I assume there has been previous discussion about this but in light of recent events I thought it would be appropriate...

It has been a fairly long standing issue between the US and Britain over the detention of several British citizen at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Now that a few have been freed, some are coming forward with allegations of gross human rights violations: interrogations at gunpoint, severe beatings, punishment by suspending flow of water into cells, psychological torture, etc...

You can find the article here

In response to this Colin Powell stated it was unlikely abuses were taking place at Gitmo because "we are Americans, we don't abuse people who are in our care," and that it is"not in the American tradition to treat people in that manner."

There are 640 remaining prisoners being held in Guantanamo bay, Britain has been advocating for the fair trial of their citizens or transport of them back to the United Kingdom.

Do you believe the accusations of those released?

And do you believe the detention of these 640 people, in the manner being used, is justified?

Finally what do you think about Colin Powells comments, do Americans traditionally treat people in a acceptable manner?

Do you believe the accusations of those released?

I won't doubt for a second that those being held at Gitmo are treated rough. But to think that we treat them like pieces of (insert colorful metaphor), I doubt that.

And do you believe the detention of these 640 people, in the manner being used, is justified?

Umm.. if you mean justified using the described alleged tactics, no. But if otherwise, you bet.

Finally what do you think about Colin Powells comments, do Americans traditionally treat people in a acceptable manner?

Ask anyone who has escaped a concentration camp in Nazi Germany, the gulags of Soviet Russia, Huessin's torture chambers, or a North Korean prison camp and see the reaction when asked that question. You bet we treat prisoners a hell of a lot better than most countries. (Ever see the film Pappillon? And that was the French!)

I simply do not think America is that stupid. I wouldnt doubt the phsychological methods but I do not believe he was physically beaten unless he deserved it...which of course if he did he would never admit to. I have seen a few released Gitmo prisoners who enjoyed their stay and whose parents were actually grateful to the US. I believe he should be compensated especially since he was never charged. I can sympathize with is anger at being held for 2 years but I think he is talking more out of anger then from reality. He should be compensated. All prisoners w/o proven links and who are not charged should be compensated but no I dont believe him.

enjoyed their stay
( Yes , it was paradise, like a vacation! all in good fun, and parents love to see their children locked up for a few years in a foreign prison, maybe like a sort of tough love thing.)

Whaaa? Can you back this up?

Do you believe the accusations of those released?

Yes. We are not privy, and in fact the realities of Gitmo are hidden from us, but its been of growing concern by many individuals and human rights groups.

And do you believe the detention of these 640 people, in the manner being used, is justified?

No. I believe these people should be charged or released. What is taking so long? What is the justification for holding them without charges, access to their families or lawyers for over 2 years?

Finally what do you think about Colin Powells comments, do Americans traditionally treat people in a acceptable manner?

This is unanswerable for me right now. We also have a history of severe treatment of prisoners and sometimes innocents upon our own claims which are perceived as righteous under duress. Only those involved would know. Do we treat them better than Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il? I certainly hope so or we have no grounds to stand on by asserting they are evil, and our government is not. War is generally horrific and prisoners are treated badly. I dont think our military is much different in these cases.

I believe we are releasing these particular prisoners ONLY because they are British citizens and the admin is being pressured by outrage coming from the UK. I loathe to think of those that come from other countries where their plight is more or less ignored and families cannot fight for their release, some who may be innocent and are being detained indefinately.

Colin Powell can talk a good talk, but it is also 'Un-american' to detain people without due process. Many men were simply rounded up with no evidence of wrong doing, as seen by the cases of the British prisoners who were cleared and released almost immediately by the British government,( once freed from Gitmo).

If we are going to claim we treat prisoners better, we'd better get on the Guantanamo cases and start charging crimes, or releasing those who are not truly suspect. Its easy to say, 'you bet, they deserve it', but maybe not. ( who are 'they') How do we know unless we bring charges and have trials?

These are the 'they': http://www.cageprisoners.com/ That is, if you really want to know.

"Dear father, I have informed them in the investigation about everything relating to me and that I only went to Afghanistan to teach and that I have nothing to do with the war. They said that they are going to verify these facts, and if they are true they will release me, and if they are not they will do something else. Every time they say they are going to release me soon, but unfortunately this is far away. For this reason I have gone on a hunger strike for 27 days and I will continue the strike indefinitely. Further, I am not drinking water or speaking for 4 days until they achieve one of three things, namely: to set me free as I am innocent or take me to court for trial in order to obtain all my rights or to die, as I can not stand life in this place."
Abdulaziz Sayer Owain Al Shammari , Kuwaiti

"In a Red Cross letter, he wrote, "I would like news of my family, especially of my pregnant wife. Did she give birth yet? …I will be back soon, God willing. It is a matter of time until they find me innocent and learn that I did not fight, but I came to help the poor and needy and that I was trapped in Afghanistan against my will. Then I went to Pakistan where I was arrested and handed over to them…Please be advised that I do not know where I am, but the authorities say the state I am in is Cuba."
Abdullah Kamal Al Kandari , Kuwaiti

"Do you believe the accusations of those released?"

Until these men have been examined by clearly unbiased Doctors, I will have to believe the testimony of the teenagers that have been returned to Afghanistan. They mention no harsh treatment whatsoever.

"And do you believe the detention of these 640 people, in the manner being used, is justified?"

Yes, IMO, detention of non-military combatants in this manner is justified.
As far as I know, these people have all been picked up participating in some kind of military activity against the United States and/or its Allies.

"Finally what do you think about Colin Powells comments, do Americans traditionally treat people in a acceptable manner?"

As a soldier for over 21 years, I know the humane treatment of prisoners is demanded by law and any infraction of the rules for treatment of prisoners is a Courts Martial offense. With the number of American personnel involved in the maintaining of these prisoners, it is, IMO, impossible for inhumane treatment not to have been reported by this time. Yet there have been not even a hint of the kinds of treatment these Brit prisoners claim, by anyone who has served in GITMO.

It might be good to remember that 99.99% of prisoners in American Prisions claim to be innocent.

1SG

Edited to make text black per the Rules - Jaime

Do you believe the accusations of those released?

I have only heard in detail the accusation by one of the Britons returned home, who was interviewed by Martin Bashir. Despite the feeling that Bashirs programs tend to be biased, I have no reason to doubt what the man (I forget his name) claimed.

It is an awful thing to think, but the claims he made did not shock me at all. Accusations of beatings, inhumane treatment and psycological torture seemed pefectly believable to me.

And do you believe the detention of these 640 people, in the manner being used, is justified?

If the conditions are torturous, no - not in any circumstances. If it was a regula prison, it would be acceptable ONLY if there were clear charges made with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, AND a fair trial.

As it is, this farce has dirtied the name of what so many politicians have claimed is the greatest democracy in the world. Even in the face of adversity, a country that truly believes in good, liberty and human rights should never back down from its stance, or else face international ridicule.

Finally what do you think about Colin Powells comments, do Americans traditionally treat people in a acceptable manner?

Well, two points.

Firstly, we have all seen images of the camp, with prisoners being escorted in chains and without dignity. Does Colin Powell accept the accusations that prisoners were shackled and kept in cages, which are perhaps the the lesser of accusations? I doubt he will deny this, there is no way he can. And in my opinion, that is an unacceptable manner to treat human beings.

Second point, traditionally? If this is the exact quote from Powell, then he has side stepped the issue. I have no doubt previous American camps have treated POWs fairly and in accordance to the Geneva convention. However, for the last 2 years the US has insisted that the Geneva convention does not apply to this particular camp. Why would they be so insistent on this if they felt they were treating their prisoners in an acceptable manner?


Finally, I have heard claims that some of the people that were picked up were in fact in Taliban prisons, who were travelling through Afghanistan. Regardless, if these Britons have been released, then they must not have been involved with the Taliban or in terrorism. If at any point they were terrorists, why would they be released without charge? They haven't even been told why they were held for 2 years, and release only draws attention to their complete innocence.

Those who remain at the camp may well be guilty, but whatever happened to that good old saying, innocent until proven guilty? Well, the innocents in this case have served a 2 year sentence before even being brought to trial. That is not justice. How is that possibly justice.

Robin_Scotland

"It is an awful thing to think, but the claims he made did not shock me at all. Accusations of beatings, inhumane treatment and psycological torture seemed pefectly believable to me."

Why? What evidence do you have of the American military mis-treatment of prisoners? What guidelines have you used to judge???

"As it is, this farce has dirtied the name of what so many politicians have claimed is the greatest democracy in the world. Even in the face of adversity, a country that truly believes in good, liberty and human rights should never back down from its stance, or else face international ridicule."

Farce? I think not. What do you suggest be done when non-combatant personnel are captured operating against American troops or our Allies? Turn them over to the police??? What police. Conduct a trial? What would you charge them with???

As far as international ridicule is concerned. Who cares? Americans certainly don't care what someone in France or Scotland thinks of us. We are not going to forgo what we think is the correct and most logical methods of conducting this WOT because some Pharleftistani in Britain doesn't like it.

"Firstly, we have all seen images of the camp, with prisoners being escorted in chains and without dignity."

Is this what you base you mistreatment beliefs on??? Moving people in the most secure method possible??? Loss of dignity??? Horrifying!!!

1SG

See, here is where your entire argument falls apart. If they HAD committed crimes or done something unjust, it is highly unlikely that scores of them would be released without any charges. If you accept that they are all guilty when there is no evidence, then I suppose that you can accept that they are being treated well without evidence as well.

The fact remains that there are people who are alleging mistreatment, and there is no way to disprove these allegations since the government won't allow anyone, like say the Red Cross or lawyers (who you think would be granted regular access to a PRISON) to see what's going on for themselves.




Edited to remove other member's overuse of colored text - Jaime

It seems you may be suffering from 'the world is out to get America' syndrome. My feelings that inhumane treatment goes on in prisoner camps is not specific to America, its the sort of thin I would believe would go on behind closed doors in my own country, or any other for that matter.

Furthermore, I am not judging, I am stating an opinion. From listening to the interview, what was said seemed plausible to me. The counter evidence for the case were hollow remarks made by Colin Powell, which I feel were weak in comparision and did not address the claims made.



You condone detainment without charge? You accept that there was no charge? You clearly think there was nothing to charge them with, its what you have asked. "What would you charge them with?". Exactly. There is no charge, what exactly is it these people did. Acting against American troops? Please do not make a remark such as that without evidence. If this was the case for the men released, I'm sure the men would know this. Im sure they would have been told this was why they were apprehended.





What a pecuilar attitude to have. Is that an insult by the way? I'm sorry but I just cannot understand where you are coming from here. It is comments like this that give decent Americans a bad name, adding to the unfair stereotype that all Americans are arrogant and self righteous, uncaring of the anyone elses opinions.



I believe dignity is important, yes. I do not base any opinions I might have on beatings, torture etc on video, no. In fact if you read correctly I actually said I had no good reason to doubt the mans testimony, it doesn't mean I think the American Government has ordered men beaten up.


Edited to remove other member's overuse of colored text - Jaime

You're on your own here, GDan. Don't include the rest of America in your rantings.

If they haven't been charged with ANY crimes in two years, we should release them. Simple as that. If they haven't done anything to warrant charges, let them go. Americans are better than the way we are treating these prisoners.

Many Americans DO care what the rest of the world thinks of us. We want to be liked and respected. We want to be able to travel overseas and have people there be happy that we came to visit. We want people overseas to visit us and leave some of their money here. Simple as that.

This whole episode causes the world to dislike and lose respect for us. Which isn't good for us in the long term, but I'll bet it makes certain people feel better about themselves that we can whip a few straggling Arabs and keep them in prison without charging them! Woo-hoo!! You GO, boys!


Edited to remove other member's overuse of colored text - Jaime

No. Anything to give bad publicity and to give them 15 minutes of fame.


Yes. They are enemies of the United States.


Yes. The people in Gitmo probably get better treatment then regular prisoners here in the states do! Rummy said they get 3 meals a day (decent food), they get a prayer rug and a Koran, exercise 3 times a week and shower 4 times a week.

Actually the ICRC has visited Gitmo numerous times, so your accusation that they aren't granted access is false.

Red Cross in Guantanamo appeal



I do not believe that they were beaten, unless of course they deserved it. IMO the Red Cross would have notified the UN had we been mistreating the prisoners in the manner this man claims.



ABSOLUTELY! The US didn't just randomly pick up these people in Afghanistan. These individuals were hostile to our troops and so they were detained.

I find it so alarming that so many Americans, who three years ago would have claimed themselves as the becon of morality in an immoral world, now so happily go along with indefinite detention of POWs against the Geneva convention, without charge or access to legal council.

In any state this would be abhorrent, but for the US to do it it is stunning. I know, the US has made claim after claim that these are not POWs, but a brand new term they invented for the situation: enemy combatants. No state in the world, even the staunch allies of the Uk have accepoted this invention, but whatever.

Given the arguments of the US as to why these people are not POWs, sure, if you take the letter of the declaration, there might be some wiggle room there the US has managed to exploit, but it is clearly against the spirit of the document, and far more importantly, I will bet my life savings that the US would NEVER accept it is another state imprisoned some of THEIR citizens as "enemy combatants".

The US has shown itself willing, in fact almost eager to break the spirit of international law in this manner, and hold these people in cells under no rule of law but what the US deems fit.

Do I know that the prisoners in Gitmo are being mistreated? No, of course I do not. There is some evidence that they are, and there is also evidence that they are not, certainly not enough to draw a conclusion either way.

Do I think it is entirely possible that the Prisoners in Gitmo are being mistreated? Of course. Without the protection of the Geneva Convention the US has seen fit to dodge, and without legal representation, these prisoners have no protection at all under any form of law. They are not protected by US law, they are not protected by International law, and they are hidden away on a rocky outcrop of a dictatorship entirely outside the eyes of the world. Am I to assume that the US arranged all of this so the prisoners would simply not be interrupted during afternoon tea?

I do not know anything really, thus I do not feel qualified to draw conclusions. However, given the pattern of behaviour so far, it would not surprise me in the least if the prisoners were being badly mistreated.


And Titus, if your defence of the situation basis of comparaison is that Gitmo is "Better than the Nazi Holocaust or French prisons 200 years ago" then you need to seriously rethink your arguments.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/17721.htm

There was another done by the Guardian (or was it the Mirror) where they interviewed another boy who was returned to Afghanistan, and he said he enjoyed his time as well that he wished to be a doctor... or an American soldier when he got older. The article was a rebuttal to Human Rights Watch claims.

The article Wanderer is referencing is here.

From that article.....

Regardless of how "well" they were treated- and I have a hard time believing a large number of American soldiers would participate in bascially, criminal behavior, as would be neccesary for many of them to witness it- that holding someone for 2 years without charges and without any real knowledge of what they have done wrong, and in these cases, it has shown that many of these guys were conscripts dragged into the conflict- this IS a basic human rights violation and goes against everything we hold as true as Americans- one of our most basic tenents- innocent until proven guilty, resonable bail and speedy trial.

I doubt the charges are true, if I were a guard down there and saw this I would be hauling my but to the IG so fast it would make my head spin- I would not be party to Geneva convention violations- that is against the UCMJ- and I bet there are a large number of other soldiers there that would feel the same, including former soldiers on this site, regardless if conservative or liberal.

I fail to understand how the testimony of one person (or an entire group of people) can categorically be excluded yet the testimony of another person (or group) is inherently valid.

If you choose to accept that some inmates are telling the truth, then you need a better standard than "I believe the guy who likes America" to determine how to value their recollections.

One thing that is baffling to me in this discussion and others like it is that there appears to be the misconception on the part of some that those people being detained in Gitmo should be equated with someone who has been accused of robbing a liquor store or holding up a bank. What this line of argument ignores is the fact that these individuals engaged in hostile and violent action against the people of the United States and indeed the world and their compatriots continue that action to this day. For the United States to simply release them on "bail" with some sort of legal paper "ordering" them to appear at some point is absurd beyond comprehension. When a nation is engaged in hostilities with another nation or entity, they just simply don't let captured enemy aggressors go back and start shooting at them again. That doesn't happen, and I defy anyone to find any place in the Geneva Convention that says to do that. While on-going hostilities exist there is no right to a "speedy trial" or right to counsel or bail or any of that. If and when the War on Terror is over and done then we can talk about it, but as many have pointed out, that's a long ways off.

So, in the meantime, they sit, well-cared for as verified by the IRC and as information about each of them is gleened, the innocent among them is released as we have seen. The ones who continue to be a threat to the civilized world aren't going to be released to kill again. They'll get their trial in due course and in accordance with the Geneva Convention whenever that's appropriate.

Do you have evidence of this "fact"? Have you seen the evidence against ANY of the prisoners being held at Gitmo?

The reason I ask is that I read an article recently -- can't recall where, sorry -- that said that some of the prisoners were basically SOLD to the Americans (if you're a war lord in Afghanistan during the conflict and wanted to make a little spare change, you told the Americans where to find someone and claim that that person was the one to shoot at Americans). I don't know the truth, but it sounds like the way that they deal with each other on that side of the world, doesn't it?

So... I'm not claiming what I just wrote is a "fact", because I don't have evidence of it. Do you have ANY evidence of your "fact"? Or was just being picked up in Afghanistan or Pakistan enough evidence for you?

I agree UJ- there is his story, the other guy's story, and somewhere in the middle is probably the truth-

But Aquilla- we don't neccesarily have to let them go right away- but WE MUST allow some case to be made to if they are actual leaders in the taliban, just regular foot soldiers that were "sold" by the war lords, but some independent entity MUST be allowed to determine this, not just some someone that wants to save face politically after accidently getting the wrong guy!

Look- so far, all these guys that HAVE been released have had no real role outside being captured by the US in the combat zone- including all these brits- they have all been released, because they had nothing to do with anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time- so at the very least, we were very very wrong in these guys case, and basically imprisoned them for two years without reason, access to legal counsell, or independent oversight.

Very scary stuff being done by our gov't in this one.

What is interesting to me is, the very same poeple that get all up in arms about Waco or Ruby Ridge really don't care that the gov't is doing this to (apparently) innocent poeple?

I've learned that when debating human rights it help to have a standard.

So here are the possibly relevant portions of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Strictly speaking is is possible for the U.S. government to make an argument that they have not violated any of these statues.

As a matter of principle, I believe imprisonment without checks and balances is a dangerous policy and at the very least military tribunals should have begun much earlier.

The reason there is so little outcry in the US is our sense of perspective. The fact that they see little reason for the military to grab these people for no reason and the fact that it pales in comparison to more prominent rights violations like those of China and even France...
Americans say small beans.

The fact that they are being released is heartening and suggest this isn't a case of malice. Modern America does generally treat prisoners well, and I have little idea whether the detentions are justified. I doubt the accusations as well
Boy praises Guantanamo jailers

Human Rights Violations at Gitmo, Do you buy it?


Is it impossible? No. Is it probable? No. (IMO) I agree with some other statements made by members that the reported extent of mistreatment could hardly go unnoticed and probably would be reported. However, within every system's check and balances, there are abuses and his allegations, if true, should be verifiable...can he prove it? I am sure, there are organizations that have the capacity to check out such reports of abuse and it probably won't be long before they surface on a fact finding mission.

The Gitmo detainees' rights are being protected according to the laws/regulations of the Geneva Convention which is afforded to them as possible terrorists or having terrorists connections. The rules and procedures are different from those of our criminal justice system.




This type of "evidence" is not for the general public's knowledge. I would think it would be typed as "classified" information by our government and for their eyes only. After all, these people are being detained as possible terrorists or having connections with terrorists. If they have links to terrorists, all the sources have to be checked out and verified, etc. A long process. Whether there is a provision for restitution for those being set free, I don't know.

Well Artemise. Aquilla and Wanderer and Turnea have provided links for me. I have to say I am switching to republican on this issue. I am a believer in extenuating circumstances. I dont think the US is holding these men for the fun of it or to ruffle the worlds feathers. I would imagine releasing most of these men would be detrimental to the war on terror especially since the region most of these men are from is still a terrorism hotspot. I would also say it would prove extremely difficult to charge these men with anything. It's a catch 22. You know that the absolute majority of these men were up to no good but you cant necessarily prove it. So should your release them back into chaos on a technicality? Abraham Lincoln suspended a writ of Habeus Corpus in the American civil war. In a time of undeclared war it is impossible to delcare these men prisoners of war. This is what merits the title enemy combatants in my eyes. I mean the US could have trumped up charges on these men and thrown them in jail during the conflict but havent. Their is a reality that these men are threats to peace but that they are unchargeable and Gitmo is the answer to that enigma.

Do you believe the accusations of those released?

Why should we have to "believe" them? Why can't they give the Red Cross full access to the compound to check this out for themselves? That's something the Geneva Convention requires. Why the secrecy? Why can't external authorities check out these claims?

Aside from that, these people are not terrorists so why would they lie? Can you answer that? The basic fact that they were held against their will without charge or legal recourse is enough to demand compensation. What's the point of lying about abuse? They were abused under other terms anyway. Should they not receive compensation for some reason, I can guarantee they won't change their story.

And do you believe the detention of these 640 people, in the manner being used, is justified?

Not without trial, no. That's called justice. The fact that five Brits have just been released shows that they should not have been held for two years, or indeed at all, so how many more people there should not be there? We don't know because they've never been charged.

Are you aware that these people released have never been told why they were arrested? Or released? They weren't told at the time, or when released or at any time. They repeatedly asked but received no answer. How can this be justified?

They were held for two years with 1 hour's excercise a day, 24/7 lights, no contact with the outside world beyond vetted letters, solitary confinement for many, probably daily interrogation. They also had children held there (in slightly different conditions) until a few weeks ago. And they were all released without charge!

Finally what do you think about Colin Powells comments, do Americans traditionally treat people in a acceptable manner?

That's got nothing to do with it. The Geneva Convention compels the US to treat prisoners in an acceptable - and verifiable - manner. Firstly, are these people criminal prisoners or PoWs? The standards are different.

Secondly, the Geneva Convention demands (remember this is not a negotiable set of rules) that there must be a tribunal for each prisoner as soon as possible to decide their prisoner status under the convention. These people have been held and released without anything like this.

These basic facts are crucial. Look at history to see how the American government has traditionally treated people. Even a cursory glance at the records show they have a chequered history to say the least.

Hoover's FBI is a classic. The Mccarthy witch hunts. The Vietnam war and the many massacres and uninvestigated war crimes is pretty obvious. They are just three examples that show that the US may not be the devil incarnate but they sure as hell are no angels.

The International Red Cross does have access to the detainees. They are the only independent body with access.

OK. I was wrong (probably out of date information or a bad memory) there but that is not the end of the story: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/h...5V?OpenDocument

There are real problems the IRC has based on their visits. This is equally as important as having access. Is it not?

Schooly

Certainly, but the reservations that the ICRC have do not back the aforementioned testimony of the released British detainees. They haven't encountered evidence of torture, they are concerned with the legalities of detaining these people indefinitely.

But aside from the detention element:

"The ICRC has also asked the US authorities to implement significant changes at Guantanamo Bay."

There is no further detail on the page but perhaps it relates to the lights being on 24/7 and so on. But as there are no details given (probably for reasons of confidentiality) we do not know.

Good Evening!

Even if that is the case that some of the children who were in Gitmo, enjoyed their stay, What happens with the adults who haven't seen their wives and children ?. In a way that is a kind of mistreatment, maybe even worse and more permanent than physical mistreatment.

And don't tell me now they deserve it because they were hostile to the US Army. If the US Army had any real accusation on them they should have prosecuted (is that the word?) and sentenced them by now instead of keeping them in prison for what, 2 years?. There is a saying from where I come from: Don't do to others what you wouldn't want to be done on you!. It is cruel and it is not fair. And I think that most of you, who say that it is right for your country to do that to those people, know in your hearts what the rest of the World is saying: It is wrong-doing!

I excuse myself for my grammar!

As to life for the adult detainees;

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Wor...book030923.html

The article is far to long for me to quote, but within it details the conditions within the camps.

As to mistreatment within the camp, this Russian prisoner says otherwise;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3135447.stm

Do I believe the accusations?

Well my skeptical nature tells me no, there are lots of people out there just looking for their 15 minutes of fame...But, in this case I am more inclined to believe that although perhaps exaggerated there probably is some truth to these charges.

For a couple of reasons: first of all whether various international groups have access to the prisoners or not, could they possibly know everything that is going on there? Remember WMD's isn't that the same essential argument who knows what is hidden from the international view. Second why are they being held there? If nothing inappropriate is occurring there, why hold them in such an obscure place?

Is holding them there justified?

Obviously some of the detainees are innocent as indicated by their release. How can imprisoning them for 2 years of their life, without trial or charge, possibly be justified? I confess I don't know the articles of the Geneva convention off the top of my head, but common sense and decency seems to indicate there is something wrong here.
And who judges them to be enemy combatants? The soldiers, or military planners? Do we really trust them to make that judgement? I can imagine under those conditions it must often be difficult to ascertain who is an enemy or ally...Remember April 13 2002 I suppose not but 4 Canadian Soldiers were killed by an American bomb just a simple miscalculation (maybe neglagence on the pilots behalf) but how many others have there been?

Finally How do I feel about Powell's Statements?

Well I will say the US does perhaps have a better track record than some in this situation, but on the other hand very rarely has the United States every had to capture enemies and imprison them on its soil. The Civil War is sort of a peculiar case (its hard to mistreat someone who seems so much like you) and the Wars of 1812 and independence seem rather inapplicable. Japanese internment during WWII was certainly no picnic, and definitely unjustified, and Vietnam well I think many would just like to forget about it and all the horrors that accompany it. But really I would say that Americans have little tradition in treating prisoners in this situation in anyway at all, simply because they haven't faced it.

I did find it a little ridiculous that Colin asserted just because it wasn't done before it isn't happening now, seems a bit shaky for my liking. The easiest way to resolution in this issue is to simply charge and try those at Gitmo, and open the prison up to various human rights groups so there can be no doubt, if none of these accusations are true, then why not?

Do I believe? No.
I worked in Military Intelligence (save the jokes) for nine years and firmly believe torture isn't used as an interrogation tool. It is possible that these individuals were handled roughly during their apprehension and movement. I doubt there was ever any intentional physical abuse during their stay at Gitmo. It sounds to me like exaggeration. Those who are making these charges may be motivated by a desire for recompense.

Justified?
Let's be clear: the detainees have some basic rights. Their rights, however, have not been sufficiently enumerated because of their indefinite legal status. I can only hope that the traditions laid forth in the 6th amendment would guide our treatment of these 'enemy combatants'. This isn't to say that we aren't justified in imprisoning these individuals once their status has been sufficiently and transparantly decided. Our government needs to hasten this process. The appearance of injustice is often just as bad as actual injustice.

Schoolboy

"There are real problems the IRC has based on their visits. This is equally as important as having access."

However, the ICRC does not say anything about touture after have seen and talked to every prisoner on more then one occasion In addition, the British government has sent representatives to GITMO to inspect and talk to Brit Citizens held there. They also have reported no abuses. As to the Geneva Convention, these combat detainees fall through the cracks. The detainees do no fit any description of soldier or civilian fighter that allows them to be called Prisoners of War. Hence the convention really doesn't cover them as it does soldiers. In any event, as your link states, the United States has said that prisoner treatment will be the same as POWs. All reports to date back that statement up.

All of the above, plus the statement of other released prioners cast major doubts on the statements of the recent Brit returnees. Returnees with an axe to grind.

1SG

Here is an explanation of the (the difference) in treatment of detainees and those with POW status.

People keep using arguments like "They were engaged in hostile action against the United States army", and "If they are released, they might attack us again".

Lets look at those for a moment.

1) "They were engaged in hostile action against the United States army"

Firstly, correct me if I am wrong, but was the US army not in the process of invading their country when they took "hostile action against it"?

Secondly, ignoring that logical gap, if these were taken as prisoners of war, then there is a code for dealing with them. The Geneva convention clearly explains what must happen with soldiers or militia taken prisoner in a conflict. The US is a signatory of this convention, yet has chosen to sidestep it by inventing a brand new term, 'enemy combatant' which is somehow so different from 'soldier or militia' that the Geneva convention apparently does not apply.

The war in Afganistan is Over, Bush said so himself. Once hostilities have ceased, POWs MUST be repatriated to their home country. In this case however, Bush feels justified in detaining them indefinitely under NO RULE OF LAW. It is not under the geneva Convention, they are obviously not being held under US Law, not even under Cuban Law. The reality is, because of the actions the US has taken, they COULD torture or even execute these detainees at will, simply because they have chosen, deliberatly and intentionally, to circumvent the only system of laws which governs their safety. The Gitmo prisoners have no more security or protection than captives taken in the Middle Ages before rules of warfare existed.

THAT right there is a huge problem, wheither or NOT they are actually being mistreated.

So now we ask ourselves, why? Why did the US do something completely without precident or justification, arbitrarily create a new 'category' or prisoner which by definition has no protection under national or international law? Did they do it so they could treat these people nicely as they would have anyways?

Lets put it another way: If Iran got its hands on US special forces, operating out of uniform, and declared them 'enemy combatants', outside the rule of law and subject to indefinite imprisonment or worse, how would the US react to this? Or, forget Iran, a clearly extreme example, what if France did this to US soldiers? Would the US accept this invented category of 'enemy combatant' or would they justifiably claim that no matter what you called them, these people are subject to the Geneva conventions?


Given the logical lengths the US has gone through to justify its breaking of these conventions, to hide them outside prying eyes in a fortified compound on a dictator's island, considering they have been denied access to lawyers, family members, national representatives (all illegal) and have also NOT BEEN CHARGED after two years...

Do i think its possible the US is mistreating them? Damn right.


2) "If they are released, they might attack us again".

Same arguments all over again. Firstly, that argument does not work in any other legal system, and if you are worried about recidivism, perhaps you should charge them with a crime, before arbitrarily concluding they may commit other crimes.

What the US has done is clearly and obviously illegal and immoral, it is against every principle of international law, and every principle the US holds dear. It is blatantly hypocritical, as the US would NEVER accept the same thing done to its citizens... and now, despite this, despite a system set up with great difficulty for the entire purpose of maing sure the US does not have to act in a moral manner... we are supposed to just assume they are treating these people well? Why, because it would be 'uncharictaristic' to treat them badly? This whole Gitmo thing has been 'uncharictaristic' from day one. If someone has acted in an entirely amoral manner until this point on an issue, I cannot then accept their word that they will be moral from now on.

So in the end, what does this mean?

I have no evidence the prisoners at Guantanimo are being mistreated, but lets be clear, even if they are NOT, this is still an appauling act by the US against every law and custom they claim to be fighting for.

Do I suspect the prisoners at Gitmo are being mistreated? yes, of course, given the actions of the US so far in this case, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion.

Enemy combatant is not a new term, Vermillion (I assume you actually mean unlawful, or illegal, combatant). It is defined under the Geneva conventions. A mercenary, for example, is considered an illegal combatant, but a guerilla fighter is not.

Edited to add:

Vermillion

"Firstly, correct me if I am wrong, but was the US army not in the process of invading their country when they took "hostile action against it"?"

First, most of the detainees in GITMO are not Afgani and were not fighting for their own country. They were not part of a militia or Guerilla organizations run by Afghani leaders. Hence they fall into the "illegal combatant" catagory.

I admit I do not know the legallities of the holding of Afghan prisoners on GITMO, but appearently it is legal, or the ICRC would have raised objections. One would think the British, Australion or Russion governments would have raised questions on the legality of GITMO, but they have only negotitated for the return of their citizens to their control.

"The war in Afganistan is Over, Bush said so himself. Once hostilities have ceased, POWs MUST be repatriated to their home country."

However, one of the reasons the United States (legally) denied these prisoners POW status is that Illiegal Combatants do not have to be released at the end of hostilies. They may held indefinately.

"Lets put it another way: If Iran got its hands on US special forces, operating out of uniform, and declared them 'enemy combatants', outside the rule of law and subject to indefinite imprisonment or worse, how would the US react to this?"

Any soldier caught out of uniform in the situation you described may, under the Geneva Convention, be considered a Spy and executed.

1SG

Many are indeed foreign. Some are Afgani. Almost all claim to have been organised and trained as militia to fight alongside the Taliban. Their nationality has nothing to do with their status, they are not mercenaries, they were soldiers or militia.



You should read news sources outside the United States. British, Canadian, Australian and in fact most of the world have questioned the legality of Guantanimo, there was a HUGE deal in the UK when it was revealed there were UK citizens there that had been denied consular access, against all established rules of law. If you think nobody has questioned the lagality of Gitmo, then you are completely mistaken.



And you have no problem with that arbitrary designation? Yopu have no problem with the fact that a nation can, thanks to the precident of the US, now arbitrarily ignore the Geneva Convention with regards to prisoners of war? You have no problem that the US can detain foreign nationals indefinitely, without consular access, without access to a lawyer, and without ever filing a formal charge?

Vermillion

"Many are indeed foreign. Some are Afgani. Almost all claim to have been organised and trained as militia to fight alongside the Taliban. Their nationality has nothing to do with their status, they are not mercenaries, they were soldiers or militia."

I don't know where you got your information on this, but the vast majority of the foreign fighters belonged to al-Qaeda which was not led by Afghanis or part of any Afghni Militia.

"....there was a HUGE deal in the UK when it was revealed there were UK citizens there that had been denied consular access, against all established rules of law."

GITMO being a hugh deal and being illegal are two very different things. People may be upset, but that does not change the legallity of the situation. As far as being denied rights under International law, once again I ask you to read up on the subject under the Geneva Convention.

"And you have no problem with that arbitrary designation? Yopu have no problem with the fact that a nation can, thanks to the precident of the US, now arbitrarily ignore the Geneva Convention with regards to prisoners of war?"

That you personally refuse to admit these detainees are not POWs does not change the fact they are not. Which is in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Neither were they given some arbitrary designation.

1SG

mim3 for the Maoist Internationalist Movement:

If Uncle $am did not have anything to hide, those prisoners would not be down there but handled by the usual Geneva Conventions. So of course I believe the reports of torture.

Some of us have an overly inflated view of Amerikans, but it's been known for sometime that Amerikans will do terrible things. Check Stanley Milgram's study that showed 65% of Amerikans would shock someone to death just when asked to,
a famous psychology study:
http://www.stanleymilgram.com/milgram.html

Also relevant would be Phil Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Study where participants merely pretended to be prisoners and still got guards to abuse them:

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/relaged/...8prisonexp.html

All this is a way of saying Amerikans have a lot of authority/violence "issues" and their motivations are not pure as snow, quite the opposite. Their motivations have been ruined by a heirarchy of wealth and power with selective rewards like oil.

I have huge problems with the US administration and their current policies, both with regards to Iraq, Guantanimo and others... However, in the interest of fairness I must, this once leap to their defence.

Milgram's experiment demonstrated that 65% of people would continue to deliver painful, even lethal electrical shocks because the establishment told them to. It had nothing to do with nationality, Milgram never made a single inference or reference to nationality, and there was nothing at all to show that the results would have been any different if held in Canada, the UK, Japan, Italy or any other first world state. His experiment has enormous significance in psychological circles and is oft quoted, but to link it to nationality is a complete distortion.

The exact same can be applied to the Zimbardo prison study. While it showed a disturbing trend in human behaviour towards authority, it can in NO way be linked to nationality, nor was there ever any atempt by the researcher to link it to nationality. In fact, in the Zimbardo case, the idea for the experiment came from similar experiments on a smaller scale conducted in the UK.

If you want to insult the US government or administration, there are plenty of ways to do it, but to link isolated psychological studies involving a handful of people to nationality is silly.

It is much like saying: "There have been several well publicised child rapes in the Uk in the last few years, therefore all British citizens are child rapists." Clearly and patently absurd.

mim3 for the Maoist Internationalist Movement:

"If Uncle $am did not have anything to hide, those prisoners would not be down there but handled by the usual Geneva Conventions. So of course I believe the reports of torture."

Except they are being held in accordance to the Geneva conventions. But not in POW status, which they do not deserve. Maybe you should read the Geneva Conventions in their entireity so as to better understand what is happening in GITMO today.

I know this answer seems repititious, however I believe we have folks who look in on these threads and only see the latest posts. To allow erroneous information to go unchallenged may give those watchers the impression these erroneous post are true. For this reason I will be as repititious as allowed, so as to insure the correct information, as far as I know it, is used as a counterweight.

1SG

Vermillion said:


mim3 for the Maoist Internationalist Movement:
This is a strike out. First, the two studies were done on Amerikans not Kung! tribespeople who I dare say would have had different results. Secondly, those studies were not based on a couple child rapes--an emotional red herring
combined with a straw man you raised. Thirdly, your point is irrelevant anyway because the thread question is whether we believe the Amerikans are torturing people in that base.

The fact that some in the above thread (Cruising Ram) are saying that Amerikans are better than other people and wouldn't do that while Milgram and Zimbardo studied Amerikans IS relevant to this thread. It hardly matters if Milgram claimed it was true ONLY for Amerikans or more broadly. This is typical of psychological reasoning fallacies as a whole. Who cares what Milgram INTENDED? He may have had the hubris to think his study applied to everybody, but I don't think he studied enough varied people over enough varied points in history to draw some conclusion about "humun nature." You mistake the issue Milgram's individual motivations for social truth production. His data is on Amerikans.

Now if you are asking me if you put other peoples through the same studies would they show the same results--yes, I agree, especially those cultures most similar to Amerikan. There are a lot of tribal people you could not get the same results for though. So your point is just not terribly relevant here in this thread.

'Firstly' I know they were on Americans. However they were not based on nationality, nor was any kind of international control group established. Ergo it is the hight of absurdity to assume this study therefore says something about the American propensity to torture. At best, it shows that humans repond strongly to authority. You turned it into some kind of general criticism of the American people, which is fallacious.

'Secondly' the child assault was an extreme example to be sure, but apt. The study in the Us was on under a dozen people. There have been more than a dozen sexual assaults of children in the Uk in the last couple years. Thus, if you are going to take an isolated example and make some kind of grandiose conclusion about the whole nationality, the sample size is the same, in fact given population size, it is MORE apt in the UK case. Besides, as I said, the Zimbardo study was based on previous UK work, not American at all.

'Thirdly', nice try. You brought up the examples, you drew some stupid conclusions from them based on nothing at all, you do not now get to say my rebuttal of your silly points is 'irrelevant to the thread'. If it was irrelevant, then that is just another reason why you should not have posted that silly parabole in the first place.



Ah, I had not guessed you were an experienced analytical researcher with a doctorate in psychology, which is what you would have to be in order to second-guess his findings based on what you read in a small blurb on the web.

REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACK Milgram never made any comments about the national or international applicability of his findings. He studied psychological reactions of a sample of students, thats all. Now you re-invent his findings to support your obvious bias, and you have the gall to accuse HIM of hubris?

Let me be clear. yes the survey was conducted on Americans. But they were also conducted on whites. Does that mean ALL whites have a propensity to torture? They were also conducted on all young people, does that mean ALL people under 20 have a propensity to torture? He also conducted it entirely on educated people. Does that means ALL people who pass high school have a propensity to torture? He also conducted the test on all English speaking people. Does that means ALL English speaking people have a propensity to torture? I could go on, and each of there is just as 'logical' a conclusion as the silly one you drew from the test.



You are EXACTLY right, he did not because that was not the purpose of his experiment. Yet now here you come, willing to make these conclusions about differing natures of different nationalities, even though his experiment was not about that. If he was not qualified, from his experiment, to make national or international comparaisons, then what makes you think YOU are qualified, based on a cursory reading of the results of one of his experiments? Again, its amusing you then accuse HIM of Hubris.

If you wish to insult the US, feel free, but try to stick to the realm of reality.

Really, where does it say that in this study that these students were willing to "shock someone to death"? You need to read your own links. I guess we can't expect too much from someone who can't spell American.

The fact is the United States need not worry about the rights of foreigners. Particularly those who war against us. I am sure some mild to moderate abuses occur. That's the breaks.

Rules of war only apply to losers.

Thats entirely acceptable, of course... as long as you accept the right of others to do the same to you.

Lets be clear: since the united States warred against Iraq, therefore Iraq has the right to treat US prisoners however they want? Surely you are not being hypocritical here and assuming the US somehow has right no other country does. So by making that statement, you therefore entirely accept the fact that "Iraq does not need to worry about the rights of foreigners, Particularily those who war against them... thats the breaks"?

Vermillian, on another thread you posted that the Iraqis are now taking over "dangerous " positions, which were formerly filled by our military personnel. You listed 'ambulance driver' as one of those dangerous positions. Clearly, someone isn't abiding by the laws of war. Under the Geneva Conventions (formerly cited) a lawful combatant is one who does follow the laws of war. Bombing ambulances, the Red Cross, feigning civilian status or hiding behind civilian medical emblems are disqualifying. During the war, soldiers even said they witnessed Iraqi militias pushing women and children into the line of fire.

Regardless, the Iraqis (at least the Saddam supporters) apparently didn't treat our prisoners acceptably. We are treating them very well by comparison. The International Red Cross is visiting, they have Muslim chaplains to tend to their religious needs. There is no evidence of torture, with the exception of testimony from these Brits who are probably hoping to make a book deal in the future. The main issue of controversy is the length and uncertainty of the duration of their detention.

Sorry, the schoolground argument of "they started it" does not work here.

Firstly, you are mixing Iraq and Afganistan, but thats a minor point. Though I do not know firsthand, I am more than willing to accept that Taliban troops may well have violated the rules of war in their attempts to fight off the American invasion.

Does that then give the US carte blanche to ignore the geneva convention itself, and treat prisoners how it sees fit? As I said, technically the US has found a way to do this legally, if not morally... I just want to make sure people are aware of what kind of precident is set by this action. Hugo said quite clearly that a country does not have to worrk about the 'rights' of foreigners, particularily when that country made war against them. Well, I just wanted to point out that by saying that, Hugo has just stripped all rights and legal protection from the US forces currently in Iraq.

After all, the US started the war against Iraq, not the other way around, and it now is looking clearer and clearer that any attempt to make Iraq out to be a clear and present danger is fiction.

I'm not being hypocritical when I assert that ,yes, the United States has rights no other country has. That is the benefit of being the most powerful country on Earth. Iraqi war criminals will face judgement. Do those who call Bush a war criminal actually believe he will face a court?

We should do what is in the best interest of the US. In most cases that means obeying international law. In some cases it may mean acting in the gray areas, in others it might be violating it and having a smooth explanation of how we are really still in compliance.

I imagine most of the abuses that occur are more individual failings than systematic ones.

Vermillion, if you are going to throw out the hypothetical "Hey! How would you like it if the Iraqis did this?" Expect a response. They did, in fact, ignore the Geneva Conventions (in both wars) and abuse our prisoners. My post is in response to this statement from you: Lets be clear: since the united States warred against Iraq, therefore Iraq has the right to treat US prisoners however they want? If the Iraqis (or any other country we would go to war with) treated our POWs as well as we treat their illegal combatants, it would be a massive victory for human rights.