's process them.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 6 2003, 03:02 AM)
How are SOLDIERS fighting a WAR terrorists?
Besides, the debate isn't whether or not you respect them. The U.S. was a willing participant in the Geneva convention and should be held up to that standard. The line between the forces of "good" and "evil" (as postulated by the current U.S. administration) can only be blurred by a contravention of rights that the U.S. promised to guarantee over 50 years ago.
Besides, the debate isn't whether or not you respect them. The U.S. was a willing participant in the Geneva convention and should be held up to that standard. The line between the forces of "good" and "evil" (as postulated by the current U.S. administration) can only be blurred by a contravention of rights that the U.S. promised to guarantee over 50 years ago.
Al Qaeda operatives aren't soldiers, they're terrorists. The geneva convention protects prisoners of war, it does not protect terrorists.
Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war if they are members of a state's uniformed or indentifiable armed forces that abides by the laws of war. Al-Qaeda members, who neither wear identifying insignia nor abide by the laws of war, do not qualify.
Are they still people? What is our legal definition of a terrorist? Are all people at Camp Delta Al-Qaeda members? Did the Taliban soldiers not qualify as combatants? Is it not scary to create non-entities inside our system? If the government thought I was asking about the ingredients t a dirty bomb is it fair that they nab me and place me in this non-entity status and deprive me of due process without having to prove anything before a judge?
This stuff frightens me.
This stuff frightens me.
QUOTE
Al Qaeda operatives aren't soldiers, they're terrorists. The geneva convention protects prisoners of war, it does not protect terrorists.
Paladin is correct. According to Army Field Manual 27-10 The Law of Land Warfare, which was written to embody the Uniform Code of Military Justice, The Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention states:
QUOTE
80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities
Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.
81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.
82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted, committed, or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.
Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.
81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.
82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted, committed, or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.
So by these clauses we should be trying those caught by our military and punishing them. Do you interpret this to mean that torture is acceptable if these non-soldiers are captured? Doesn't the reference to the military manual imply that this is in the context of an official military act? If not we could wave due process for many civilian criminals in the US?
QUOTE
Doesn't the reference to the military manual imply that this is in the context of an official military act? If not we could wave due process for many civilian criminals in the US?
This manual encompasses the laws and regulations that bind our military forces in the performance of their duties in a wartime environment. This would not, and has never been applicable to US civilians in domestic civil crime.
Are all Gitmo prisoners under this classification? Don't these regulations imply that there is a requisite due process even if it is an execution?
Here's another look at that document DTOM provided. (Good link.) Pay close attention to the passages that I have underlined.
There is nothing in there about detaining them indefinitely without and legal proceedings, either military or otherwise.
And as was said earlier, what of the Taliban fighters. They surely fall under the category of soldiers.
QUOTE
80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities
Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.
81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.
82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted, committed, or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.
Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.
81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.
82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted, committed, or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.
There is nothing in there about detaining them indefinitely without and legal proceedings, either military or otherwise.
And as was said earlier, what of the Taliban fighters. They surely fall under the category of soldiers.
If, as Joe says, they are soldiers, then their treatment is a flagrant contravention of the Geneva Convention.
If, as Paladin says, they are terrorists, then that must surely be proven by due process of law, which means that their detainment is a flagrant contravention of the principle of Habeas Corpus, which is a cornerstone of Western law
Either way, their detainment and treatment are flagrant violations of basic human rights.
Is the US really ready to become what it purports to despise? Are the American people really ready to allow their government to take that step?
If, as Paladin says, they are terrorists, then that must surely be proven by due process of law, which means that their detainment is a flagrant contravention of the principle of Habeas Corpus, which is a cornerstone of Western law
Either way, their detainment and treatment are flagrant violations of basic human rights.
Is the US really ready to become what it purports to despise? Are the American people really ready to allow their government to take that step?
Actually JonBon, if this was a declared war, then the Geneva Convention of war would apply to the prisoners of GITMO. Also, like DTOM said:
QUOTE
Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.
I thought the US wanted these people treated as P.O.W's because then as P.O.W's they do not get as much legal loop-holes to jump through as under civilian law(s). I.e. As a P.O.W., a lawyer need not be present during interogation and the like.
I've read of (Might have been this CNN report) that the U.S. is using tactics such as sleep deprovation and seperation as means of pressure. Isn't this more psychological and not physical. And IMHO....."Humane"?
It's not like they're shoving bamboo stalks in their fingernails.
I've read of (Might have been this CNN report) that the U.S. is using tactics such as sleep deprovation and seperation as means of pressure. Isn't this more psychological and not physical. And IMHO....."Humane"?
It's not like they're shoving bamboo stalks in their fingernails.
GoAmerica
You have made my point for me. They are not being imprisoned as soldiers which means they are subject to due legal process - which means entitlement to a fair trial.
You have made my point for me. They are not being imprisoned as soldiers which means they are subject to due legal process - which means entitlement to a fair trial.
Gitmo/ Camp X ray appears to be the modern American equivalent of the old Soviet Gulags. I don't understand how the American legal system or the American political system can allow it to exist.
I don't know how many times I've read and seen examples of how American's felt ashamed of how the Japanese Americans were treated during world war two, and exclaimed that it must never happen again...
Is it just my imagination or are we seeing the same thing happening again?
I don't know how many times I've read and seen examples of how American's felt ashamed of how the Japanese Americans were treated during world war two, and exclaimed that it must never happen again...
Is it just my imagination or are we seeing the same thing happening again?
QUOTE
Posted on Mar 6 2003, 09:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gitmo/ Camp X ray appears to be the modern American equivalent of the old Soviet Gulags. I don't understand how the American legal system or the American political system can allow it to exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gitmo/ Camp X ray appears to be the modern American equivalent of the old Soviet Gulags. I don't understand how the American legal system or the American political system can allow it to exist.
I think one key point here is that they are not US citizens, excepting the one or two who are in the brig in Charleston, SC. The Soviets did this to their own citizens for trumped up or nonexistent crimes. I don't feel that this is an accurate comparison.
In my opinion, not being a lawyer, Taliban fighters at Gitmo, may be covered under Geneva, although the Taliban regime was only recognized as a legitimate nation by Pakistan. But Al-Queda fighters are not of an organized or national army or militia. They assuredly will be tried, but by a military tribunal, not unlike the Nuremburg trials.
Okay so they help kill 3000 people and we want to put them in a five star hotel. Gee wiz, if they aren't dead, then we are treating them with the minimum respect that should be allowed, it's what they deserve.
CP
CP
Dontreadonme
I'm fairly sure that more than just Russians were sent to Siberia.
And how do you know why any one, or even who exactly is being held at Camp X ray?
CP
How did they help kill 3,000 people?
(editted to add a response to CP)
QUOTE
I think one key point here is that they are not US citizens, excepting the one or two who are in the brig in Charleston, SC. The Soviets did this to their own citizens for trumped up or nonexistent crimes. I don't feel that this is an accurate comparison.
I'm fairly sure that more than just Russians were sent to Siberia.
And how do you know why any one, or even who exactly is being held at Camp X ray?
CP
QUOTE
Okay so they help kill 3000 people and we want to put them in a five star hotel. Gee wiz, if they aren't dead, then we are treating them with the minimum respect that should be allowed, it's what they deserve.
How did they help kill 3,000 people?
(editted to add a response to CP)
QUOTE(moif @ Mar 6 2003, 03:52 PM)
Dontreadonme
I'm fairly sure that more than just Russians were sent to Siberia.
And how do you know why any one, or even who exactly is being held at Camp X ray?
CP
How did they help kill 3,000 people?
(editted to add a response to CP)
QUOTE
I think one key point here is that they are not US citizens, excepting the one or two who are in the brig in Charleston, SC. The Soviets did this to their own citizens for trumped up or nonexistent crimes. I don't feel that this is an accurate comparison.
I'm fairly sure that more than just Russians were sent to Siberia.
And how do you know why any one, or even who exactly is being held at Camp X ray?
CP
QUOTE
Okay so they help kill 3000 people and we want to put them in a five star hotel. Gee wiz, if they aren't dead, then we are treating them with the minimum respect that should be allowed, it's what they deserve.
How did they help kill 3,000 people?
(editted to add a response to CP)
They are, terrorists, aren't they, God only knows whether or not they were connected to Al-Qaeda.
CP
God only knows because if they do have "ties" with al-quada they may expect to break out and it may occur, but how will they get back to america?
I think it is interesting to see how our definitions of "terrorist" and "war" have changed. It used to be a common understanding that to treat terrorists as anything other than criminals was to give their motives for terrorism too much credence and recognition. The rule of law, applied to terrorists in the same way as to murderers, lessens the political impact and context of the terrorist act.
Now, we are engaging terrorism as "war," which in my opinion gives them more legitimacy. However, though we have changed our response to terrorism, we now want to treat them as neither soldiers or criminals.
If we are to engage the Taliban (for example) on the battlefield, and during battle treat them as enemy soldiers, then when they are captured, it's a bit of a cop-out to treat them in ways not mandated by the Geneva Convention.
I think that this nebulous new status we are giving our enemies is a dangerous precedent.
If we feel that, given a fair trial, these men would not be convicted, then either 1) the government does not have sufficient evidence against them, or 2) our own government feels that trial by jury and criminal justice codes in the US are irreperably broken, which is bad news for just about everyone.
Now, we are engaging terrorism as "war," which in my opinion gives them more legitimacy. However, though we have changed our response to terrorism, we now want to treat them as neither soldiers or criminals.
If we are to engage the Taliban (for example) on the battlefield, and during battle treat them as enemy soldiers, then when they are captured, it's a bit of a cop-out to treat them in ways not mandated by the Geneva Convention.
I think that this nebulous new status we are giving our enemies is a dangerous precedent.
If we feel that, given a fair trial, these men would not be convicted, then either 1) the government does not have sufficient evidence against them, or 2) our own government feels that trial by jury and criminal justice codes in the US are irreperably broken, which is bad news for just about everyone.
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Mar 6 2003, 04:02 PM)
QUOTE(moif @ Mar 6 2003, 03:52 PM)
Dontreadonme
I'm fairly sure that more than just Russians were sent to Siberia.
And how do you know why any one, or even who exactly is being held at Camp X ray?
CP
How did they help kill 3,000 people?
(editted to add a response to CP)
QUOTE
I think one key point here is that they are not US citizens, excepting the one or two who are in the brig in Charleston, SC. The Soviets did this to their own citizens for trumped up or nonexistent crimes. I don't feel that this is an accurate comparison.
I'm fairly sure that more than just Russians were sent to Siberia.
And how do you know why any one, or even who exactly is being held at Camp X ray?
CP
QUOTE
Okay so they help kill 3000 people and we want to put them in a five star hotel. Gee wiz, if they aren't dead, then we are treating them with the minimum respect that should be allowed, it's what they deserve.
How did they help kill 3,000 people?
(editted to add a response to CP)
They are, terrorists, aren't they, God only knows whether or not they were connected to Al-Qaeda.
CP
Conservpat, are you suggesting that every member of a criminal organization is responsible for all of the acts of said organization? That seems like a bit of a stretch under any understanding of ANY legal system and borders on retributional logic.
QUOTE(moif @ Mar 6 2003, 03:29 PM)
Gitmo/ Camp X ray appears to be the modern American equivalent of the old Soviet Gulags. I don't understand how the American legal system or the American political system can allow it to exist.
I don't know how many times I've read and seen examples of how American's felt ashamed of how the Japanese Americans were treated during world war two, and exclaimed that it must never happen again...
Is it just my imagination or are we seeing the same thing happening again?
I don't know how many times I've read and seen examples of how American's felt ashamed of how the Japanese Americans were treated during world war two, and exclaimed that it must never happen again...
Is it just my imagination or are we seeing the same thing happening again?
I don't think its the same thing, as there are notable differences between the Japanese who were interred and the detainees at Gitmo.
The Japanese were for the most part American citizens, who had rights that are guaranteed by that citizenship trampled upon largely because of racial prejudices. They also had done nothing to aid the enemy.
The detainees at Gitmo aren't American citizens, and they actively fought against the United States and its allies. They are detained because they belong to a terrorist organization, not because of any racial or religious prejudice.
QUOTE(Hercules @ Mar 6 2003, 07:56 AM)
I thought the US wanted these people treated as P.O.W's
A declaration of war has not been declared, so therefore, they can not be considered POW's.
QUOTE(Paladin @ Mar 6 2003, 01:43 PM)
The detainees at Gitmo aren't American citizens, and they actively fought against the United States and its allies. They are detained because they belong to a terrorist organization, not because of any racial or religious prejudice.
Have you seen a published report that says that all detainees in Gitmo actively fought against the United States and its allies?
Are they all proven members of a terrorist organization?
I haven't seen the proof. There have been no reports of proceedings proving these accusations to be true. There only seems to be a claim that we got hit by a really really bad terrorist attack and we can make up the rules as we go from now on.
They may not be due my due process rights, but some type of process should be created. More than that it should have been created long ago.
Paladin
And why do you suppose this makes a difference? As Human beings, they are entitled to Human rights, no matter what they have or have not done.
If you put them in a camp, without trial, and detain them against their will, then it IS the same thing. Your motives, or theirs do not excuse your actions.
QUOTE
I don't think its the same thing, as there are notable differences between the Japanese who were interred and the detainees at Gitmo.
The Japanese were for the most part American citizens, who had rights that are guaranteed by that citizenship trampled upon largely because of racial prejudices. They also had done nothing to aid the enemy.
The detainees at Gitmo aren't American citizens, and they actively fought against the United States and its allies. They are detained because they belong to a terrorist organization, not because of any racial or religious prejudice.
The Japanese were for the most part American citizens, who had rights that are guaranteed by that citizenship trampled upon largely because of racial prejudices. They also had done nothing to aid the enemy.
The detainees at Gitmo aren't American citizens, and they actively fought against the United States and its allies. They are detained because they belong to a terrorist organization, not because of any racial or religious prejudice.
And why do you suppose this makes a difference? As Human beings, they are entitled to Human rights, no matter what they have or have not done.
If you put them in a camp, without trial, and detain them against their will, then it IS the same thing. Your motives, or theirs do not excuse your actions.
QUOTE
If you put them in a camp, without trial, and detain them against their will, then it IS the same thing. Your motives, or theirs do not excuse your actions.
I think these individuals are at a higher risk of danger. Both to themselves and to us. Look what happened to our own little "American-Taliban". He got attacked in jail. Could you imagine what would happen to these confirmed Taliban and Al-Queda prisoners if they were put into a normal lock-down awaiting trial? I'm sure they will commit suicide by stabbing themselves in the back of the head 50 times....
On the other side of the fence, these are not guys who skipped out on parking tickets. I think the major reason is to keep them seperated and to severe the terrorist network as much as possible. Yes I realize the innocent might suffer with the guilty in this method. But what more efective means are available??
QUOTE(Paladin @ Mar 6 2003, 07:43 PM)
The detainees at Gitmo aren't American citizens, and they actively fought against the United States and its allies. They are detained because they belong to a terrorist organization, not because of any racial or religious prejudice.
How do you know they are all terrorists?
The US says that it does not have to abide by the Geneva Convention because the enemy does not wear uniform, yet claims with an apparently total certainty to know who is a terrorist and who isn't without the due legal process of a trial.
Are these people going to be tried, and if so when?
In addition, does the possibility that they may be terrorists negate the fact that they are human, and therefore have certain inalienable human rights which I am sure you constitution buffs know better than I.
Are these human rights applicable to all humans, or just to Americans?
Are there some humans in the world who do not qualify for human rights, and if there are, who has the right to decide which people are eligible to be treated as human?
QUOTE(Hercules @ Mar 7 2003, 02:12 PM)
QUOTE
If you put them in a camp, without trial, and detain them against their will, then it IS the same thing. Your motives, or theirs do not excuse your actions.
I think these individuals are at a higher risk of danger. Both to themselves and to us. Look what happened to our own little "American-Taliban". He got attacked in jail. Could you imagine what would happen to these confirmed Taliban and Al-Queda prisoners if they were put into a normal lock-down awaiting trial? I'm sure they will commit suicide by stabbing themselves in the back of the head 50 times....
On the other side of the fence, these are not guys who skipped out on parking tickets. I think the major reason is to keep them seperated and to severe the terrorist network as much as possible. Yes I realize the innocent might suffer with the guilty in this method. But what more efective means are available??
How would feeding them properly and putting a roof over their heads endanger them or sacrifice security efforts?
QUOTE
How would feeding them properly and putting a roof over their heads endanger them or sacrifice security efforts?
Maybe I need to be clearer. If we were to treat them as ordinary criminals. No special treatment, they are just criminals. And we throw them into jail. I firmly believe they will be killed by American inmates in a heart-beat.
Don't they have a roof over their head now with food & water. I've not read anything of them being starved?
They are being housed in cages and being offered only the barest essentials to survive. Here is the passage from an Amnesty International report.
Now conditions may have changed since then, but it is impossible to know since the government won't allow anyone to visit the camp and check.
QUOTE
Amnesty International is also concerned about alleged ill-treatment of prisoners in transit and in Guantánamo, including reports that they were shackled, hooded and sedated during transfer, their beards were forcibly shaved, and that they are housed in small cages in Guantánamo that do not protect against the elements.''Degrading treatment of prisoners is a flagrant violation of international law which cannot be justified under any circumstances,'' the organization stated.
Now conditions may have changed since then, but it is impossible to know since the government won't allow anyone to visit the camp and check.
QUOTE
Amnesty International is also concerned about alleged ill-treatment of prisoners in transit and in Guantánamo
Key word here is alleged. If I were to say they're alleged to be given a suite and filet mignon, ya'll be all over me.
Either way, I think they're safer there, then in cell block "A". Where the least of their worries would be being a Bubba's bitch.
If the allegations were false then a simple photograph could dispell them, as would a visit. I've seen nothing that disagrees with the AI asessment.
QUOTE(Hercules @ Mar 7 2003, 03:53 PM)
QUOTE
Amnesty International is also concerned about alleged ill-treatment of prisoners in transit and in Guantᮡmo
Key word here is alleged. If I were to say they're alleged to be given a suite and filet mignon, ya'll be all over me.
Amnesty is a pretty well respected and long standing organisation. I'm not saying that their word is truth, but I think they would have to have some basis in evidence for formulating such a report.
Interesting article.
Change of scenery for prisoners
International Red Cross Society hasn't alleged anything bad....but they aren't saying one way or the other.
Change of scenery for prisoners
International Red Cross Society hasn't alleged anything bad....but they aren't saying one way or the other.
QUOTE
In response to international pressure about the conditions in the open-air cells, a new prison, Camp Delta, was built this spring. It provides the prisoners with a toilets and running water in their cells. It also gives the military a more secure and private facility.
According to the military guards, the move to Camp Delta hasn't demoralized prisoners. "Obviously moving out of the elements like they were in in Camp X-Ray, out of the sun and the heat and the dust was a major improvement, so I think it was well received, the move," said Col. Jan Perrone, who is in charge of security at the camp.
According to the military guards, the move to Camp Delta hasn't demoralized prisoners. "Obviously moving out of the elements like they were in in Camp X-Ray, out of the sun and the heat and the dust was a major improvement, so I think it was well received, the move," said Col. Jan Perrone, who is in charge of security at the camp.
QUOTE
Perrone says the prisoners like the food so much they're gaining weight. But of course there is no longer any way for journalists to get even a glimpse of these heavier prisoners. And, as a result, hardly any journalists visit Guantanamo Bay anymore.
Gotta love the CBC. Good link.
This is news to me. A bit heartening I suppose, despite the fact that these people are being held without cause or recourse. But it does verify what I was saying about the other camp.
This is news to me. A bit heartening I suppose, despite the fact that these people are being held without cause or recourse. But it does verify what I was saying about the other camp.
Additional link.
3 British people held at X-ray
This one was interesting too. 3 British prisoners were detained early on.
3 British people held at X-ray
This one was interesting too. 3 British prisoners were detained early on.
QUOTE
Today an unnamed spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said a team of British investigators met with three British citizens being held along with 141 other Taliban and Al-Qaeda prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. naval base.
The British team affirmed that the three British prisoners had no complaints about their treatment. The spokesman said the detainees are in good physical health and that "there was no sign of any mistreatment."
The British team affirmed that the three British prisoners had no complaints about their treatment. The spokesman said the detainees are in good physical health and that "there was no sign of any mistreatment."
The reason for keeping them the prisoners at 'Gitmo' though, has nothing what so ever to do with security. There are plenty of prisons in the USA which could ensure their securrity and safety if that were indeed the concern, and a special wing could easily be made to house them.
Alcatraz could be re opened if it had to be.
But the reason for their incarcaration on Cuba is only to keep them in a legal limbo. As criminals on American territory they would have certain rights. It is by this state of affairs that America is betraying its own principles.
Alcatraz could be re opened if it had to be.
But the reason for their incarcaration on Cuba is only to keep them in a legal limbo. As criminals on American territory they would have certain rights. It is by this state of affairs that America is betraying its own principles.
QUOTE(moif @ Mar 7 2003, 04:42 PM)
There are plenty of prisons in the USA which could ensure their securrity and safety if that were indeed the concern, and a special wing could easily be made to house them.
OK, wouldn't this violate the whole basis of treating them like any other criminal? Assuming they were labeled as criminals
Why should they get special treatment to protect them due to their status?
If everyone is saying they don't belong at GitMo. Then the options should be a Afghan jail (Let's NOT even discuss the conditions there). Or a ordinary detention center. IMHO, they'll incur much more retaliation, possibly deadly, at either of those facilities.
Generally, PoWs are not "processed" until hostilities end. Since there is on-going action in Afghanistan, I don't think anything needs to be done yet.
As for torture, it was not mentioned in connection with those at Camp X-ray.
BTW, these guys are not criminals, they are enemy combatants (although also not PoWs). Most of them have probably never even seen American soil.
As for torture, it was not mentioned in connection with those at Camp X-ray.
BTW, these guys are not criminals, they are enemy combatants (although also not PoWs). Most of them have probably never even seen American soil.
QUOTE(JonBon @ Mar 7 2003, 02:41 PM)
QUOTE(Paladin @ Mar 6 2003, 07:43 PM)
The detainees at Gitmo aren't American citizens, and they actively fought against the United States and its allies. They are detained because they belong to a terrorist organization, not because of any racial or religious prejudice.
How do you know they are all terrorists?
The US says that it does not have to abide by the Geneva Convention because the enemy does not wear uniform, yet claims with an apparently total certainty to know who is a terrorist and who isn't without the due legal process of a trial.
Are these people going to be tried, and if so when?
In addition, does the possibility that they may be terrorists negate the fact that they are human, and therefore have certain inalienable human rights which I am sure you constitution buffs know better than I.
Are these human rights applicable to all humans, or just to Americans?
Are there some humans in the world who do not qualify for human rights, and if there are, who has the right to decide which people are eligible to be treated as human?
The U.S. knows who most of them are because of the units they were captured with. If you are engaged with an Al Qaeda battalion and you capture a few guys toting AK-47s, it's a reasonable assumption that they are part of Al Qaeda.
QUOTE
Originally posted by UltimateJoe
They are being housed in cages and being offered only the barest essentials to survive. Here is the passage from an Amnesty International report.
They are being housed in cages and being offered only the barest essentials to survive. Here is the passage from an Amnesty International report.
A freind of mine from the military used to be a guard at X-Ray.(he's currently in North Carolina however) From what he told me they were being fed the same food that the military eats.(MREs for lunch, chow hall food for dinner) I might be inclined to agree with Amnesty International if they declared some of the slop served in the military as unfit for human consumption. As it stands though, if its good enough for our troops I think its good enough for the detainees.
Hercules
Would you not describe their current situation as 'special treatrement'?
As prisoners of the United States, they are the responsibility of the United States. If the reluctance to house them in a special protected wing on the American is the only reason why they are being kept on Cuba, then America is neglecting its own principles.
Are they prisoners of war or criminals?
They have to be one or the other, because otherwise, America is operating a gulag.
QUOTE
Why should they get special treatment to protect them due to their status?
Would you not describe their current situation as 'special treatrement'?
As prisoners of the United States, they are the responsibility of the United States. If the reluctance to house them in a special protected wing on the American is the only reason why they are being kept on Cuba, then America is neglecting its own principles.
Are they prisoners of war or criminals?
They have to be one or the other, because otherwise, America is operating a gulag.
from Paladin
This is faulty logic and most unreasonable. Were we facing Al-Qaeda in Vietnam?
QUOTE
The U.S. knows who most of them are because of the units they were captured with. If you are engaged with an Al Qaeda battalion and you capture a few guys toting AK-47s, it's a reasonable assumption that they are part of Al Qaeda.
This is faulty logic and most unreasonable. Were we facing Al-Qaeda in Vietnam?
QUOTE
This is faulty logic and most unreasonable. Were we facing Al-Qaeda in Vietnam?
I wouldn't think so, when we captured somebody in black pajamas with an AK-47 in Vietnam, we were reasonably sure they were Viet Cong........
Exactly, those AK 47 holders were Viet Cong. Was the Viet Cong part of Al Qaeda?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.