Gitmo suicides less suicide, more murder.
I saw Jeremy Scahill's on it too, but has anyone seen any one seen any other chatter of this?
For the record, "Barack Obama" is pronounced Bay-Rack Oh-BAM-Ah
Gitmo is definitely not closed down yet.
" Gitmo is definitely not closed down yet. "
yep, still waiting to be closed - it should be closed after those who are illegally detained there (and let's be fair they are) are put to trial in New York,
" who cares, dont close it down, they are terrorists who are just trying to mess with people here. They know that people are all crying and bitching about Gitmo and trying to screw with the image. besides, they got caught acting against US forces, this puts them in their place. "Well, many people care, terrorist or not, they are entitled to the same rights as you or I, in this case, that means a fair trial and no fear of torture. Besides, many were taken with no real evidence, only to be incarcerated for years...
" @hunkaburningluv: Actually all persons at Gitmo were all caught committing the art of "espionage" aka they are Spies, which means under the Geneva convention they are allowed to be treated unfairly, beaten, psychologically attacked, tortured, and even killed. They are not illegally detained, they themselves are illegal. And "many were taken with no real evidence" is a wrong statement, they all were taken with evidence, every detained spy in that camp has very detailed records on what they have committed that includes an insurmountable amount of evidence against each and ever one of them, however since they have committed acts of terror against the US Government and it's people, and to include many other nations, and being as it may that they are in fact not US citizens they are not to be entitled our "rights" which you are so perfectly fine with distributing to all of them without knowing all the true facts. "Sorry bud, but that's somewhat inaccurate - but that's a given due to the bias reporting that goes on with regards to this in the US- there are several cases of British citizens being released from Guantanimo with no charge as there was no evidence to convict them THAT's the point, many, I'm not saying all, but many were detained illegally. Not everyone there had committed acts of terrorism or are classed as 'spies'.
A supposedly civilised country, by it's very own definition should be treating everyone as they would expect their own to be treated with regards to the legal system, the very fact that the base is set off US soil and in a region that isn't fully compliant with international law is a testament to the fact that they know what they are doing is wrong. If they have done anything illegal then they are entitled to their day in court - if the supposed 'evidence' you state was gathered for them enough to convict them, then it should be used in court, not to torture them for more info.
I don't understand how the same people who are for less government intrusion also happen to be the people who trust the government most when they say these people who were imprisoned without trial or warrant "deserve" to be there. Republicans are closet communists and don't even know it. As long as the reconciliation for taking away rights ties vaguely back to racism or xenophobia they're all for it. Lock them terror Muslims up, right?
" @baconbits33 said:Actually your very statement completely ignores the rules of war almost all of them are shown to be spies and it is very lucky that the US Government hasn't just hung them all instead of taking them to court I myself am very shocked by it, seeing as most other countries would of just of hung them and called it a day, however giving the spies a trial in an American court system is highly offensive and crossing the line for one: They are not American citizens. And two: The fact that they are classified under the Geneva convention as spies. Oh and something most people overlook is the fact that those British citizens had contacts with terror groups however they had not actually fully participated in such acts. So in order to please the British government the US decided to just let them go rather than cause a scene with an allied country. Many of them were not detained illegally if any very few were, that is your bias right there, you believe everything you read on left wing websites. Don't trust everything based on one side." @hunkaburningluv: Actually all persons at Gitmo were all caught committing the art of "espionage" aka they are Spies, which means under the Geneva convention they are allowed to be treated unfairly, beaten, psychologically attacked, tortured, and even killed. They are not illegally detained, they themselves are illegal. And "many were taken with no real evidence" is a wrong statement, they all were taken with evidence, every detained spy in that camp has very detailed records on what they have committed that includes an insurmountable amount of evidence against each and ever one of them, however since they have committed acts of terror against the US Government and it's people, and to include many other nations, and being as it may that they are in fact not US citizens they are not to be entitled our "rights" which you are so perfectly fine with distributing to all of them without knowing all the true facts. "Sorry bud, but that's somewhat inaccurate - but that's a given due to the bias reporting that goes on with regards to this in the US- there are several cases of British citizens being released from Guantanimo with no charge as there was no evidence to convict them THAT's the point, many, I'm not saying all, but many were detained illegally. Not everyone there had committed acts of terrorism or are classed as 'spies'. A supposedly civilised country, by it's very own definition should be treating everyone as they would expect their own to be treated with regards to the legal system, the very fact that the base is set off US soil and in a region that isn't fully compliant with international law is a testament to the fact that they know what they are doing is wrong. If they have done anything illegal then they are entitled to their day in court - if the supposed 'evidence' you state was gathered for them enough to convict them, then it should be used in court, not to torture them for more info. "
The very fact that the base is off of US soil is because that base is or was.... one of the most guarded and secretive bases belonging the US military, it was also strategically placed away from our country and instead upon a small island in the Caribbean therefore making it very easy to find an escaped inmate if such an event were to occur. Don't read to much into the base itself, people tend to go..... crazy and come up with wild ideas about it when it actually is a pretty obvious reason why the US military chose that exact base.
It seems baconbits33 has changed the topic of this thread to a debate on if Gitmo is necessary. The topic was are those deaths suicide or are they murders that were then covered up. If you have seen the reports and information that has been released so far then any sane person would see that those alleged terrorists were murdered either in cold blood or in the process of torture ("enhanced interrogation" to those with no morals).
I'm wondering when or if the Obama administration will grow some sack and start prosecuting the Americans who ordered and conducted torture on others while in American custody, no matter how highly placed they might have been at the time. A country's justice system means nothing if it doesn't apply equally to all and so far there are many, many criminals at large who have yet to answer for their actions. The German war criminals got their trials in Nuremberg for crimes against humanity and I am patiently waiting for Cheney and his gang to get theirs. Either Obama is too spineless to apply the law to those in power or he thinks like the Republicans do, that Americans are better than the rest of the world and as such are not to be restrained by laws which are inconvenient.
" @hunkaburningluv said:" @baconbits33 said:Actually your very statement completely ignores the rules of war almost all of them are shown to be spies and it is very lucky that the US Government hasn't just hung them all instead of taking them to court I myself am very shocked by it, seeing as most other countries would of just of hung them and called it a day, however giving the spies a trial in an American court system is highly offensive and crossing the line for one: They are not American citizens. And two: The fact that they are classified under the Geneva convention as spies. Oh and something most people overlook is the fact that those British citizens had contacts with terror groups however they had not actually fully participated in such acts. So in order to please the British government the US decided to just let them go rather than cause a scene with an allied country. Many of them were not detained illegally if any very few were, that is your bias right there, you believe everything you read on left wing websites. Don't trust everything based on one side.The very fact that the base is off of US soil is because that base is or was.... one of the most guarded and secretive bases belonging the US military, it was also strategically placed away from our country and instead upon a small island in the Caribbean therefore making it very easy to find an escaped inmate if such an event were to occur. Don't read to much into the base itself, people tend to go..... crazy and come up with wild ideas about it when it actually is a pretty obvious reason why the US military chose that exact base. "" @hunkaburningluv: Actually all persons at Gitmo were all caught committing the art of "espionage" aka they are Spies, which means under the Geneva convention they are allowed to be treated unfairly, beaten, psychologically attacked, tortured, and even killed. They are not illegally detained, they themselves are illegal. And "many were taken with no real evidence" is a wrong statement, they all were taken with evidence, every detained spy in that camp has very detailed records on what they have committed that includes an insurmountable amount of evidence against each and ever one of them, however since they have committed acts of terror against the US Government and it's people, and to include many other nations, and being as it may that they are in fact not US citizens they are not to be entitled our "rights" which you are so perfectly fine with distributing to all of them without knowing all the true facts. "Sorry bud, but that's somewhat inaccurate - but that's a given due to the bias reporting that goes on with regards to this in the US- there are several cases of British citizens being released from Guantanimo with no charge as there was no evidence to convict them THAT's the point, many, I'm not saying all, but many were detained illegally. Not everyone there had committed acts of terrorism or are classed as 'spies'. A supposedly civilised country, by it's very own definition should be treating everyone as they would expect their own to be treated with regards to the legal system, the very fact that the base is set off US soil and in a region that isn't fully compliant with international law is a testament to the fact that they know what they are doing is wrong. If they have done anything illegal then they are entitled to their day in court - if the supposed 'evidence' you state was gathered for them enough to convict them, then it should be used in court, not to torture them for more info. "
I'm gonna cut and paste from the wiki because I really can't be arsed to type a screed of text, where this sums up my own views:
" On November 8, 2004, a federal court halted the proceeding of Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen. Hamdan was to be the first Guantánamo detainee tried before a military commission. Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the U.S. military had failed to convene a competent tribunal to determine that Hamdan was not a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions—specifically Article 5 of the third Geneva Convention
However, a three judge panel overturned judge Robertson's ruling on Friday, July 15, 2005. The panel's ruling stated that the trial by military commission could, in and of itself, serve as the necessary "competent tribunal." On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and found that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and that the commissions were illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court reserved the question that Judge Robertson found decisive, namely it did not rule on whether detainees were entitled to an Article 5 determination.
There is a dispute over whether (and how) detaines may be incarcerated and tried. David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey claimed that the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling affirms that the United States is engaged in a legally cognizable armed conflict to which the laws of war apply. It may hold captured al Qaeda and Taliban operatives throughout that conflict, without granting them a criminal trial, and is also entitled to try them in the military justice system—including by military commission.
The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has not required that neither members of al Qaeda nor their allies, including members of the Taliban, must be granted POW status. [5] However, the Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and also article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror. In July 2004, following Hamdi v. Rumsfeld—ruling the Bush administration began using Combatant Status Review Tribunals to determine whether the detainees could be held as "enemy combatants".
The ruling also disagreed with the administration's view that the laws and customs of war did not apply to the U.S. armed conflict with Al Qaeda fighters during the 2001 U.S. invasion of Taliban-controlledAfghanistan, stating that Article 3 common to all the Geneva Conventions applied in such a situation, which—among other things—requires fair trials for prisoners. Common Article 3 applies in "wars not of an international character" (i.e., civil wars) in a signatory to the Geneva Conventions—in this case the civil war in signatory Afghanistan. It is likely that the Bush administration may now be forced to try detainees held as part of the "war on terror" either by court martial (as U.S. troops and prisoners of war are) or by civilian federal court. However, Bush has indicated that he may seek an Act of Congress authorizing military commissions.
On January 31, 2005, Washington federal judge Joyce Hens Green ruled that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) held to confirm the status of the prisoners in Guantánamo as "enemy combatants" were "unconstitutional", and that they were entitled to the rights granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. The Combatant Status Reviews were completed in March 2005. Thirty-eight of the detainees were found not to be combatants. On March 29, 2005, the dossier of Murat Kurnaz was accidentally declassified. Kurnaz was one of the 500-plus detainees the reviews had determined was an "enemy combatant". Critics found that his dossier contained over a hundred pages of reports of investigations which had found no ties to terrorists or terrorism whatsoever. It contained one memo that said Kurnaz had a tie to a suicide bomber. Judge Green said this memo "fails to provide significant details to support its conclusory allegations, does not reveal the sources for its information and is contradicted by other evidence in the record."
I'm sorry, but those guys are entitled to their day in court.
" When people say "Obama closed Gitmo" what they mean is "Barack said 'yeah, i'll totally close it'" "Or, more accurately, "Barack Obama said it's gonna be closed in a year." Although given that it's December 09, you can forgive them a little bit for using the past tense for closing.
"I don't understand how the same people who are for less government intrusion also happen to be the people who trust the government most when they say these people who were imprisoned without trial or warrant "deserve" to be there. Republicans are closet communists and don't even know it. As long as the reconciliation for taking away rights ties vaguely back to racism or xenophobia they're all for it. Lock them terror Muslims up, right? "
Much like how the Left are supposedly so passionate about civil liberty but are authoritarian and right-wing when it comes to the "liberties" most associated with traditional WASPs: Restrictions on tobacco consumption, gun rights, safety belt laws, "it takes a village", etc. And, of course, economic liberty and self determination.
Do not expect people who prescribe to partisan labels to have any justification for their opinions.
" Err, baconbits, they didn't choose to use Gitmo because it's hard to escape from. "
it was chosen because it was off US soil, simple as that.
" @TheHBK said:This is basic History, son. If I recall correctly, the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre were given a fair trial, and were proven innocent, as they acted in self-defense. I'm not saying terrorists are innocent, but you never know. They have the same basic rights when they are given a trial." who cares, dont close it down, they are terrorists who are just trying to mess with people here. They know that people are all crying and bitching about Gitmo and trying to screw with the image. besides, they got caught acting against US forces, this puts them in their place. "Well, many people care, terrorist or not, they are entitled to the same rights as you or I, in this case, that means a fair trial and no fear of torture. Besides, many were taken with no real evidence, only to be incarcerated for years... "
" @hunkaburningluv said:" @TheHBK said:This is basic History, son. If I recall correctly, the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre were given a fair trial, and were proven innocent, as they acted in self-defense. I'm not saying terrorists are innocent, but you never know. They have the same basic rights when they are given a trial. "" who cares, dont close it down, they are terrorists who are just trying to mess with people here. They know that people are all crying and bitching about Gitmo and trying to screw with the image. besides, they got caught acting against US forces, this puts them in their place. "Well, many people care, terrorist or not, they are entitled to the same rights as you or I, in this case, that means a fair trial and no fear of torture. Besides, many were taken with no real evidence, only to be incarcerated for years... "
That's history is it pops? (even thought there is every chance I'm around the same age as you).
You cannot incarcerate someone indefinitely without charge. It's against all manner of laws, hell even the US legal system has stated that the internment of individuals without charge is unconstitutional.....
They deserve their day in court and if the evidence collected prior to torture is sound, then they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
" @hunkaburningluv: You used Wikipedia..... you lost pal, sorry. You should actually try and do a little better at researching, you know... something that actually is true. Don't use Wikipedia. "
I copied the wiki because it said everything I was going to say.
You are under the misconception that the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay are unlawful combatants and not deserving of the same rights as others captured during times of war. There is no such thing as an unlawful combatant. It's not covered by the geneva convention, your own legal system, but it's simply a bogus term made up by the Bush administration in an attempt to skirt laws written to protect people from abuse and torture. These men held at Guantanamo must be categorized either as prisoners of war, or charged with crimes and afforded the same rights and protections that a US citizen would be afforded in the US court system. The saddest thing though is that there are some people in the supposedly civilised western world, like yourself, that torture and indefinite incarceration without charge is absolutely fine. If these guys are sooooooo dangerous, then it will be easily provable in either a court of law or at a military tribunal.
What really astounds me is that a country who openly claims it's taking the moral high ground and imposes it's own set of morals on the rest of the world has no problem throwing said moral out of the window and torture those suspected, and that's all they are at the moment, they haven't been charged for any crime is hypocrisy at it's finest. You can't claim to be a shining beacon of equality, tolerance and morals, all while torturing those who oppose you....
" @damnboyadvance said:Torture? What are you talking about pops?" @hunkaburningluv said:That's history is it pops? (even thought there is every chance I'm around the same age as you). You cannot incarcerate someone indefinitely without charge. It's against all manner of laws, hell even the US legal system has stated that the internment of individuals without charge is unconstitutional..... They deserve their day in court and if the evidence collected prior to torture is sound, then they should be punished to the full extent of the law. "" @TheHBK said:This is basic History, son. If I recall correctly, the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre were given a fair trial, and were proven innocent, as they acted in self-defense. I'm not saying terrorists are innocent, but you never know. They have the same basic rights when they are given a trial. "" who cares, dont close it down, they are terrorists who are just trying to mess with people here. They know that people are all crying and bitching about Gitmo and trying to screw with the image. besides, they got caught acting against US forces, this puts them in their place. "Well, many people care, terrorist or not, they are entitled to the same rights as you or I, in this case, that means a fair trial and no fear of torture. Besides, many were taken with no real evidence, only to be incarcerated for years... "
" @hunkaburningluv said:
Torture? What are you talking about pops? "" @damnboyadvance said:
" @hunkaburningluv said:That's history is it pops? (even thought there is every chance I'm around the same age as you). You cannot incarcerate someone indefinitely without charge. It's against all manner of laws, hell even the US legal system has stated that the internment of individuals without charge is unconstitutional..... They deserve their day in court and if the evidence collected prior to torture is sound, then they should be punished to the full extent of the law. "" @TheHBK said:This is basic History, son. If I recall correctly, the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre were given a fair trial, and were proven innocent, as they acted in self-defense. I'm not saying terrorists are innocent, but you never know. They have the same basic rights when they are given a trial. "" who cares, dont close it down, they are terrorists who are just trying to mess with people here. They know that people are all crying and bitching about Gitmo and trying to screw with the image. besides, they got caught acting against US forces, this puts them in their place. "Well, many people care, terrorist or not, they are entitled to the same rights as you or I, in this case, that means a fair trial and no fear of torture. Besides, many were taken with no real evidence, only to be incarcerated for years... "
Are you not aware of the interrogation techniques that are used at guantanimo?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8857
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2009/01/confirmed-torture-at-guantanamo-bay.html
http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2686
they used waterboarding routinely, forced positioning for hours on end while nude, white noise torture.... not to mention the fact that they were not allowed contact with the outside world
The USA, like Britain, has ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, prohibiting it from inflicting ‘severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental’. In response, the Bush government has developed an arsenal of ‘stressful’ methods which, they claim, do not qualify as torture.
Prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere report being ordered to stand motionless for hours at a time; being subjected to ‘environmental manipulation’ (extremes of heat and cold); being bombarded with bright lights and loud music ranging from heavy metal to Barney the Dinosaur; and having their sleep patterns ‘adjusted’ by frequent interruptions. In a treatment labelled ‘pride and ego down’, detainees are insulted and denigrated, with racial and religious abuse commonplace. Many report being paraded naked in front of others – a particularly humiliating experience for devout muslims. The goal is to break the detainees by inducing shame and despair.
" @damnboyadvance said:I am aware. I just wasn't aware you were talking about Gitmo Bay." @hunkaburningluv said:
Torture? What are you talking about pops? "" @damnboyadvance said:
" @hunkaburningluv said:That's history is it pops? (even thought there is every chance I'm around the same age as you). You cannot incarcerate someone indefinitely without charge. It's against all manner of laws, hell even the US legal system has stated that the internment of individuals without charge is unconstitutional..... They deserve their day in court and if the evidence collected prior to torture is sound, then they should be punished to the full extent of the law. "" @TheHBK said:This is basic History, son. If I recall correctly, the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre were given a fair trial, and were proven innocent, as they acted in self-defense. I'm not saying terrorists are innocent, but you never know. They have the same basic rights when they are given a trial. "" who cares, dont close it down, they are terrorists who are just trying to mess with people here. They know that people are all crying and bitching about Gitmo and trying to screw with the image. besides, they got caught acting against US forces, this puts them in their place. "Well, many people care, terrorist or not, they are entitled to the same rights as you or I, in this case, that means a fair trial and no fear of torture. Besides, many were taken with no real evidence, only to be incarcerated for years... "
Are you not aware of the interrogation techniques that are used at guantanimo?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8857
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2009/01/confirmed-torture-at-guantanamo-bay.html
http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2686
they used waterboarding routinely, forced positioning for hours on end while nude, white noise torture.... not to mention the fact that they were not allowed contact with the outside worldThe USA, like Britain, has ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, prohibiting it from inflicting ‘severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental’. In response, the Bush government has developed an arsenal of ‘stressful’ methods which, they claim, do not qualify as torture.
Prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere report being ordered to stand motionless for hours at a time; being subjected to ‘environmental manipulation’ (extremes of heat and cold); being bombarded with bright lights and loud music ranging from heavy metal to Barney the Dinosaur; and having their sleep patterns ‘adjusted’ by frequent interruptions. In a treatment labelled ‘pride and ego down’, detainees are insulted and denigrated, with racial and religious abuse commonplace. Many report being paraded naked in front of others – a particularly humiliating experience for devout muslims. The goal is to break the detainees by inducing shame and despair.
"
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment