more allegations of prisoner abuse by US

The Pentagon has engaged in a new form of medical abuse at Guantanamo Bay by force-feeding detainees on a hunger strike in ways that are deliberately painful and cause life-threatening vomiting and weight loss, defense lawyers say. The gruesome allegations include complaints that doctors and guards intentionally thrust feeding tubes covered in blood and bile from one detainee's nose into another inmate's nose and denied prisoners anesthesia." ... During force-feedings, prisoners were "vomiting up substantial amounts of blood ... soldiers taunted them with statements like 'Look what your religion has brought you,'" Manhattan attorney Julia Tarver, who filed the motion before Kessler, said in newly declassified papers.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...-top-headlines




'A little torture never hurt anybody'.

Alberto Gonzales

So what?

Clearly all of the detainees must be released.

Perhaps we should send them to a good spa as well?

Heavens, we can simply let them cross the wire into Cuba where they can receive proper medical care -- best in the world by far, no? -- as well as new AK-74s and proper refresher training. Wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone would we....~:rolleyes:

The article is crap. Soly, surely you can do better than this drivel. We have a judge saying such allegations are serious and a group of "The USA is evil" types championing efforts to free those "noble" warriors we have detained. Predictable and un=persuasive. Gag me with a refrigerator.~;p

bollocks..pure bollocks

This is why Newsday , our only major local paper is going in the tank. Nobody reads it anymore spouting such drivel.

Surely they can be treated as we like, since after all it is done in the name of freedom and democracy......... :huh:

Surely they can be treated as we like, since after all it is done in the name of freedom and democracy.........
Yes as they are all terrrorists , well ....apart from those that arn't terrorists but those are all illegal combatants captured on the field of battle , well....apart from those who were not captured on the field of battle and are not illegal combatants but those are all guilty , well .....apart from those that are not guilty but they all deserve any treatment that is deemed neccasary , well .....apart from when the treatment is publicised and deemed unneccesary .
So ...yet another propoganda victory handed to the radical nutters .

Still it could be worse , they could have been filmed desecrating corpses for the psycological value those actions can produce , but they would never do anything like that would they , and they certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to let someone film it would they ? ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The article is crap.

---

The article is decent; it merely states facts, claims and views whilst referring to their sources. The author does not plead for a release of all detainees as you say.

The real crap here is your claim that all detainees are 'warriors'.

Detaining people without trial and for an indefinite period is in itself a form of torture. The conditions in which they are being detained only aggravate the crime.

those americans torturing "the detainees" must be just as sick or mentaly challanged as the "the enemy" they are fighting.

To actually go through with torturing people you must have some sort of damaged mentallity.

how many guantanamo detainees have been prosecuted as terrorists or having had terrorist connections?

zero.
after three years.

the unfortunate thing about washington dc is they don't know when to stop with a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

So what?

---

Comment for one of the nation of freedom. Comment from one that doesn't know the word guarantee. Comment for one that I'm not surprised, really. You really mean all this things or you just say it, so you can create some scandal. The guarantees work both, for those that don't understand it, for you and for your "enemy", because it's the life that the society has made an oath to protect that's being violated here, the freedom. If the person doesn't say anything you can never, never, force him/her to say it. Mostly when you're paranoid and probably inventing things.~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

how many guantanamo detainees have been prosecuted as terrorists or having had terrorist connections?

zero.
after three years.

the unfortunate thing about washington dc is they don't know when to stop with a bad idea.

---

Are they citizens of the United States? For the most part, no. Therefore, the constitution does not apply to them, and it is our right to hold them, being as they are a threat to national security and the lives of our men over in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Are they citizens of the United States? For the most part, no. Therefore, the constitution does not apply to them, and it is our right to hold them, being as they are a threat to national security and the lives of our men over in Iraq.

---

Yeh sure Kaiser...they're a threat...~:rolleyes: Mostly before being locked up for 3 years, tortured and waisted....
On the other part, the Constitution doesn't applies blindly to the citizens only, it contains the basic premises on wich your nation is founded. You might want to ignore it, and send all the "evil man" to hell, for what you care, but that's not the spirit of the Constitution.
Here for example, no human being, NO HUMAN BEING, not even a prisoner or any kind, can be tortured, in anyway that deminish his health, however they can be tortured as long as there's no permanent or grave damage. In anycase all forms of psycological torture, not matter what, are abolished, here at least...

the bad news is when they get rotated out and get to come back home and try to live alongside "normal" people. if you thought vietnam-war soldiers exhibited antisocial behavior at home after being discharged, you haven't seen anything yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazul

those americans torturing "the detainees" must be just as sick or mentaly challanged as the "the enemy" they are fighting.

To actually go through with torturing people you must have some sort of damaged mentallity.

---

If for no other reason than protecting our image, such acts should be avoided. They serve no positive end that I can see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Are they citizens of the United States? For the most part, no. Therefore, the constitution does not apply to them, and it is our right to hold them, being as they are a threat to national security and the lives of our men over in Iraq.

---

Ah, the (one and only) constitution?

well, I for one am perfectly willing to believe that AQ and others make a point of claiming they have been tortured for political reasons.

An AQ training manual including this advice was apparently found, then again I'm sure it was probably a forgery that was handwritten by BushHitler so that he could personally supervise the torture of innocent bus drivers who were plucked from their vehicles for being called Mohammed Patel (or something similar).

That article just repeats unsubstantiated accusations and denials.

[B][An AQ training manual including this advice was apparently found, then again I'm sure it was probably a forgery that was handwritten by BushHitler /B]
Now would that be the manual that was bought from a California based survivalist/militia bookshop or the one written by the ex US special forces NCO ?~D ~D ~D

that would be the one written by me.

love George

of course a president wouldn't be lurking these boards using an alias.

I'm actually Curious George, the cuddly fictional monkey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Are they citizens of the United States? For the most part, no. Therefore, the constitution does not apply to them, and it is our right to hold them, being as they are a threat to national security and the lives of our men over in Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USA Consitution

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

---

All cases will be by jury except Impeachment... Impeachment of course is not really possible for a foreign citizen.

Of course the root of that Consitution is:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Declaration of Indpendence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

...

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

...

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

---

Apparently the Founding Fathers didn't like having no juries or having the military put independent and superior to the Civil Power. They also did not approve the use of foreign Mercenaries as they saw that as a barbarous act and unworthy a Head of state.

When you say that a person is not allowed the same justice because of his birth place that is one of the lowest form of racism you can commit.

And I'm George the Backpedaller.

https://img425.imageshack.us/img425/...oonwalk5vu.gif

George W Bush, Beat it?

To me it seems that the US in general and some Amricans especialy (even here in the org) have a very easy-going mental attidute to constitutional legality. It looks like justice is fine as long as it assists US interests. If not ...

Guantanamo is a place controlled by the US where US law does not have to be practised~:confused:
The US can attack another country against the will of the UN; of course there will be an American lawyer who is paid by the government and tells you that everything is o.k. ~:mecry:
US does not accept an international court:no:
the US promotes a the idea of a free market only if it serves American interests

I tell you that people outside the US do not trust the American sense for justice.

I know someone that was a guard there, and unless something drastic has changed in the last year (that is how long he has been out) the conditions he described are not nearly as bad as the article makes them out to be. He told me that there are Red Cross people there all the time, especially for any controversial actions including detaining the prisoners attempting to hunger strike (an event that is usually recorded with a camcorder), to ensure that the prisoners are not being treated wrong.

He mentioned that although not every prisoner there is a hardcore terrorist, many are. And some of them are the scariest and most violent people he had ever met and that they were willing to do or say anything to hurt Americans (including the guards).

That said I think the allegations are real enough that there should be an investigation but I wouldn’t count on them being true. IMO It sounds like an attempt to discredit the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Are they citizens of the United States? For the most part, no. Therefore, the constitution does not apply to them, and it is our right to hold them, being as they are a threat to national security and the lives of our men over in Iraq.

---

Mmmmh. So is USA defender of democracy, or USA defender of itself? USA light of the world, of USA light for itself? USA the good guy against the bad guy, or USA a bad guy with a better propaganda?

I have no clue whether the accusation is true of false. That's not my point. My point is that you cannot pretend you're defending democracy, freedom, & so on, and at the same time not blaming antidemocratic methods of depricing people of freedom without the slightest known reason.

USA's image in the world is really low currently, and YOUR kind of behaviour clearly explains why : if it's not American, it's not worth it. Which is the opposite of the claims of "freeing oppressed people for their own good".

Plus you are wrong : if some of those people really are a threat, it's in Afghanistan, not in Iraq.

Plus it is really possible to deal legally with those guys. 3 of them were french. After 2 years of waiting, they've been sent to France, where an inquiry has been done. After 3 weeks, one was free of charges, the 2 other ones have been indicted(with heavy accusation elements, it seems). Is that tough????? I fail to see the reason of Guantanamo's prison. You judge them, or you free them. That's the very essence of a legal state.

yawn...

More allegations surfacing every day, it seems, and now from within the US military itself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9865301/site/newsweek/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

More allegations surfacing every day, it seems, and now from within the US military itself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9865301/site/newsweek/

---

Now your slightly misleading with your comment. Captain Fishback has been coming forward for some time now with this same information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now your slightly misleading with your comment. Captain Fishback has been coming forward for some time now with this same information.

---

No, I don't think it was misleading. As the article notes, others are also coming forward as well:

Quote:

---

Fishback's courage in taking a lonely stand may be paying off. Inspired by his example, "a growing critical mass of soldiers is coming forward with allegations of abuse," says Marc Garlasco of Human Rights Watch, the New York-based activist group that first revealed Fishback's story. One of them is Anthony Lagouranis, a Chicago-based Army specialist who recently left the military. He supports Fishback's contention that abuses in Iraq were systematic—and were authorized by officers in an effort to pressure detainees into talking. "I think our policies required abuse," says Lagouranis. "There were freaking horrible things people were doing. I saw [detainees] who had feet smashed with hammers. One detainee told me he had been forced by Marines to sit on an exhaust pipe, and he had a softball-sized blister to prove it. The stuff I did was mainly torture lite: sleep deprivation, isolation, stress positions, hypothermia. We used dogs."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

No, I don't think it was misleading. As the article notes, others are also coming forward as well:

---

Well I missed that sentence and only saw the one individual mentioned when I skimmed the article - but again that is not the same thing as you stated in your sentence either. This individual is supporting Captain Fishback's allegations and statements. Which gives creditablity to what Captain Fishback is trying to bring forward. A sentence and then only one name mentioned - does not add to a major or even a minor coming forward of criticial information from within the ranks of the Army.

Now what I haven't said before - especially about Captain Fishback. Is that if he knew what was happening was a violation of the UCMJ or even suspected it of being a violation, why did he not stop the abuse he witnessed and then go to the chain of command to get clarification and report the incident? Now no article that I have seen shows what Captain Fishback did on the scene when he spotted the alledge abuse. - So I don't have the whole story on that one. What is stated is simply this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

And for 17 months, a frustrated Fishback tried to get a clear answer about what standards were being used— consulting his superior officers, Army lawyers, even a professor of philosophy at West Point, Col. Daniel Zupan. He says he never got an answer. A devout Christian, Fishback held soul-searching discussions with fellow officers in Bible class about what he should do. In the end he went to Human Rights Watch for guidance.

---

Then I ask myself this question. If Captain Fishback went by lower ranked troops who were conducting what he believed to be an abuse of prisoners - why did he not immediately stop them and report their actions to the Military Police or the higher authority of the soldiers if they were Military Police? If an officer walks by something that he knows to be incorrect - he must by the Uniform Code of Military Justice stop the event and report it. Again this part of the story does not seem to be in any reports that I have read so far. Now maybe I have missed them - or there is an on going investigation which prevents such material from being reported. However while I don't question Captain Fishbacks motives and intent to get a problem correct - I do have doubts about the intergity of the story because criticial information is missing.

Now those two paragraphs ask basically the same thing in two different ways. Now I suspect some of you who have never been in the military would view these statements as an defense of the allegations - which is not what was stated - what the questions are is a former commissioned officer from the United States Army wondering what information is missing because the media is not covering those important questions from a prespective of understanding what the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires of an commissioned officer when he spots violations of the Uniformed Code. The answer could be a simple he did do these things and it was reported and I missed it, or he did do these things and the media decided it was not worth mentioning in the report - or as mentioned its part of an ongoing investigation and can not be covered in the media reports at this time.

Now there is another answer is more scarry - and would support completly some of the allegations made by those who are more criticial of the administration and the military. But I will let some of you figure out what that answer might be.

Force feeding prisoners on a hunger strike... Poor babies.

I have a hard time trying to place this in the category of "terrorism", and a harder time caring about it. If they werent force feeding them we'd be getting articles about how the US was starving them..

Even after Dick Durban people still go for this stuff..

have a hard time trying to place this in the category of "terrorism"
Thats strange , who has categorised it as "terrorism" ?
and a harder time caring about it
With that atitude then how can you possibly win the war on terror ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by el_slapper

Mmmmh. So is USA defender of democracy, or USA defender of itself? USA light of the world, of USA light for itself? USA the good guy against the bad guy, or USA a bad guy with a better propaganda?

---

I think that the question has been answered many times, just by simple facts. They even try to impose their better idea of justice over the world, I remember some other civilization that tried to do the same, thousands of years ago. That story didn't have a happy ending...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I have a hard time trying to place this in the category of "terrorism", and a harder time caring about it. If they werent force feeding them we'd be getting articles about how the US was starving them..

---

First nobody called it terrorism, because that seems to be an arbitrary concept. Second with that kind of thought how can you have the face to later talk about the greatness of USA, the freedom, bla, bla, bla...Founding fathers bla, bla, bla....Constitution bla, bla, bla...~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now there is another answer is more scarry - and would support completly some of the allegations made by those who are more criticial of the administration and the military.

---

Everything isn't about politics and biased media whoring. There are actually people that do what they believe in........ ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Everything isn't about politics and biased media whoring. There are actually people that do what they believe in........ ~:grouphug:

---

Your right of course not everything is about politics and biased media whoring. But this thread is indeed about politics and maybe some biased media reporting might be present in the story. ~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Your right of course not everything is about politics and biased media whoring. But this thread is indeed about politics and maybe some biased media reporting might be present in the story. ~:handball:

---

This post wasn't intended to be about politics, but about prisoner abuse allegations.

I don't think Fishback's main motivation is politics.

As you point out, he did go about making his complaints in an unusual and perhaps inappropriate way. But he's no bleeding heart liberal, I don't think. I doubt he's doing it just for political payback.

Quote:

---

First nobody called it terrorism, because that seems to be an arbitrary concept. Second with that kind of thought how can you have the face to later talk about the greatness of USA, the freedom, bla, bla, bla...Founding fathers bla, bla, bla....Constitution bla, bla, bla...

---

Terrorism was the wrong word of course, my fault.

The greatness of the USA lies in its power, you know, the kind your nation doesnt.. bla bla bla. It seems these terrorists arent the only ones who need to be force fed some American greatness. ~D

You keep trying to push the tired old line used by everyone with an axe to grind against the US about American values. I would wager Washington, the Adams', and all the rest would put national security at the forefront of those values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

how many guantanamo detainees have been prosecuted as terrorists or having had terrorist connections?

zero.
after three years.

---

And that's a red herring. They're unlawful combatants- not common criminals. They need not be charged- just held until the conflict is over. And, since you think we're losing the war, I guess that could be awhile. POWs and the like aren't normally charged in criminal courts.

As to the original article, I must admit, I disagree with forced feedings. If their guards set trays of fresh food in front of them and they refuse to eat- that's their decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Meh. I really can't say I care if enemy combatants aren't getting the best of treatment. American citizens, ala Guantanamo? That's a problem. Abu Graihb? Less of a problem.

---

Yes, American citizens being declared enemy combatants is a big problem, imo. Personally, I dont think that's going to hold up to judicial scrutiny- nor should it.

And that's a red herring. They're unlawful combatants- not common criminals. They need not be charged- just held until the conflict is over. And, since you think we're losing the war, I guess that could be awhile. POWs and the like aren't normally charged in criminal courts.

Well .....Geneva late 1940s ratifications late 40s early 50's ......all there in Black and White , obligations , stipulations , process , responsibility , access , rights , definitions .
Oh and today Rummy is trying to defend his position to refuse UN access to the detainees and there was the little stink when they did the same to the Red cross .
Its you who have been sold the red herring Xiahou .

As to the original article, I must admit, I disagree with forced feedings. If their guards set trays of fresh food in front of them and they refuse to eat- that's their decision.

Ah some sanity~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

And that's a red herring. They're unlawful combatants- not common criminals. They need not be charged- just held until the conflict is over. And, since you think we're losing the war, I guess that could be awhile. POWs and the like aren't normally charged in criminal courts.

As to the original article, I must admit, I disagree with forced feedings. If their guards set trays of fresh food in front of them and they refuse to eat- that's their decision.

Yes, American citizens being declared enemy combatants is a big problem, imo. Personally, I dont think that's going to hold up to judicial scrutiny- nor should it.

---

Club Gitmo -- the extended tour package!~:cheers:

As to enemy combatants. I had no problem with the label (and resultant treatment) being attached to those caught on foreign shores opposing U.S. forces. I was and am annoyed with the enemy combatant status accorded the U.S. citizen arrested at a U.S. airport -- Padilla. He may be a scumbag terrorist (if that is redundant please excuse me), but he should have a lawyer and a trial -- records sealed for X years if necessary for national security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As to enemy combatants. I had no problem with the label (and resultant treatment) being attached to those caught on foreign shores opposing U.S. forces. I was and am annoyed with the enemy combatant status accorded the U.S. citizen arrested at a U.S. airport -- Padilla. He may be a scumbag terrorist (if that is redundant please excuse me), but he should have a lawyer and a trial -- records sealed for X years if necessary for national security.

---

I fully agree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well .....Geneva late 1940s ratifications late 40s early 50's ......all there in Black and White , obligations , stipulations , process , responsibility , access , rights , definitions .
Oh and today Rummy is trying to defend his position to refuse UN access to the detainees and there was the little stink when they did the same to the Red cross .
Its you who have been sold the red herring Xiahou .

---

Don't tell me we're going to have to go down this road again. Don't you remember the discussions we've already had on the Geneva Conventions and unlawful combatants? They are being held within the convention. ~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The greatness of the USA lies in its power, you know, the kind your nation doesnt.. bla bla bla. It seems these terrorists arent the only ones who need to be force fed some American greatness.

---

The greatness of your country, is that it was the very first to free itself, and was the first to give the people guarantees, the people doesn't mean only citizens, it means anyone under it's jurisdiction...To me some of you've forgotten that...

Quote:

---

You keep trying to push the tired old line used by everyone with an axe to grind against the US about American values. I would wager Washington, the Adams', and all the rest would put national security at the forefront of those values.

---

"When one loves to much, one can lose it". The safety cannot reach periods of obsession, it has limits, those limits are called freedom (in first instance) and guarantees (in second instance). Even if you're argument has no point, because some terrorist trapped in jail cannot do anything to your precious country. If they know were certain parallel group is working, and the force interrogating him knows that for certain, even then you cannot force the person to talk by menacing to kill him or breaking his leg, maybe it looks good on propaganda like series, like "24" but reality is different from fiction.