What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?

Hey Ive been saying this forever.

Quote:

---

What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
By George H. Wittman
Published 6/22/2005 12:05:35 AM

For those of us -- and there are millions -- who have gone through U.S. Army basic training or Marine Corps boot camp the complaints of Senator Richard Durbin regarding the treatment of the prisoners at Camp Delta in Guantanamo are laughable.

One wonders what Durbin and the folks at Amnesty International would say if their little darlings had been forced to stand at attention in 100-degree heat for two or more hours at Fort Jackson or Camp Lejeune in full combat gear, with 60 pounds of ammo and equipment, waiting for a general inspection. "What time did you get up, soldier?" the inspecting officer invariably asks the first trooper in line. The answer is always the same. "Reveille, sir." As long as you said that, you didn't have to admit you and your buddies had been up for 36 hours straight "G I-ing" the barracks, the company street, your weapons and everything that moved or stood in the area.

"Drop down and give me 20, 30, 50," the training cadre would demand, and the shaved head recruit falls to the ground and completes his push-ups -- sometimes to the point of exhaustion for those not in top condition. The heel of the corporal on your back tends to make the task a bit more difficult. Gosh, we should have had some of those ACLU lawyers.

Another fine element of training occurs when a drill sergeant's mouth is so close to yours his shouts spit saliva till it runs down your face. One flinch brings an order for 30 perfect push-ups or an evening of jogging around the company area with a rifle held with both hands above one's head while the miscreant shouts the General Orders.

Definitely too tough for those unfortunate terrorists.

Senator Durbin, whose biography shows he spent the Vietnam War in law school, knows nothing of an American soldier's training life -- and we are talking about only those first eight weeks of basic training, not the far tougher regimen for Ranger, SEAL, Recon or Special Forces.

He says he's appalled the Gitmo terrorists had to sit or stand in stress positions while under interrogation. What about crawling into and cleaning out an eight-foot deep grease pit attached to each mess hall. That's a nice little punishment for arriving late to formation. Or what about a 25-mile march with a full field pack, your weapon and ammo, and only one canteen of water?

Senator Durbin is deeply worried about the impression that is caused internationally when a terrorist prisoner complains his "space" has been invaded by a female interrogator. Oh, dear me, did that female make the poor prisoner feel badly? An American soldier yearns for such "intimidation." A recruit has no "space." He or she is government property.

From what type of mental illness does Senator Durbin suffer? What country has Durbin been inhabiting? From what planet does this civilian feather merchant come? Senator, don't insult the hundreds of thousands of on-duty servicemen and women and the millions of veterans by your politically inspired pettifogging complaints.

Perhaps Senator Durbin doesn't understand what it takes to be an American soldier or Marine. Perhaps he thinks the families of the terrorists should be thought of before the families of the victims of 9/11 or those of our fallen warriors. He speaks of Guantanamo as an embarrassment. It is he who embarrasses those who have served.

---

Poor little terrorists. We should send them to PI.

I've said it before and i'll keep repeating it, it isn't the treatment as much as it is the fact they have never received a proper trial that is worrying.

How a country deals with its criminals, or even enemies, is its business. Has anyone actually heard what French jails used to be like ? The suspected terrorists have got it really easy compared to that. However, only convicted criminals should be treated as as convicted criminals :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Quote:

---

One wonders what Durbin and the folks at Amnesty International would say if their little darlings had been forced to stand at attention in 100-degree heat for two or more hours at Fort Jackson or Camp Lejeune in full combat gear, with 60 pounds of ammo and equipment, waiting for a general inspection.

---

---

That's where I did basic. It was during July and August a few years ago, and I swear to God that it's the hottest place on the entire planet.

Anyway, as for the content, exactly right once again. They should take a look at the US Army's POW school.

What kind of inappropriate comparison is this?


These soldiers volunteered to undergo this treatment. The suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Bagrām, and Abu Ghraib did not.

Lets let them go and allow them to be killed when they attack. Hey, they wont mind they get like 7 virgins or something.

(Yes thats a straw man argument.)

Point is if you think these guys will happily go back to Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Malaysia, Jordan or where ever and open a shop and contribute to building there country your niave. They will end up dead. The question is how many American soldiers, Iraqi police and innocent civilians will end up dead because of them?

But that's okay, I mean we want to protect thier rights and all. There rights are way more important then thier targets.

Should our miltary collect evidence on the battlefield a la CSI: Kabul?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

These soldiers volunteered to undergo this treatment. The suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Bagrām, and Abu Ghraib did not.

---

They volunteered for it when they decided to become fighters not aligned with any nation and out of uniform, and should be summarily shot as is allowed under the laws of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

They volunteered for it when they decided to become fighters not aligned with any nation and out of uniform, and should be summarily shot as is allowed under the laws of war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

The suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Bagrām, and Abu Ghraib did not.

---

I took the liberty to put the word “suspect” in bold, as I am sure you missed it.

And it’s 72 virgins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

I took the liberty to put the word “suspect” in bold, as I am sure you missed it.

---

The Combat Status Review Panels gave them three rights:

1. They had the opportunity to contest their designation as an enemy combatant.

2. They had an opportunity to consult with a personal representative.

3. They had the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus.

Once the CSRPs were completed, an independent board reviewed every case. Those that were found not to be a threat were released, those that were found to be conbatants were kept.

In addition, there are annual reviews of every detainee's status.

But you're right. Let's just assign a forensics team to every infantryman in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

And it’s 72 virgins.

---

What a deal.

Ok.This is an joke so dont get mad, but i cant help myself.What i read The US is giving standard infantry training to those suspects.Shouldnt they be gratefull? ~D

Quote:

---

What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?

---

Butlins....@Minehead...I remember when I was 11...I formed an escape committee .....those damn Redcoats on the gates, never did escape until the week was over.. ~;)

In Bootcamp can you dropout or are you sent to solitary for failing to complete it?

100 Degrees... try going to school in Perth.

Typically the start of school term is 40 to 44 degrees C. Thats 104 to 111 F. And we still play sport in those conditions.

Or working in Sumatra and Borneo a balmy 97+ Fahrenheit and 98 to 100% humidity. Hiking for ten to twelve hours a day through thick jungle with an incline over 1:1 in some instances, through swamp, clay mud, quicksand, thornbushes etc With injuries such as 3rd degree burns, diahorrea, mass bruising, lacerations. Joys of tick swarms... tiny red brown ticks so small that they are hard to see as individuals but as a mass swarm up your arm changing the tone of your skin a couple of shades towards latte brown. Leaches that bury through your boots and socks and suck the blood, yet since it is so humid you don't feel your socks filling up with blood until you take them off at the end of the day. Being beneath the jungle canopy and hearing the roar of the thunderstorm coming in like waves crashing at the beach. The fall of rain so thick that despite being under 30meters (90foot) of canopy you can barely make out the outline of your team who are within 6 foot of you, the terrible cold as your body goes from an environment of humid body temperature to icy rain. You sweat so much that if you hold off going for a p!ss the water will be reabsorbed into your body and you don't feel the need any longer. You can drink a litre and a half (2 pints) of cordial before lunch and still finish a large meal, and by the time you are hiking again you are sweating cordial (it is sweet to the taste).

Or East of Marble Bar, where at the end of the day of hiking through the desert I felt cold at then end of the days exploration when sitting in the shade wearing jeans, flannel shirt, hat and steel caps and it was 38C (100F). The red desert with snake and lizard tracks. You know you are getting dehydrated at the end of the day despite drinking over 6 L of water which you carry as you go, why? Because instead of imagining a beach with babes over the dune and their welcoming attentions, you imagine the same beach and running past the babes for the cool waters.

The thing is at the end of the day as long as I had a beer and a shower I was fine. I also had the option of ending it and going home. Choice makes a huge difference over how one feels about a situation. Of course if you understand yourself well enough you can always choose to be happy.

They volunteered for it when they decided to become fighters not aligned with any nation and out of uniform, and should be summarily shot as is allowed under the laws of war.
Ah... but my dear Prole , the administration has incarcerated people in this "tropical paradise hoiday camp with a really good menu and lots of fun activities" without them meeting the criteria that you mention as justification .

So... should they write to their travel agent and ask for a refund ? ~;)

Well army training to me has always seemed cruel and overly harsh. But one needs to be a bit desensitized to be a soldier, I suppose... And I'm a wus. ~;)

Army training is harsh so the soldiers don't fold the first day in the field. They're already used to abuse and poor conditions. They might even like it. ~;)

Actually, that's also a very old method of indoctrinating people. Treat them like dirt, force them to endure bad conditions, and then tell them how very tough and elite they are. Only the best can do what they've done, and now they're fine enough to stay in the best army there ever was. Everyone wants to feel special.

Quote:

---

How a country deals with its criminals, or even enemies, is its business.

---

Isnt that the truth. :bow:

Dick Durban disgraced this country and especially our soldiers. The sad thing is - most liberals agree with the Nazi comparisons.

We wont ever win abroad if we dont destroy the fifth column within.

Quote:

---

That's where I did basic. It was during July and August a few years ago, and I swear to God that it's the hottest place on the entire planet.

Anyway, as for the content, exactly right once again. They should take a look at the US Army's POW school.

---

Wow you were in the service. My compliments. I was at PI and it was no picnic there either as any of you who have seen Full Metal Jacket can testify to. Even that doesnt convey the true brutality that you can endure there. By the way after I joined FMF I worked in escape and evasion school as a Gomer. You should see the torture we put our own pilots through.

Quote:

---

These soldiers volunteered to undergo this treatment.

---

I didnt volunter to be tortured but to serve my country. You dont imagine the stuff they do to you in basic or most wouldnt even go there. Besides that most peole were drafted when I was in. What do you say to those who were drafted then?

Once more all those in Gitmo are lucky to be alive. We could have shot every last one of them on the spot when we caught them. Thats what Patton would have done.

Quote:
How a country deals with its criminals, or even enemies, is its business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Isnt that the truth. :bow:

Dick Durban disgraced this country and especially our soldiers. The sad thing is - most liberals agree with the Nazi comparisons.

We wont ever win abroad if we dont destroy the fifth column within.

---

You really know how to scare me.
You think the way the Hitler or Stalin treated 'criminals, or even enemies' was their own business. Or Saddam?
What do you mean with destroying the fifth column? Physical destruction? Is this a Hitler quote?

I thought this was going to be a joke and the answer was "two Gitmos"

Surely if any insulting has gone on, Mr Wittman has insulted American servicemen and women by comparing their experiences to the experiences of people he considers to be terrorists.

There are two issues here, incarceration, and torture. We shouldn't confuse them.

Torture is wrong. First, because it is. The nature of the act itself makes it always wrong. Second, for the utilitarians amongst us, because as has been often shown, information obtained by torture is unreliable.

(NB I would distinguish torture from REASONABLE measures designed to secure the safety of prison staff and to secure obedience to REASONABLE requests made in running the camp. A short spell of solitary for disobedience, or handcuffing a prisoner to take him from place to place, is not torture. Civil libertarians offer an easy target to the authoritarians if they complain too much at minor things.)

Incarceration is more difficult. In principle removing someone's liberty is not much nice than torturing them. However, I am coming round to the argument that IF there is an enemy who is not in the armed forces of another state, and who for practical and legal reasons can't be dealt with as a criminal, then some sort of intermediate status may be justifiable.

The issue. though, is that that status must still be subject to the rule of law. How is it determined that these people are a threat sufficient to justify indefinite detention, and how is that status kept under review? These aren't questions to be brushed aside with a reference to boot camp, asking and answering them is a key test of whether you live under the rule of law or not. If the Combat Status Review Panels are chaired by an independent person, and the detainees have sight of all of the evidence against them and access to an independent lawyer to make their case, and if they understand what it is that has to be proved before they can continue to be detained, and if the Combat Status Review Panels are themselves subject to judicial oversight, then I agree they are an adequate safeguard.

Of course the rule of law is for pussys, wimps, and other liberals, until its YOU they come and harrass, or its YOUR job that goes because no one invests in a country where power is used arbitrarily, or its YOUR son/daughter who gets blown up in iraq because Gitmo is the best recruiting sergeant for the terrorists ever devised. Then maybe you see the value in it and even in the ACLU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Quote:
How a country deals with its criminals, or even enemies, is its business.

You really know how to scare me.
You think the way the Hitler or Stalin treated 'criminals, or even enemies' was their own business. Or Saddam?

---

I said country, not brutal dictator. And I do believe the basic human rights should be respected, however, rapes of (female) inmates tend to happen in places like Pakistan far more often than in the US for some reason, so i'm willing to give the Americans some benefits of doubt.

But seriously, jail is hell in many places, I believe in the rule of law, and it should be applied in a good, strict way, however, once someone has been found guilty what happens then is mostly up to the country imho. Not that I don't think those people shouldn't be treated with a minimum of respect, but some people would want us to treat criminals better than some normal law-abiding citizens have it: free meals, fitness facilities, tv, no work,....

The real problem lies in how dictators like Saddam arbitrarily imprisoned and tortured people who hadn't done any wrong. The US also went a bit paranoid and put a lot of people in Gitmo that shouldn't have been arrested. Most of them probably have gotten released by now, so it isn't all bad.

Gitmo isn't that bad compared to a lot of places, I'd probably prefer it to Turkish prison and certainly to old (around the revolution) French prisons. It's a bit silly that they don't allow the UN to inspect, but I haven't heard any real horror stories yet. The inmates have to pee in their pants and sleep on hard beds, big deal. It's not like they're getting random objects shoved into random orifices. The latest accusation is that they used a persons medical record against him. Certainly a quite appalling thing to do taken at face value. However, what did they actually do ? The guy was scared of the dark ! It's not like they were punching him in some already damaged organ, or put an eye out or anything.
I fear the current cries of torture are making people forget what real torture is like, and that that is still going on to, maybe not so much in/by the US, but still.

On a slightly different note, if I were in any position to influence the policy in Gitmo, I'd let the prisoners read something else than the Quo'ran. It probably gets boring after having rad it a few hundred times already. And if they're real fundamentalists, they know it by heart already.

Quote:

---

Gitmo isn't that bad compared to a lot of places,

---

Don't you think America ought to be trying to show the world best practice, rather than taking comfort from the fact that a Turkish prison is probably worse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

How a country deals with its criminals, or even enemies, is its business.

Isnt that the truth. :bow:

---

Even if they are American citizens in a Al Qaida cave ??

I find it pretty intresting,that the US didnt give POW status to suspected Al Qaida fighters.That way they could keep this guys locked down how long they would like,because i dont think we are going to see peace between these parties in near future. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

I said country, not brutal dictator. And I do believe the basic human rights should be respected.
...
But seriously, jail is hell in many places, I believe in the rule of law, and it should be applied in a good, strict way, however, once someone has been found guilty what happens then is mostly up to the country imho. Not that I don't think those people shouldn't be treated with a minimum of respect, but some people would want us to treat criminals better than some normal law-abiding citizens have it: free meals, fitness facilities, tv, no work,.... .

The real problem lies in how dictators like Saddam arbitrarily imprisoned and tortured people who hadn't done any wrong. The US also went a bit paranoid and put a lot of people in Gitmo that shouldn't have been arrested. Most of them probably have gotten released by now, so it isn't all bad .

---

~:cheers: agreed ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Gitmo isn't that bad compared to a lot of places, I'd probably prefer it to Turkish prison and certainly to old (around the revolution) French prisons. It's a bit silly that they don't allow the UN to inspect, but I haven't heard any real horror stories yet. The inmates have to pee in their pants and sleep on hard beds, big deal. It's not like they're getting random objects shoved into random orifices. The latest accusation is that they used a persons medical record against him. Certainly a quite appalling thing to do taken at face value. However, what did they actually do ? The guy was scared of the dark ! It's not like they were punching him in some already damaged organ, or put an eye out or anything.
I fear the current cries of torture are making people forget what real torture is like, and that that is still going on to, maybe not so much in/by the US, but still. .

---

agreed ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

On a slightly different note, if I were in any position to influence the policy in Gitmo, I'd let the prisoners read something else than the Quo'ran. It probably gets boring after having rad it a few hundred times already. And if they're real fundamentalists, they know it by heart already.

---

agreed ~:cheers:
I once red an article about how the Chinese treated the US POW in the Korean war. They tried to brainwash them and they were very successful. When they were released most of them believed that communism is not bad. Maybe not the right system for the US but the best for China.
Why not do the same in Gitmo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain

Wow you were in the service. My compliments.

---

Thanks. To you, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Don't you think America ought to be trying to show the world best practice, rather than taking comfort from the fact that a Turkish prison is probably worse?

---

It is the best practice. Name another country in the history of mankind you would rather be detained by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

The issue. though, is that that status must still be subject to the rule of law. How is it determined that these people are a threat sufficient to justify indefinite detention, and how is that status kept under review? These aren't questions to be brushed aside with a reference to boot camp, asking and answering them is a key test of whether you live under the rule of law or not. If the Combat Status Review Panels are chaired by an independent person, and the detainees have sight of all of the evidence against them and access to an independent lawyer to make their case, and if they understand what it is that has to be proved before they can continue to be detained, and if the Combat Status Review Panels are themselves subject to judicial oversight, then I agree they are an adequate safeguard.

---

This is pretty much what I said.

Btw, nice post, doc bean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

I find it pretty intresting,that the US didnt give POW status to suspected Al Qaida fighters.That way they could keep this guys locked down how long they would like,because i dont think we are going to see peace between these parties in near future. :bow:

---

If my mind serves the US and their allies did not declare war to Iraq. And there was no ceasefire. Bush just declared the end of military operations. Why did he do this so undefined. What is the legal status now? Is it still war? Is it peace? Or has there never been war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

If my mind serves the US and their allies did not declare war to Iraq. And there was no ceasefire. Bush just declared the end of military operations. Why did he do this so undefined. What is the legal status now? Is it still war? Is it peace? Or has there never been war?

---

I think the attack on Iraq was illegal because it didnt have UN´s support.But if would criticize US,i wouldn´t focus on Gitmo.I would focus on that what is happening in prisons in Iraq. :bow:

Quote:

---

Name another country in the history of mankind you would rather be detained by.

---

Are you serious?

Iceland. They let prisoners out at weekends and bank holidays I hear.

Or, the UK. We started out in NI with internment, beatings and stress positions. All very Gitmo. Then it was stopped, after the ECHR got involved. Its that rule of law thing again.

Anyway, this is by the by, since I have done nothing wrong and should not be detained by anyone. So I would prefer to be in the hands of a country with appalling prisons but excellent procedures to determine guilt and innocence, than a country with excellent prisons and appalling procedures to decide who to put in them.

The difference between us, Proletariat, is I don't believe the Combat Status review panels meet the standards I described. And it might have been nice if it hadn't taken a supreme court ruling before they were established.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Are you serious?

Iceland. They let prisoners out at weekends and bank holidays I hear.

Or, the UK. We started out in NI with internment, beatings and stress positions. All very Gitmo. Then it was stopped, after the ECHR got involved. Its that rule of law thing again.

---

Sorry, I meant in a military setting. (NI?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

The difference between us, Proletariat, is I don't believe the Combat Status review panels meet the standards I described.

---

They've caught tens of thousands of these people over there, and only about 500 are still held in Gauntanamo. You really think the CSRPs haven't weeded out just about all but the worst of the worst? Skepticism is healthy, but this doesn't seem like a real problem to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

And it might have been nice if it hadn't taken a supreme court ruling before they were established.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

I think the attack on Iraq was illegal because it didnt have UN´s support.But if would criticize US,i wouldn´t focus on Gitmo.I would focus on that what is happening in prisons in Iraq. :bow:

---

Let us not discuss if the war is illegal. Just why was it not declared. I may be a bit oldfashioned. But the US would have had no disadvantage. Everybody new they would attack. It was no surprise to Saddam.

I agree with everything said in the article accept this piece:

Quote:

---

He or she is government property

---

That statement is not true, they are people they are just in custody now. The compairison between our soldiers training and how we treat prisoners is a weak argument, although the point is taken. Besides our training is what makes us the best armed force in the known world. When your a prisoner, you should be expecting to be treated badly I mean our american prisoners {in america} are treated worse than these guys. At least they don't have a "Buba" there that is going to break your legs then saudamise you. They got it easy, and anyone who sais otherwise had better have a really good reason for doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Let us not discuss if the war is illegal. Just why was it not declared. I may be a bit oldfashioned. But the US would have had no disadvantage. Everybody new they would attack. It was no surprise to Saddam.

---

I think its strance too.But far as i can remember there were not a formal peace treaty after the First Gulf War.or was there? :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC

Tensions between Iraq and the US continued as ceasefire agreements were violated and UN weapons inspectors prevented from doing their job.

---

There was a ceasefire predicated on Iraq's obediance with the UN resolution.

link

Yes.you are right. :bow:

Of course they went as far as firing upon US and I think maybe British planes, yet some still think this is an illegal war.

I bet those slaves in the USA before the civil war had it great too. They got to work outside, smiling in the fields, pickin' cotton all day long, and they didn't have to worry about a single thing because their master took care of them. They didn't have some horrible drill master spitting in there face, that's for sure, so everything must have been great for them. What a life! I wish I was a black slave in the early 1800's, that would be so great. I'm sure it was a dream, or, as Cheney said about the Gitmo detainees, 'they're living in the tropics' and have everthing a person could possibly want. So torture must be ok, since US soldiers live where there is worse weather and have a hard task at their voluntary basic training camps.

It all makes sense to me now.

Quote:

---

So torture must be ok,

---

What torture?

Quote:

---

They didn't have some horrible drill master spitting in there face, that's for sure,

---

Only the name of the antagonist is different. Hey they didnt whip us in bootcamp. Trying to compare Gitmo with conditions on a slave plantation is as bad as Dick Durbin comparing it to a Soviet Gulag. Shame on you.

Quote:

---

Actually, that's also a very old method of indoctrinating people. Treat them like dirt, force them to endure bad conditions, and then tell them how very tough and elite they are. Only the best can do what they've done, and now they're fine enough to stay in the best army there ever was. Everyone wants to feel special.

---

I suppose, especially since the soldiers don't have years of training. The best soldiers were ones that were forced into harshness by their enviornment, but years of training could also sufice, though not as well. But if you only have a certaint amount of time, it makes a bit of twisted sense to make it as harsh as possible.

Quote:

---

I didnt volunter to be tortured but to serve my country. You dont imagine the stuff they do to you in basic or most wouldnt even go there. Besides that most peole were drafted when I was in. What do you say to those who were drafted then?

---

That is the government's fault, they are to blame for forcing people to go into the army, and it is their fault when those people suffer and die.

Quote:

---

That is the government's fault, they are to blame for forcing people to go into the army, and it is their fault when those people suffer and die.

---

So what would you have done in WW2?

Perhaps it was necassary, I don' know enough about how many volenteers there were. But regardless, it is the government's responsibility and fault, even if it was neccassary.

Quote:

---

Perhaps it was necassary, I don' know enough about how many volenteers there were. But regardless, it is the government's responsibility and fault, even if it was neccassary.

---

Obviously there werent enough. So what do you do if attacked then? Just let the otherside win?

I don't know. Hopefully people would volenteer if their own home was attacked. But whenever there is a draft, it is stil at the government's feet when one of the draftees is harmed. They forced them to be there, and it is still their responsibility, even if it was the lesser evil.

Quote:

---

But whenever there is a draft, it is stil at the government's feet when one of the draftees is harmed. They forced them to be there, and it is still their responsibility, even if it was the lesser evil.

---

Fine and dandy but just like the democratic party you have no better alternative plan. You just complain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

I think its strance too.But far as i can remember there were not a formal peace treaty after the First Gulf War.or was there? :bow:

---

No peace treaty - a cease fire that was signed by British and American Generals along with Iraq Generals. Along with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia representives.

I should know since I pulled security on the site where the cease fire was signed.

THe United Nations Resolution came after the cease fire signed by the three nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

No peace treaty - a cease fire that was signed by British and American Generals along with Iraq Generals. Along with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia representives.

I should know since I pulled security on the site where the cease fire was signed.

THe United Nations Resolution came after the cease fire signed by the three nations.

---

Thats what i call first hand information. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

I bet those slaves in the USA before the civil war had it great too. They got to work outside, smiling in the fields, pickin' cotton all day long, and they didn't have to worry about a single thing because their master took care of them. They didn't have some horrible drill master spitting in there face, that's for sure, so everything must have been great for them. What a life! I wish I was a black slave in the early 1800's, that would be so great. I'm sure it was a dream, or, as Cheney said about the Gitmo detainees, 'they're living in the tropics' and have everthing a person could possibly want. So torture must be ok, since US soldiers live where there is worse weather and have a hard task at their voluntary basic training camps.

---

Wow - bringing up slavery to bash the US.. cheapness knows no bounds! :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Wow - bringing up slavery to bash the US.. cheapness knows no bounds! :no:

---

Wow - comparing torture of prisoners to hazing at boot camp... the ludicrous analogies know no bounds! :no:

I know! The terrorists have it much easier. ~;)

Okay, let's talk about the hardships of military training. In Canada, we do ten weeks of basic training and it's the same for everybody regardless of which branch of service or which trade the individual has chosen. Future airframe technicians, cooks, artillerymen, and musicians are all sent (at least when I did it) to scenic Cornwallis, Nova Scotia to learn how to salute, shine shoes, perform first aid, carry a rifle, and get yelled at a lot. I began my basic training in November, so I got to deal with a lovely Nova Scotia winter (alternately hail/sleet/snow on a daily basis). Our instructors used to think it was great fun to have us form up to be marched to breakfast without raingear, then make us stand at attention in the freezing rain for twenty minutes or so before they finally "remembered" we were outside.

After basic, individuals are separated out into their various trades and sent on for further training. For infantry (which I was doing), you were sent to one of three regimental battle schools for 16 weeks of fun. In my case, I was sent to lovely Wainwright, Alberta. I got the best of both worlds. Because my course started in late January and ran until May, I got to experience Wainwright in all its glory. First I got the winter wonderland version, with temperatures around -20 C, then we got late spring weather, where on some days it was 30C. Ah yes, fond memories: everything from bloody, frozen fingers trying to clear stoppages on the C6 machine gun, to actually going blind from dehydration for a short period at the end of a 5km endurance run through soft sand on a hot day carrying a full combat load.

Where am I going with this?

Silly as I am, I actually volunteered for all of that idiocy.

The Gitmo "customers" did not.

They have been given no due process, and are being held without evidence or charge.

You righties can accuse us lefties of coddling "terrorists" all you want, but until you offer any kind of proof (other than "they have brown skin, have read the Koran, and were in Afghanistan") that the Gitmo detainees are terrorists, you are only imprisoning innocent people.

Quote:

---

You righties can accuse us lefties of coddling "terrorists" all you want, but until you offer any kind of proof (other than "they have brown skin, have read the Koran, and were in Afghanistan") that the Gitmo detainees are terrorists, you are only imprisoning innocent people.

---

It is perfectly acceptable to hold enemy combatants during a time of war. Do you understand the PR victory AQ would get by having all those people put on trial? The theater, the endless appeals, it would be a nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

They have been given no due process, and are being held without evidence or charge.

---

CSI: Basra.

Quote:

---

Do you understand the PR victory AQ would get by having all those people put on trial?

---

Can you imagine the PR victory justice for all, all men are created equal regardless of race or creed would win if you actually walked the talk?

I thought the war in Afghanistan was won. I also thought the war in Iraq was done.

Another facet of justice is that it is timely and seen to be done. Picking and choosing when, who and how to apply justice is an oxymoron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

CSI: Basra.

---

I'm trying to see any relevance of that comment to this thread. Wait! Got it:

None.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

It is perfectly acceptable to hold enemy combatants during a time of war.

---

You haven't even proved that all of them are even enemy combatants, let alone terrorists. And at any rate, the war in Afghanistan has been "over" for some time now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Do you understand the PR victory AQ would get by having all those people put on trial? The theater, the endless appeals, it would be a nightmare.

---

Are you honestly suggesting that people should be held without trial forever because it would be "inconvenient" if they were put on trial?

Here's a newsflash for you:

The U.S. government is already losing the public relations battle vis-à-vis Gitmo quite badly. The best way for them to win it is to put these people on trial and prove their guilt in public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I'm trying to see any relevance of that comment to this thread. Wait! Got it:

None.

---

Don't try to be cute. You aren't very good at it.

Are you implying these prisoners should all be treated to Criminal Trials?

Quote:

---

You haven't even proved that all of them are even enemy combatants, let alone terrorists.

---

How do you expect us to prove that? Should we have a CSI:Basra trapsing around Afghanistan trying to find prove that the people we picked up shooting at us were shooting at us?

You're putting civilian expectations on a military situation. The two do not equate.

Quote:

---

And at any rate, the war in Afghanistan has been "over" for some time now.

---

Hehe, i love it. Anytime we on the right say something positive about Afghanistan you talk about how the Taliban is coming back and how the country isnt under the control of the government. Now when the argument is about giving these detainees the same rights as US citizens, the war is won!

Quote:

---

Are you honestly suggesting that people should be held without trial forever because it would be "inconvenient" if they were put on trial?

---

Is that what I said?

Quote:

---

The U.S. government is already losing the public relations battle vis-à-vis Gitmo quite badly.

---

Really? Have you seen any recent public opinion polls about Gitmo? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

The best way for them to win it is to put these people on trial and prove their guilt in public.

---

That is where CSI: Basra comes into play. Do you expect us to pull valuable special forces off the line to testify? Do you expect us to have fingerprint analysis on their AKs? Do you expect us to fly Afghanis in to America to give expert opinions?

The reality is that our war with islamic extremists is far from over and a continuous string of show trials would do nothing but cause more trouble for America.

Do you honestly think the leftists and the anti-americans would give a fair spin on the trials? Do you think the ACLU would give the military the benefit of the doubt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Don't try to be cute. You aren't very good at it.

---

You've obviously never seen my Ricky Martin impersonation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Are you implying these prisoners should all be treated to Criminal Trials?

---

Yes, if the U.S. government is implying they are criminals. What are they? Enemy combatants or terrorists? If they are enemy combatants, fine, you have to let the go now, because the war is over. If they are terrorists, then they are criminals, and should be put on trial. But just holding them forever is not an option, whether they are suspected enemy combatants or suspected terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

How do you expect us to prove that? Should we have a CSI:Basra trapsing around Afghanistan trying to find prove that the people we picked up shooting at us were shooting at us?

You're putting civilian expectations on a military situation. The two do not equate.

---

Please see above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

And at any rate, the war in Afghanistan has been "over" for some time now.

---

Hehe, i love it. Anytime we on the right say something positive about Afghanistan you talk about how the Taliban is coming back and how the country isnt under the control of the government. Now when the argument is about giving these detainees the same rights as US citizens, the war is won!

---

Apparently quotation marks were not sufficient to point out the irony of the word "over" in my previous post. I guess I should have put one of these ~:rolleyes: after it as well. It is the U.S. government that is trying to have its cake and eat it too on this one. You righties are always talking about how the war in Afghanistan (which I personally supported, for the record) has been won. If that is the case, then you must release the prisoners taken in that war.

So, which is it? Have you not really won the war yet, which means you are fibbing about how good things are over there but can justifiably hold the detainees at Gitmo for longer, or is the war really over and you are now holding these people illegally?

*starts humming theme to Jeopardy*

Well, which is it?

Can the US military legally hold non-POWs for an indefinite period without recourse to a trial?

If so no problem on a legal level.

The issue becomes that Gitmo as it is referred to is a PR blackeye and eats away at the value of the moral high ground. If anything it makes the moral high ground look like a marketing blurb and the fine print is 'Warranty not valid outside of the following areas: USA'.

Equal rights is only true when it is equally applied to friend and foe. Integrity is when action and word is one. To do otherwise is mere marketing.

If your laws will not give you the ability to hold them in your territories, change the law, don't make a special zone. Be upfront with what you are doing. If you are doing the right thing then do it in the open. From the PR side it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it must be a duck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Yes, if the U.S. government is implying they are criminals. What are they? Enemy combatants or terrorists?

---

You're implying they should recieve due process, not the US Gov.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

If they are enemy combatants, fine, you have to let the go now, because the war is over. If they are terrorists, then they are criminals, and should be put on trial.

---

Huh? The war on terror is over? I must've slept through the parade.

And why should they be given an appeal through a civilian court? They are combatants, not criminal defendants.

I think you're confusing court martials with military tribunals. Hell, even the Geneva Conventions don't afford detainees the right to an appeal through civilian courts (not that these folks are afforded protection under the GC).

Why wont US just give in and regognice the authority of the Military tribunate of Haque.Then we all could be happy about it. :bow:

Quote:

---

Can the US military legally hold non-POWs for an indefinite period without recourse to a trial?

If so no problem on a legal level.

---

According to the Geneva convention the answer is yes. That about sums it up. All thats left is a humanitarian consideration. Again we could have killed them long ago and treat them better than they deserve.

Quote:

---

According to the Geneva convention the answer is yes. That about sums it up. All thats left is a humanitarian consideration. Again we could have killed them long ago and treat them better than they deserve.

---

Considering a number have already been released, it seems that the people at Gitmo are not 100% worthy of this treatment and death.

Iff they are guilty it maybe better treatment then they deserve to live for them, it would be worse treatment to yourself to kill them.

Quote:

---

Considering a number have already been released, it seems that the people at Gitmo are not 100% worthy of this treatment and death.

---

I didnt say they were all worthy of that treatment however according to the law we could have killed them . Once more their lucky to be alive.

Quote:

---

Iff they are guilty it maybe better treatment then they deserve to live for them, it would be worse treatment to yourself to kill them.

---

Im against the death penalty.

Likewise I don't believe in the death penalty, I do believe in harsh sentences.

So if they are terrorists who claim to be Muslims then I would make them pig herders for the rest of their days. Harsh but fitting.

The Gitmo detainees eat better than I do:

www.house.gov/hasc/pressr...O-menu.pdf

I wonder if the Marines in Fallujah are as well taken care of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

The Gitmo detainees eat better than I do:

www.house.gov/hasc/pressr...O-menu.pdf

I wonder if the Marines in Fallujah are as well taken care of.

---

One more time:

Marines in Fallujah = volunteers

Detainees in Gitmo = held illegally against their will

And at any rate, it's very easy to release a menu to the press to show how humane you are. It's another thing altogether to deliver on that humanity.

Quote:

---

Detainees in Gitmo = held illegally against their will

---

One more time
You cant back that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

One more time
You cant back that up.

---

Against their will? That's obvious.

Illegally? Certainly in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate that fair and competent tribunals must be held to determine the status of prisoners taken in a war if there is any doubt about said status. This applies to militia forces such as the Taleban, just as it would apply to American militia forces. Illegally according to US law? Most likely. The supreme court has ruled that the prisoners have the right to challenge their detention, even thoughthe Bush administration initially denied them this right, and the cases are making their way throught the courts.

So yes, both illegally and against their will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Illegally? Certainly in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate that fair and competent tribunals must be held to determine the status of prisoners taken in a war if there is any doubt about said status.

---

1) It doesn't apply to combatants not in uniform.

2) If it did, they could be executed for being spies.

I'm pretty sure this was already stated in this thread.

Does the Geneva Convention apply to a party if the other party has already broken faith with it?

Quote:

---

Does the Geneva Convention apply to a party if the other party has already broken faith with it?

---

These guys never signed it in the first place. Their not an army or attached to an army. Their forigen fighters in a forign war breaking almost every rule of the Geneva Convention. Again according to the Convention they could have been executed as spies or sabatoers.

Not talking about specific cases. In general, if another party in a war is found to be breaking the convention, does the other side have to stick the convention (like most contracts is it revoked when one side breaks it?).

Quote:

---

Not talking about specific cases. In general, if another party in a war is found to be breaking the convention, does the other side have to stick the convention (like most contracts is it revoked when one side breaks it?).

---

To tell the truth and I believe Pindar has explained this no one is bond by the convention. It is to me more like a curtesy. The whole reason nations sign these things is to protect their own troops if captured. Its not out of some noble concern for the enemy.

If given a choice between going to gitmo and joining the army, which would you choose?

Gitmo ~;)

Fair enough. Not me.

Quote:

---

Fair enough. Not me.

---

Well maybe the army but certainly not the Marines ~;) I know at my age I couldnt make it through bootcamp again. Id rather retire to gitmo. Have you seen the menu and the soccer field or the day room with all the chess sets. I saw the cells last night and even the high security ones wwere nicer than any Ive been in. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

These guys never signed it in the first place. Their not an army or attached to an army. Their forigen fighters in a forign war breaking almost every rule of the Geneva Convention. Again according to the Convention they could have been executed as spies or sabatoers.

---

Gawain,
I know this may not be the right thread and this all has been discussed before. But I still do not understand it and I do not want to starta new thread (who knows what would happen there - sigh!)
If memory serves the situation in Afgansistan was:
- Taliban was ruling; Talibans included a lot of foreigners that once came to fight the Soviets; I am not sure if the Taliban was really a regular army but I guess it is a fact that they ruled.
- There was Al Kaida with all their training camps
- There were also warlords that controlled parts of the country and were more or less allied with the Taliban
If I am right all three kinds of groups fought against the US and their allies.

When the US attacked was there a declaration of war?
Most of the ground units were warlords as well, so more rebels than a regular army. And there were special forces of the US. And if memory serves there were even undercover platoons.

Which one of these forces would you call illegal combatants? In my opinion you could do this with every group except the US special forces.

Quote:

---

Which one of these forces would you call illegal combatants? In my opinion you could do this with every group except the US special forces.

---

Any who dont meet this criteria

Quote:

---

Combatant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

A combatant who has surrendered or been captured becomes a prisoner of war (POW).

If there is any doubt as to whether the person is a lawful combatant they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue. Combatants who may be deemed to be unlawful combatants include, spies, mercenaries, members of militias not under the command of the armed forces who do not fit into the categories specified above, and those who have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag).

Most unlawful combatants qualify for protection under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) until they have had a "fair and regular trial". Once found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was the Mercenary trial in Angola in June, 1976.


For those countries which have signed the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" (Protocol I) the definition of lawful combatant is altered by

Article 44 .3
...Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly::

( a ) During each military engagement, and
( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

---

Everyone else is an Illegal combatant like those in Gitmo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Not talking about specific cases. In general, if another party in a war is found to be breaking the convention, does the other side have to stick the convention (like most contracts is it revoked when one side breaks it?).

---

How can anyone complain about the other side breaking the convention and then turn around and do the same thing? If one side breaks it and the other one follows, how can they then use the convention as justification for anything? Does it really matter who did it first if both sides throw it out?

In what sense do the Taleban militia of Afghanistan not fit these definitions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Not talking about specific cases. In general, if another party in a war is found to be breaking the convention, does the other side have to stick the convention (like most contracts is it revoked when one side breaks it?).

---

In short, yes, they do have to abide by it. They have signed the agreement to abide by the terms. It is essentially them saying, there are certain basic human rights we will afford to everyone.