Channel 4 - Road to Guantanamo

Any other UK orgahs watch this?

Road to Guantanamo Programme to download - It's about an hour long.

I reccommend it to all. It is the account of the three british detainees. There story of what they were doing in Afghanistan, there capture and their stay at camp x-ray.

It is the banality of most of the details that convinces me of it's authenticity. The determination of the US intelligence people to pin something on them just gets laughable were it not so brutal.

Of course there are many who without evening seeing it know that it is propaganda and untrue. And for you people I reccommend that you don't watch it. Either that or wait until one of your favourite commentators dissects it for you so you can cut and paste their views here. I feel that it will be subject to the detail by detail overload attack so favoured by certain quarters.

The brutality of the place is truely disgusting. Are these people going to be detained without legal recourse for ever?

Prisoners Force Fed

Oops... didn't realise they were going to charge for the download. Nick it off emule/bit torrent etc.

Care to post the link of the detainees that don't want to leave because they're afraid to go home? Just for balance of course.

Never mind, I'll take the initiative:

http://www.crisscross.com/us/news/20722

It seems that all of the techniques, if they were in fact representive in the show, elicit all of the same reactions that would be there if the person were actually being beaten up. Really, it's no different than torture because of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

It seems that all of the techniques, if they were in fact representive in the show, elicit all of the same reactions that would be there if the person were actually being beaten up. Really, it's no different than torture because of this.

---

Yes, yes it's quite different from torture. You don't interrogate someone by saying please and offering candy. I'm truly surprised by people that think these barbarians should be treated humanely. Do you favor the same type of treatment for all thugs and rapists? Or maybe you favor a kindler, gentler style of war.

Quote:

---

I'm truly surprised by people that think these barbarians should be treated humanely.

---

:dizzy2: Right. Dehumanizing the enemy was always such a good way out of moral quandries, wasn't it ? "They don't deserve to be treated as humans because of XYZ." A rather popular justification for atrocities and general injustice at any scale, methinks.

As my brother once told another Junior Sergeant in the army, "go earn Iron Crosses in commando training and leave us civilized folks alone."

Bloody apologists.

I have mentioned it before but i know a guard that was stationed there and from what he has told me it is no club med but it is not nearly as bad as some would try and make it out to be.

There are some really bad people (i use the term people loosely) there and they do not deserve to be treated as nicey nicey as a bike thief or some other lite crime committing US citizen in a minimum security prison, they are in a maximum security military prison for crying out loud, its not going to be tea and cake.

I do wish they would give them some kind of court date, just so we can finely do something with them. :skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladamir

Yes, yes it's quite different from torture.

---

Only in that their body isn't really being cut up to get the terrible fear and stress that leads to depression. They're clever, they can make someone's psyche like the pysches of those people with joints undone. It's that feeling of total isolation and dissolution that makes torture so awful, they just used to only be able to affect that state of mind by harming people's bodies; now they can do it w/o most of the unsightliness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladamir

You don't interrogate someone by saying please and offering candy.

---

And I don't think making them feel totally devoid of humanity is the way to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladamir

I'm truly surprised by people that think these barbarians should be treated humanely. Do you favor the same type of treatment for all thugs and rapists?

---

I certainly don't think putting a rapist in the kind of situation as those in guantanamo is at all proper. They simply get a longer sentence,they don't have their heads messed with to the point of insanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Yes, yes it's quite different from torture. You don't interrogate someone by saying please and offering candy. I'm truly surprised by people that think these barbarians should be treated humanely. Do you favor the same type of treatment for all thugs and rapists? Or maybe you favor a kindler, gentler style of war.

---

You are right of course. People convicted of crimes should be brutalised and tortured.

:dizzy2: Wayyydaminute! There hasn't been no trials! Oh well. I'm sure the US military knows best. I mean they don't tend to make intelligence mistakes (Iraq WMD) or torture and kill people with no justification (Abu Ghraib).

much as i love my country i know that this is disgracful and that our government is a bunch of a-holes. it would not be so bad if i saw some trials, or at least military tribunals that state some kind of evidence regarding there capture. currently i have no idea at all how they capture these people and detain them, were they rioters or bomb makers, did they carry an AK or did they merely shout threats, did they decapitate neutral journalists or were they merely a sunni.
why with hold this imformation, is the news trying to make us look bad by calling the detainees "suspected terrorists" rather than saying that the man in the picture was abu muhammed manjenkins and he was captured when his explosives failed to detonate while in a crowd of school children(:no: ). mabey the government is trying to protect there image by neglecting to state that the detainee was merely chosen out of 20 sunnis cause he looked mean. i want to know WHY.

Quote:

---

The brutality of the place is truely disgusting. Are these people going to be detained without legal recourse for ever?

---

So...we should let them starve to death? I'm just curious.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by master of the puppets

...were they rioters or bomb makers, did they carry an AK or did they merely shout threats, did they decapitate neutral journalists or were they merely a sunni.

---

From what i have been told there are some inmates there that may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time but most were serious soldiers/terrorists before capture. Just a second hand observation, take it for what its worth.:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

From what i have been told there are some inmates there that may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time but most were serious soldiers/terrorists before capture. Just a second hand observation, take it for what its worth.:bow:

---

For what it's worth when government **** up they generally make up bullshit aplenty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

For what it's worth when government **** up they generally make up bullshit aplenty.

---

I couldent agree more! :bow: The only reason i mention what i have is because it is what the person i know that has been there has told me, not what the government has said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

There are some really bad people (i use the term people loosely) there and they do not deserve to be treated as nicey nicey as a bike thief or some other lite crime committing US citizen in a minimum security prison, they are in a maximum security military prison for crying out loud, its not going to be tea and cake.

---

That statement makes very little sense, especially in light of the fact that your next point (quoted seperately below) acknowledges in part what I am about to point out to you:

THESE POEOPLE HAVE BEEN NEITHER TRIED FOR NOR CONVICTED OF ANYTHING.

So your justification for treating them poorly (the fact that they are in a maximum security prison) holds no water.

First, you need to justify the fact that they deserve to be in prison at all.

Until then, you should be making "nicey-nicey" with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I do wish they would give them some kind of court date, just so we can finely do something with them.

---

Seconded.

For the record, I believe that most of the prisoners do deserve to be in prison. But until they are afforded due process, I have to assume that all of them are innocent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

That statement makes very little sense, especially in light of the fact that your next point (quoted seperately below) acknowledges in part what I am about to point out to you:

THESE POEOPLE HAVE BEEN NEITHER TRIED FOR NOR CONVICTED OF ANYTHING.

So your justification for treating them poorly (the fact that they are in a maximum security prison) holds no water.

First, you need to justify the fact that they deserve to be in prison at all.

Until then, you should be making "nicey-nicey" with them.

---

Nicely pointed out (possible) contradiction. I would never claim to be very knowledgable when it comes to legal matters but it is my understanding that in a case where a prisoner is taken during war that prisoner doesn't have to be processed until the war is over. It is also my understanding that many of the inmates are captured enemy soldiers, just being a soldier in an enemies military is justification for being in prison. I do feel a little bad for the inmates who have questionable ties to the military or to terrorists but i'll get over it.

you are right about the POW thing, yesdachi... but the US government has gone out of it's way to argue that these aren't POWs, but 'enemy combatants' to whom the geneva protocols don't apply...

bah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystic brew

you are right about the POW thing, yesdachi... but the US government has gone out of it's way to argue that these aren't POWs, but 'enemy combatants' to whom the geneva protocols don't apply...

bah.

---

How could they be "combatants" if they are in prison? Bah indeed! they are POW's in my book. But i really dont care about any outdated geneva protocols.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystic brew

you are right about the POW thing, yesdachi... but the US government has gone out of it's way to argue that these aren't POWs, but 'enemy combatants' to whom the geneva protocols don't apply...

bah.

---

I thought you had to be a signatory of the various Geneva conventions to have them apply to your soldiers. And soldiers is the operative word as I believe they also have to be part of a proper uniformed state army too.

When was war declared, and who was it declared against? That leads to a situation that there never needs to be an end to a war that has no clearly defined enemy.

No country on the planet would let it's troops be treated in such a manner - even loosing sides are extremely rarely incarcerated for so long.

There is no defence. If any are sane after 4 years being treated to American "hospitality" they are better people than I am.

And if they are released, can they sue America for these gross breaches of their human rights? If a harrassment case is worth millions, I'm running out of numbers.

~:smoking:

I'm truly surprised by people that think these barbarians should be treated humanely.

Why am I not surprised that someone wrote that ?:shrug:

So there is a TV program about some people who hadn't done anything , who were locked up for not doing anything , were tortured for not doing anything until some dumb ass finally decided that they hadn't done anything and handed them over to another authority to see if they could find out how much nothing these people had done .
And they also decided that these people had done nothing .
Yet the people who had done nothing are the ones described as "barbarians"?????

Vlad , your mind is working in a strange way , perhaps you could get it fixed .

Quote:

---

The brutality of the place is truely disgusting. Are these people going to be detained without legal recourse for ever?

---

Belgium prime minister just visited the guatanamo bay facilities. And according to them the prison was a hell of alot better then alot of european prisons. So were's your anger and spite about those prisons?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kanamori
Only in that their body isn't really being cut up to get the terrible fear and stress that leads to depression. They're clever, they can make someone's psyche like the pysches of those people with joints undone. It's that feeling of total isolation and dissolution that makes torture so awful, they just used to only be able to affect that state of mind by harming people's bodies; now they can do it w/o most of the unsightliness.

---

Depression my @$$, just about anything you do these days can lead to depression. Driving in traffic, drinking to much coffee, having children, all these and many more (I once heard a psychiatrist say with apsolute certanty sex between minors leads to depression) lead to depression. Apparently everything leads to depression these days so using depression as a reason not to interogate someone is rather a weak statement. Giving them a popsicle and asking them very nicely, were are your terrorist friends, wont work. I'm sure in your infinate wisdom of criminology you can tell me how to get the information out of them?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
I thought you had to be a signatory of the various Geneva conventions to have them apply to your soldiers. And soldiers is the operative word as I believe they also have to be part of a proper uniformed state army too.

---

I believe you are correct there. I highly doubt that the taliban would have bothered to sign such a piece of western culture as that also. The geneva charter does go into what is a spy and what you can do to them also. I'm pretty sure alot of those guys in guantanamo would fall into that catagory also. As for wether you could or could not sue the U.S.A. government you'd have a hefty case to argue, one that you werent a spy secondly that you werent doing something illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

As for wether you could or could not sue the U.S.A. government you'd have a hefty case to argue, one that you werent a spy secondly that you werent doing something illegal.

---

Erm...

No.

The onus is on the gov't to prove guilt, not on the accused to prove innocence.

I can see how you would be confused about that though, having lived under the Bush administration for what has probably been a good part of your adult life.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Goofball

Erm...

No.

The onus is on the gov't to prove guilt, not on the accused to prove innocence.

---

Read Rory's comment, its not about a criminal case Goofball.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rory_20_uk
And if they are released, can they sue America for these gross breaches of their human rights? If a harrassment case is worth millions, I'm running out of numbers

---

The onus as you put it would be on the person to prove the Government did something wrong there. Again that would be a hefty case to prove that the government did something wrong. Also in Military Tribunals you are presumed guilty and you must prove yourself differently (correct on that or is that just court marshalls?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Depression my @$$, just about anything you do these days can lead to depression. Driving in traffic, drinking to much coffee, having children, all these and many more (I once heard a psychiatrist say with apsolute certanty sex between minors leads to depression) lead to depression. Apparently everything leads to depression these days so using depression as a reason not to interogate someone is rather a weak statement. Giving them a popsicle and asking them very nicely, were are your terrorist friends, wont work.

---

Is your argument that it doesn't lead to depression, or that depression doesn't matter? First of all, there is a big difference between what happens due to conincidence as opposed to these people causing depression. Even then, you're suggesting that the this sort of a situation, where they've never been tried and their guilt has been assumed, would result in the same depression as a caffiene come-down or from driving in traffic. The entire point of what they do is to elicit the psychological state of someone who has been tortured, in order to get information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

I'm sure in your infinate wisdom of criminology you can tell me how to get the information out of them?

---

Becaus I have an opinion, I am stating that I have infinite wisdom? This is a new style of anlysis to me. There are ways of interrogation that do not involve purposefully putting them through a psychological Hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Read Rory's comment, its not about a criminal case Goofball.

---

I did. I know we're talking about a civil case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

The onus as you put it would be on the person to prove the Government did something wrong there. Again that would be a hefty case to prove that the government did something wrong.

---

Not "hefty" at all. If the gov't arested then held me for four years without charge or trial, then released me because they could not prove their case against me, the fact that they had released me in itself would prove that I hadn't done anything illegal.

Please produce your chequebook...

they may be barbarians yet they are still human, guantanamo deprives them of that (or so the people who hav'nt been there say). but i have to say that a bit of mental harrasment is not torture, it does not deprive one of there humanity, they will not lose there state of health by sleep deprevation. beatings are unforgivable, torture is vile, contorting the prisoner is disgusting and wrong, depriving them of sllep and scaring them are ways to extract information.

A bit?? 4 years is a bit??!? Have you seen the quality of some evidence? Proof that a person was in Curry's at the time of a tape which could easily be proved is brushed aside. Many of these people were in the wrong place at the wrong time - the wrong place being an entire country. Of course white people in the wrong place didn't seem to have this trouble at all. The Yanks just went after the rag'eads.

If I can't get a good night's sleep I feel it after one day. How long have they been through this? Rats can die due to lack of sleep. Before lawmakers flippantly put others through it, they themselves should have to feel the effects of this "non torture".

~:smoking:

“They are POW's in my book” If they are they should be free after the conflict end.
“I believe they also have to be part of a proper uniformed state army too”: No, they should wear a identification (national flag, emblem, whatever) which will show their belonging to a fighting unit, group. For example, it was three letters, FFI, for the French Resistance during WW2.

“The geneva charter does go into what is a spy and what you can do to them also. I'm pretty sure alot of those guys in guantanamo would fall into that catagory also.” They were spying Afghanistan? Afghan spying Afghanistan for the Afghan government… That’s make a lot of sense…:laugh4:
“Military Tribunals” or Marshall Courts are used to trial YOUR soldiers… Or the enemy’s one in case of war crimes (like Joachim Peiper, commander of the 1st SS Division for Malmedy Massacre)…:book:

The US use the same kind of excuse to mistreat their prisoners than the North Vietnamese when they capture US pilots or soldiers (or French, when they were Vietminh): You are not soldiers, you are war criminals, so Geneva Conventions don’t apply. Sound familiar Big Tex? Something like you can say?

“I have to say that a bit of mental harrasment is not torture”: Are you not from a country where their rights have to read to any suspected criminal is arrested, and warned that “all what he will tell could be used against him/her? That he/she has right to have a lawyer, and if he/she can’t afford one, the tribunal will provide one…

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenus
They were spying Afghanistan? Afghan spying Afghanistan for the Afghan government… That’s make a lot of sense…

---

A spy is an armed, ununiformed, person who has initiated hostile actions.

Here are direct quotes from the 4th charter of the geneva convention. Incoming truthyness run and hide backroom org goers.

Quote:

---

I thought you had to be a signatory of the various Geneva conventions to have them apply to your soldiers. And soldiers is the operative word as I believe they also have to be part of a proper uniformed state army too.

---

Part 1 , General Provisions, Article 4, paragraph 2

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenus
They were spying Afghanistan? Afghan spying Afghanistan for the Afghan government… That’s make a lot of sense…

---

Part 1, General Provisions Article 5, Paragraph 2

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Goofball
Not "hefty" at all. If the gov't arested then held me for four years without charge or trial, then released me because they could not prove their case against me, the fact that they had released me in itself would prove that I hadn't done anything illegal.

---

Part 1 General Provisions, Article 5, Paragraph 1

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

The Geneva Convention was created in Europe and did not conceive of enemies which were not like those in the European armies. Of course anyone that is not in uniform and fighting is a spy, as that is how war was fought.

America is laughing in how it can use completely outdated laws which happen to work for it in this case. No consideration is given to how the troops were supposed to get a uniform in the middle of Afghanistan. They has slightly more pressing issues such as the American backed forces.

~:smoking:

we cannot call these people spies as they do not so much collect information as attempt to kill there enemies, while they are not a uniformed army, they should be considered as lethal criminals...aka hung like the ciminals they are, i bet even rory would approve of that, seeing his countries rich history of hangings.

Here are direct quotes from the 4th charter of the geneva convention. Incoming truthyness run and hide backroom org goers.

Incoming truthyness ?
Right so you want to quote a few small clauses from a very large document and claim it supports your point Tex ?
Well for a start that is the convention on the protection of civilians isn't it , and you wish to pick out a piece like...Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.
In the case of the people featured in the TV program that started this thread , they are British nationals , Britain is bound by the convention .
Some of them were detained in Pakistan , Pakistan is bound by the conventions .
Others were in Afghanistan , Afghanistan is bound by the convention .
Sooooo, your point was ????

run and hide ? or would you like to go through each clause of the 4th and see exactly where the US is breaking it , then we can start on the 3rd and do the same .
You will find that you havn't a leg to stand on , let alone run .:book:

They are all criminals? Oh right - even the ones that weren't even in the country when the "evidence" states they are.

In a country in Civil war, and especially when the country is as poor as Afghanistan, how were they all supposed to get uniforms?

Did America inform the enemy troops that they required uniforms? Guess not...

IF America can prove their guilt (and you've had 4 years) unless you can prove they are not merely soldiers without a uniform that they were unable to obtain and were not aware they had to wear then yes I'd not mind you hang the sods.

Yes the UK has hanged suspects. It was found to be at the time one of the most humane methods of garbage disposal. It beats the hell out of electrocuting them.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tribesman
Incoming truthyness ?
Right so you want to quote a few small clauses from a very large document and claim it supports your point Tex ?
Well for a start that is the convention on the protection of civilians isn't it , and you wish to pick out a piece like...Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.
In the case of the people featured in the TV program that started this thread , they are British nationals , Britain is bound by the convention .
Some of them were detained in Pakistan , Pakistan is bound by the conventions .
Others were in Afghanistan , Afghanistan is bound by the convention .
Sooooo, your point was ????

run and hide ? or would you like to go through each clause of the 4th and see exactly where the US is breaking it , then we can start on the 3rd and do the same .
You will find that you havn't a leg to stand on , let alone run .

---

Read that more carefully tribesman, the piece of the charter you just quoted actually deny's the british nationals the rights of the charter. Britian has maintained neutraility to the U.S.A. thus they are not regarded as protected persons. Part 1 General Provisions, Article 5 is the only rellavent part to the 2 british nationals here.

As for Part 1 General Provisions, Article 3. It has no rellavence to any held at guantanamo becuase they are not protected by the Geneva Charter in the first place. I'm merely quoting the Part 1 General Observation portions becuase it gives a perfect explanation as to whom is covered with out going through pages explaining it, its not cheery picking. Trying to put a near 50 page document on the org would result in nothing, far to long a document for the ADHD org goers on here. As to the rellavence of the charter here there is none anyways so why people are using the Geneva Convention Charter is beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by master of the puppets
we cannot call these people spies as they do not so much collect information as attempt to kill there enemies, while they are not a uniformed army, they should be considered as lethal criminals...aka hung like the ciminals they are, i bet even rory would approve of that, seeing his countries rich history of hangings

---

.

Precisely they are little more then small rebellions, treasonous criminals. IMHO we should let the afghani and iraqi hang them as traitors, or spy's in the case they are foreign. And MTP punctuation please. 100th post bwuaahhahahahaahhaahhahaahha~:smoking: .

“A spy is an armed, ununiformed, person who has initiated hostile actions.” Most of the suspects are Talibans and are Afghans. They were in THEIR country, attacked by US and other troops, defending THEIR lands and fighting as much they can. THEY DIDN’T INITIATE HOSTILE ACTION. For them, they were attacked… So, they are all but SPIES. So, if when attacked by night, the soldiers defending their country in pyjamas, according to you, are spies… That is a new definition…:laugh4:
Joke apart, the Mudjahidin are and were easy to recognise. As such, you can’t really pretend they were hiding.

“such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention”: That’s means he is untitled of the protection due by the law of the country, the Criminal Law. You can’t preach the way you want and change the rules. Either there are enemy, Geneva Conventions; either they are criminal, criminal procedures…

4 years? youre only allowed to hold a criminal for 24 hours without charges! This is illegal. Why cant my goverment male seceret prisons like the soviets wed be more efficent then much more...:mellow: Serously this is illegal and something should happen