In my opinion, in the case that any other country (especially third World countries as Irak or any other of that area) begin keeping people in concentration camps (Am i using the right term here?) as the US army and/or Government seems to believe they have a right to do, with not known reasons other than the "they were hostile to us" one, I would say that it would be a massive victory for all the human rights violations.

You cannot fight wrong doing wrong and expect others to respect the way you act.
....of course, if you don't care about that, it is the same one way or the other!.

I know many americans care....I really hope that americans who make decisions care as well.

Once again: sorry for my grammar mistakes!

Well if you're going to improve the world lets aim as high as possible. I mean wouldn't it be great if all other countries could hold people indefinitely without charge, without trial in camps with as a high standard of living as Guantanamo Bay?

I've read the accounts from the freed Britons and I'm inclined to believe them. The US/British governments have yet to give me a reason to trust them on the War on Iraq - as Bremner said they have 'got it all wrong'. On the other hand - so far - I have no reason not to believe the freed prisoners. The account I read was thorough, consistent and full of details which lent it an air of credibility. I can only go on my gut instinct until there are more accounts to verify what they are saying but so far (even allowing for exaggeration) it all seems horribly believable.

detainee interview
interview

The two young boys who we're freed were treated very well, and I believe their account as much as the stories of those who say they weren't. What is striking is that you get the distinct impression that the authorities worked out very early on that these boys were just in the wrong place at the wrong time yet they still held them for 14 months. That's a massive human rights abuse. Nothing to be proud of there. But then again those frightened 12/13 year old boys were according to Donald Rumsfeld "hard-core, well-trained terrorists" and "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth."

Whether the detainees were beaten or not, or the conditions were as bad as they say, as far as I'm concerned being held without trial or any information on when or if you will be ever be released is torture.

Yes, of course, no other countries would imprison the combatants they war with.

The fact that we are detaining these people indefinitely is unfortunate, and it doesn't make me happy. I believe as Americans we should be held (and hold ourselves) to the highest standards of conduct and human rights. I also see that releasing potentially violent people back into a country which is still unstable and facing hostilities is imprudent. I'm glad I don't have to personally make those big decisions.

Regarding mule's post about the 'children' detained....A thirteen year old Taliban guard shot a woman in the street for trying to take her toddler to the doctor without a male escourt. I guess their concept of child is much different from ours.

And people wonder why the US has a popularity problem. Since you (and many other Americans) seem to consider any non-Americans as second class, is it any wonder the rest of the world tends to look down their noses at a culture that breeds people to think this way?

Fortunatly, I believe this is still a minority view in the US, most citizens tend to believe themselves no superior (or inferior) to any other person on the planet.

It will not happen soon, but as a historian, I can tell there will come a time when the Us is no longer the most powerful country in the world. I hope youu or your decendants remember those words when you are being denied the same rights as the world leader at the time.

giftzahn - "!"You cannot fight wrong doing wrong and expect others to respect the way you act. - "Once again: sorry for my grammar mistakes

Please do not appologize fro your grammer. Your post was completely understandable.

That out of the way, I must say that your premise that America is doing wrong by the prisoners in GITMO or Afghanistan is way off base. These prisoners are treated better then required by the Geneva conventions for people in their status. An understanding of the Geneva Accords is necessary to understanding what the United States is doing with the prisoners designated as Combat Detainees and why.

Vermillion - "And people wonder why the US has a popularity problem. Since you (and many other Americans) seem to consider any non-Americans as second class, is it any wonder the rest of the world tends to look down their noses at a culture that breeds people to think this way?"

Which people wonder at American popularity? The average American doesn't care what non-Americans think about us as a people or nation. No more then the average American go about thinking about the people of other nations one way or another.

Vermillion - "Fortunatly, I believe this is still a minority view in the US, most citizens tend to believe themselves no superior (or inferior) to any other person on the planet."

On the one hand you say Americans see other peoples as second class citizens, then you say you believe believe it is only a small minority. Aren't you really saying that peoples of other nations wrongly believe American see them as second class citizens?

Vermillion - "It will not happen soon, but as a historian, I can tell there will come a time when the Us is no longer the most powerful country in the world. I hope youu or your decendants remember those words when you are being denied the same rights as the world leader at the time."

This may come to pass, but it has no bearing on the fact that the American Military is treating its prisoners in GETMO well within the parameters established by the Geneva Convention.

1SG

Difficult for me to envision the Taliban or Saddam and others of their ilk considering the human rights of their prisoners or following anyone's rules of war except their own.




No! A link to an article about the consequences of abusing Iraqi detainees in Baghdad. If the former detainees from Gitmo are indeed telling the truth, I am sure their stories, if verifiable, will be taken seriously and dealt with.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/19/iraq.prison.abuse/index.htm

Vermillion, America is famous for its politeness and acceptence of foreigners. We are not bred to dislike anyone. I find it troubling that so many people feel as if we are holding these people purely to torture them or for zero reason at all. I know us Americans are all morons whose actions never have a reason but are done merely for the sake of doing something but as a logical person I must assume that the US military is holding these people for a reason. I highly doubt that the US is enjoying all the negative criticism and cries from the rest of the world. I highly doubt the US is gaining so much hate and animosity from allies just because we think its fun to hold people in camps. The US is getting slammed daily because of Gitmo. The US has been getting slammed over Gitmo from the very first day we started using it. Yes I know its absurd to believe a professional body over the words of angered Western civilization hating peoples (with conflicting stories) who just happened to be around the Taliban in the most inhumane and freedomless place on earth. Yes I am sure the US is taking all this world criticism just so we can get women to walk in front of muslims in skimpy outfits. I mean how can you trust the US? How can you not trust the guy hanging out with a terrorist organization in an oppressive nation? The answer is obvious. Yes the US is holding the prisoners so we can play games with them. Yes everyone Gitmo is ran by a couple of rascally 12 year olds picking on random people for personal amusement. Yes the US is destroying itself in the worlds eyes so we can parade seductive women in front of muslims. Why?? were Americans we dont have the right to have a reason. Every endeavor we do is because we are racist and because we have ADHD. Gitmo is solved.

I doubt that human rights are being violated , but I think what is more worrying is the lack of legal definition given to the people there.

They aren't there because they are definitely terrorists, or implacable foes of the US, but because they MIGHT be.

Also, because they have no legal status, there are very few laws governing how they can or cannot be treated. Which leaves a door open for human right violations should the Pentagon decide it is appropriate.

Here is where I believe that the human rights of these people are being violated: The lack of legal definition of their situation, which keep them in something like a limbo. Accuse them, give them a fair trial, declare them innocent and send them free to their families or guilty and put them in jail or whatever is decided according to the law (international? US Law?). But don't keep them all there, without any clear future, without letting their families visit them!! because in my opinion it is definitely psychological torture!.

GDan204: Why! thank you!! I won`t apologize anymore about my grammar!

Zixzaxzox - "I doubt that human rights are being violated , but I think what is more worrying is the lack of legal definition given to the people there."

If I'm not mistaken, the legal designation of these prisoners is Battlefied Detainee.

"They aren't there because they are definitely terrorists, or implacable foes of the US, but because they MIGHT be."

They are there because they were picked on or near a battlefield where they sought to harm American or allied soldiers.

"Also, because they have no legal status, there are very few laws governing how they can or cannot be treated."

Even though the Geneva Convention does not prescribe the treatment accorded Battlefied Detainees, the United States is treating them in the same manner it would POWs, less certain rights they are not entitled to as they were not soldiers.

"Which leaves a door open for human right violations should the Pentagon decide it is appropriate."

That's a big "if", "maybe" "might happen" It hasn't happened in the past and there is no reason to think it might in the future. One might as well ponder the possiblity of the French Government changing the law and requiring all Muslims to depart the country within 30 days.


giftzahn - "Accuse them, give them a fair trial, declare them innocent and send them free to their families or guilty and put them in jail or whatever is decided according to the law (international? US Law?). But don't keep them all there, without any clear future, without letting their families visit them!! because in my opinion it is definitely psychological torture!."

They have been accused of taking up arms against the United States or its allies. They are not POW's because they do not conform to the definition for POW in the Geneva convention. They are not under arrest as this is not a law enforcement problem. They are battlefied detainees. They are not entitled to be treated like common criminals, nor are they entilted to be treated like POWs.

There are people are being released from GITMO on a regular basis, when the United States has determined they are of no more intelligence value. The detainees are then returned to the countries on their passports or Afghanistan. They chose to take up arms against us and are now paying the price. In many way they are extremely fortunate. Not being Afghani or Pakistani, had we left them with the Afghans of the Northern Alliance, they would most likely be dead. The Afghans were not fond of the foreigners fighing against them.

Their future may be unclear, but at least they have a future without pain and torture.

1SG

What I find fascinating/disturbing about this situation:
I have lost people to terrorism, yet we as a nation went out of our way to give those responsible (Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols) a trial by jury and to notify them of the charges they were being held for. Members of the Michigan militia are still walking around free. Meanwhile we are locking up people who may or may not have any relation to Al Queida and they are being held with no charges.
This strikes me as being a bit strange, if we are actually fighting a "war on terrorism" rather than a war on Islam.

Have no doubt if these detainees' allegations can be verified, there will be a full investigation into the matter just as the charges against several Army personnel in Baghdad are being investigated and filed this week.

Grendel72:



Acts of terrorism before 9/11 were to be charged and tried as "crimes" and processed through our court system in the same manner as homicides, robbing banks, stealing cars, etc. and why McVeigh, Nichols, those responsible for bombing WTC in the 90's, etc. and other terrorist attack cases were processed and regulated by our normal court system and a trial by jury.

September 11, 2001 was declared as an "act of war" and not as a "crime" (referenced above)...thus the reason for the different regulations determining the detention, treatment, legal options, processing of those captured and "suspected" of terrorist associations or crimes who may or may not be guilty. Until the process of clearing the detainees as having no association/involvement, or charge them with being connected with a terrorist crime...our authorities can hold them as long as they want. Unfair to some detainees? Yes! But it is legal!

But why haven't the provisions of the patriot act been used to go after the Michigan Militia? Why aren't they all being held offshore with no charges?

What bothers me is that it certainly appears that the current administration is using terrorism as an excuse to round up people with brown skin and strange religions. I want to be safe from terrorism, but Gitmo looks more like the Japanese internment camps than anything else to me.

Since I am no lawyer, I will make a few guesses. If I remember correctly, although McVeigh and Nichols once had ties with the Michigan Militia, the authorities could never make the case that the Oklahoma Bombing was ordered by, assisted, or under the supervision of the Michigan Militia. It is almost a done deal except for Nichols' second (civil trial) and unless someone would step forward with conclusive new information...it's a bit late. From what I remember, the Oklahoma people were questioning the civil trial being held because of the huge expenses involved and the time.

Just remember, there may be a few exceptions, but a majority of those detainees at Gitmo are not your Sunday morning choir boys! They are there because of association, involvement, or crimes of terrorist acts. No bank robbers, car jackers, shop lifters in this mix.

Oh, I agree with you there. My worry is those exceptions.
Islamic fundamentalists are portraying the war on terrorism as being a war on Islam, and those exceptions make wonderful propaganda for them. I worry that we are creating more extremists for every innocent man locked up that more than make up for the guilty we have put away.

Grendel72 Posted: Mar 21 2004, 07:38 PM

"I have lost people to terrorism, yet we as a nation went out of our way to give those responsible (Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols) a trial by jury and to notify them of the charges they were being held for. Members of the Michigan militia are still walking around free. Meanwhile we are locking up people who may or may not have any relation to Al Queida and they are being held with no charges.
This strikes me as being a bit strange, if we are actually fighting a "war on terrorism" rather than a war on Islam."

I see nothing strange about it. Domestic terrorism by American citizens is treated as a criminal act. International Terrorism is considered war! The perpetrators of each is treated accordingly. Those non-soldiers/organized guerillas who are picked up by troops on or near battlefields, who are known or suspected of trying to harm American or allied troops are battlefield detainees.

"This strikes me as being a bit strange, if we are actually fighting a "war on terrorism" rather than a war on Islam."

Why it should be strange to you I cannot understand. International terrorists and battlefireld detainees are people who are fighting us. There is no war on Islam. Only the adherents of Radical islam that would make war on us.



Grendel72 Posted: Mar 21 2004, 09:50 PM

"But why haven't the provisions of the patriot act been used to go after the Michigan Militia? Why aren't they all being held offshore with no charges?"

Because they are American citizens on American soil. Hence it is strictly a law enforcement problem.

"What bothers me is that it certainly appears that the current administration is using terrorism as an excuse to round up people with brown skin and strange religions. I want to be safe from terrorism, but Gitmo looks more like the Japanese internment camps than anything else to me."

There is a problem in that perception in that all the people in GITMO were taken into custody in the Mid East while operationing against American Forces. It is not the fault of the United States if the vast majority of the men in the Mid East fit your description. If this fighting had taken place in Iceland, there would be no brown skinned men in GITMO.

Grendel72 Posted: Mar 21 2004, 10:32 PM

" My worry is those exceptions.
Islamic fundamentalists are portraying the war on terrorism as being a war on Islam, and those exceptions make wonderful propaganda for them. I worry that we are creating more extremists for every innocent man locked up that more than make up for the guilty we have put away. "

That may be, but that cannot stop us. As we must insure these people are no longer a threat to our troops and that we have learned as much from them as we can. Many leaders have been arrested around the world based on the intelligence provided by GITMO prisoners. We know that saves lives. Your concern may cost lives, but we will never really know. Better to go with what we know and save the lives we can.

1SG

Desert Resident

These detainees were among the original 7500 Taliban soldiers that had surrendered to the Northern Alliance off the battlefield. They are being held in detention based on three criteria:
1. Being a foreign national
2. Have received training from the Al-Qaeda ; or
3. Was in command of 300 or more personal.
Any man from the Northern Alliance could be held in Guantanamo Bay on those accounts. The Taliban is not the Al-Qaeda. The Taliban is a school from Pakistan that was acting as a government in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2002. The Taliban gave a safe harbor to Osama bin Laden after he was exiled from Saudi Arabia. bin Laden had money and is from a family that had rebuilt Mecca, of course the Taliban would take him in. Taliban officials condoned the Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan because it was an allied militia and not a Taliban government program. The Taliban had been at civil war with the Northern Alliance up until the United States began supporting the Northern Alliance.

Desert Resident
The detainees are being held in Cuba. The Bush Administration is reinforcing an old ban on travel to Cuba by any U.S. Citizen. Some U.S. citizens that had traveled to Cuba on vacation prior to 9/11 had received penalties that ranged from $5000 to $50,000. If you had not heard about this it is because you had Gary Condit flashing on your television. Because the detainees are being held in ‘no man’s land’ it is the same legal equivalent as being held in outer space or at the bottom of the ocean. This absolves them from any legal representation that might have been extended to them in the U.S. such as hiring a lawyer.

If the United States was truly concerned about human rights violations in Afghanistan then the Northern Alliance would not have been allowed to take back power. The Northern Alliance is still known to oppress women, just not to the same degree as the Taliban. One thing that the Taliban did not support that the Northern Alliance does is an Opium drug trade. Among the 7500 Taliban prisoners 3000 were placed in the Sheberghan prison which is big enough to occupy 500 to 600 prisoners. Several of the Taliban prisoners had died during a 3 day revolt in a 19th century fort in Kalai Janghi which ended in an air strike by U.S. forces. 3 to 4 thousand of the prisoners have been trucked in air tight containers where many had died due to suffocation. Roughly 400 of the Taliban prisoners of the original 7500 have made it to Guantanamo Bay. The rest are either crammed in an Afghan prison, escaped, or dead.

Anyone who was not concerned about the human rights violations of the Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan by U.S. forces in compliance with the Northern Alliance must have had John Walker Lindh flashing on their television. All that have been detained in Gauntanamo Bay have endured so much horror prior to being caged in kennels on the other side of the world. Gradually these men are being returned home so that the process of healing can begin. I can only pray that the process of retribution is over.

http://www.acftv.net/news/article.asp?news_id=102
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/fac...o-bay_delta.htm
http://cfrterrorism.org/afghanistan/alliance.html

I don't see what another child did has to do with their detention without trial. The point I was making was they clearly knew that the children were innocent soon after their capture yet they still held them nearly 2 years.

Comments like " I guess their concept of child is much different from ours " worry me, and I'm hoping I've misunderstood what you meant. Could you expand on it? I don't consider the Americans to have a different concept of children because of the Colombine shootings. Why would you think the Afghans have a different concept of children because of an unreleated incident?

(I think I put the wrong link for the story regarding the children released from Guantanamo here it is )

Yes, I'll expand. In our country and most of the western world, a person is considered a child until they reach 18. The Taliban made regular use of soldiers as young as 13, arming them and sending them to fight in the trenches or patrol the streets and shoot women who leave their houses without chaperones (the shooting I previously mentioned was not considered a criminal act by the Afghan government at the time. That teenager was enforcing the law). This would indicate that a child of fourteen is viewed differently by the Taliban than the average westerner. Not certain why this opinion worries you. I'll worry you a bit more. I also think they view WOMEN differently.

LoraX...I was not responding to or arguing the point of which group these detainees belong to other than they are not the run-of-the-mill U. S. Sunday morning choir boys suspected of robbing banks or stealing cars.

In other words...comparing McVeigh and Nichols-the Oklahoma Bombers-and the detainees at Gitmo are comparing apples and oranges and thus their charges are apples and oranges as are the differences in their legal rights.




Again, I was responding to Grendel72's post as to there being innocents detained in Gitmo, and I am sure there are. If and whether our government owes them compensation if found they have done nothing wrong, I don't know.

Mrs Pidgen - what worries me is the attitude that because the Taliban has abused children we can now legitimately rob them of their basic rights.

Are 12 year olds no longer children because the Taliban has a history of recruiting them? A child is still a child regardless of what the Taliban does. The 12 year old boy was a child when he was captured. Without any charges being brought forward (because their was no evidence) he was held prisoner for 14 months - even though they knew of his innocence, but hey it doesn't matter, the Taliban have a different concept of children to us so we don't have to treat them as such. Instead of maintaining our standards we lowered them.

I don't think the Afghans have a different concept to us of what a child is - I don't think anyone does. I do however, think that the children have been badly mistreated under the Taliban and for that mistreatment to be continued by America at Guantanamo Bay is nothing less than shameful.

As I have stated no opinion about their incarceration either way, that is a mischaracterization on your part.