What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?

[PanzerJaeger]

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

Isnt that the truth.

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.

[Franconicus]

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

Isnt that the truth.

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?

[English assassin]

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

[doc_bean]

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.

[English assassin]

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?

[Proletariat]

Wow you were in the service. My compliments.

Thanks. To you, too.

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.

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.

[Franconicus]

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 .

agreed

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

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
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?

[bmolsson]

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

Isnt that the truth.

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

[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.

[Franconicus]

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.

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?

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Franconicus]

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.

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.

[Kagemusha]

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?

[English assassin]

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.

[Proletariat]

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?)

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.

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

I agree.