Shameful: This is the world's view on Guantanamo Bay.

Originally posted by octapushunter
sorry, but they are considered pows by the us government.

there are no consistent deffinition of what a "human right" is. not in the geneva convention nor in any rules of engagement. nothing. i didn't say torture or other specific misstreatments are right or wrong but specific things are detailed in different international treaties which are often ignored or forgotten by everyone. the problem arguing about them is that no one can really agree on what a "human right" is so just throwing the term around gets confusing. heance, food and shelter, what more can you hope for as a pow?

excuse me for not reading 4 pages of usless drivel....

^absolutely

GO DUBYA!!!!!

Originally posted by octapushunter
sorry, but they are considered pows by the us government.

there are no consistent deffinition of what a "human right" is. not in the geneva convention nor in any rules of engagement. nothing. i didn't say torture or other specific misstreatments are right or wrong but specific things are detailed in different international treaties which are often ignored or forgotten by everyone. the problem arguing about them is that no one can really agree on what a "human right" is so just throwing the term around gets confusing. heance, food and shelter, what more can you hope for as a pow?

excuse me for not reading 4 pages of usless drivel....

There were laws made to stop mass murder ethenic cleansing torture all that stuff... These people aren't held on US soil because of those things, they are held in Cuba so that the US can do whatever they want without breaking any of there own laws. They are acting completely outside of the law and doing it in ways that is just wrong. If anybody else would have done this the international world would have been screaming for there arrest and they would be in the Hague right about now.

sorry, but they are considered pows by the us government.

please show where this has been stated...i say you cant because the US goverment never uses the term prisoners of war...and in fact i remember dick cheney actually saying before the iraq was that they most likely would NOT be given prisoner of war status

and regardless...it's not really even up to the US to decide whether they are prisoners of war or not....the parameters of who and who isn't a POW are all laid out in the geneva convention

there are no consistent deffinition of what a "human right" is.

except of course...that there is

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html

excuse me for not reading 4 pages of usless drivel....

useless drivel?...yet you haven't read it so you wouldn't know would you?....no...well shut it then

Jamal al-Harith, born Ronald Fiddler, to second-generation Jamaican parents was taken to Guantanamo Bay. He's a web designer who was a tourist in Pakistan. Through a series of unfortuante events, he found himself in Afghanistan. As he waited in Kandahar for the British Embassy to take him home, he was 'picked-up' by US forces and told he was to be sent to Cuba for administrative processing. Then, he was shackled, his arms chained to his legs, chained to a hook on the floor, his face covered in earmuffs and goggles and a surgical mask, bound for Guantanamo Bay.

He was eventually released - without charge - 2 years later.

Asked if the Americans were dipping their toes into the waters of exotic interrogation techniques, he replied: "They were doing a lot more than dipping".

Sources:

http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/APFeaturesManager/defaultArtSiteView.asp?ArtId=120

http://www.blink.org.uk/print.asp?key=5438

http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/493/493_05_Guantanamo.shtml

http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=267 - sourced from The Guardian newspaper

Let's talk about impeaching the president and vice-president of the united states. let's talk about arresting donald rumsfeld and the joint chiefs and putting them on trial in the Hauge. It's ok, they can share Milosevic's cell and Eichmann's cubicle. They aren't using them anymore.

That doesn't sound like a bad idea, to bad it will never happen.

The example given above is just another reason to hate the place and a damned good reason why it should be closed... Two ****ing years of his life wasted

"Guantanamo prison camp is an aberration under international law. It places people outside the rule of law. And it sends a message to other regimes around the world - like Egypt and China - that they too can ignore human rights. They too can lock people up in the name of national security."

- Irene Kahn, Amnesty International's secretary general.

From the 2006 Report:

1592… number of days since the USA opened the Guantánamo Bay prison camp for ‘war on terror’ suspects on 11 January 2002.

759… total number of people who have been detained at Guantánamo Bay.

13… age of Mohammed Ismail Agha when taken into US custody in Afghanistan in late 2002 before later being transferred to Guantanamo.

0… the number of detainees at Guantánamo Bay who have been convicted of a criminal offence.

Could also add the number who have actually been charged with an actual offense, a figure which is also abysmally low. Truly a mockery of justice.

Seems hardly surprising there have been those suicide attempts, or the attack. To imagine existing in such a limbo for up to (or even over) 4 years.

Yeah, that makes the resolve of the 'Tripton Three' - featured in Michael Winterbottom's 'The Road To Guantanamo' - all the more incredible.

Whoever resurrected this thread scared the hell out of me. Post #2 was from Makedde, and I breathed a sigh of relief as I saw it from a few months ago. It was scary thinking for a moment that she wasn't actually dead, but worse...posting on KMC again!

The Geneva convention ONLY applies to solders. These guys don't wear uniforms and don't follow the "rules of war".

Originally posted by Aziz!
The Geneva convention ONLY applies to solders. These guys don't wear uniforms and don't follow the "rules of war".

As puerile as your post undoubtable is, I shall dignify it with a response:

Bush calls it a 'war on terror', therefore it is a war, regardless of their independent sartorial choices.

Here are some of the Articles of the (Fourth) Geneva Convention that the US government is ignoring:

ARTICLE 27

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

The US government broke this resoundingly by parading the Guantanamo Bay prisoners before Western television cameras, just as the Iraqis have done on their television.

ARTICLE 31

No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.

....and....

ARTICLE 32

This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

Afghani POWs were repeatedly shown to be forced to kneel for long times in chains on the ground, handcuffed behind their backs, suffering sensory deprivation by being forced to wear earphones and black goggles so they could neither see nor hear. The U.S. explained that this was a valuable interrogation method. We treat our food-animals better than that. A chicken has more rights than a POW held by the USA.

ARTICLE 45

Protected persons shall not be transferred to a Power which is not a party to the Convention.

Protected persons may be transferred by the Detaining Power only to a Power which is a party to the present Convention.

....and....

ARTICLE 49

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

The U.S. has forcefully transferred its Afghan POWs to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which is not a party to the Convention, yet paradoxically claims that they have no rights under the Convention because they are not on Convention members’ soil. Such hypocrisy is beyond even the Nazis and Stalinists of WWII.

ARTICLE 87

Canteens shall be installed in every place of internment, except where other suitable facilities are available. Their purpose shall be to enable internees to make purchases, at prices not higher than local market prices, of foodstuffs and articles of everyday use, including soap and tobacco, such as would increase their personal well-being and comfort.

The US government has decided such a facility cannot fit inside the chain-link dog pens prisoners are forced to occupy.

ARTICLE 97

Internees shall be permitted to retain articles of personal use. Monies, cheques, bonds, etc., and valuables in their possession may not be taken from them except in accordance with established procedure. Detailed receipts shall be given therefor.

Yet the "Taliban" POWs have been stripped of all their clothes, papers and possession, even photos of their parents.

ARTICLE 124

Internees shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments (prisons, penitentiaries, convict prisons, etc.) to undergo disciplinary punishment therein.

All POWs there have been punished by extreme sensory deprivation and long hours of interrogation and separation from their families and each other. The worst punishment of all is the US government denying that they are even covered under the Geneva Convention and thus have no rights whatsoever.

Someday, the US government will invent a new term to call its citizens who are dissenters so as to deny them their Constitutional rights and likewise lock them up without due process to torture them for months to extract information ‘necessary’ for state security. It is then that only the government will decide which of its citizens are ‘worthy’ of any rights at all.

ARTICLE 125

They shall have permission to read and write, likewise to send and receive letters. Parcels and remittances of money, however, may be withheld from them until the completion of their punishment; such consignments shall meanwhile be entrusted to the Internee Committee, who will hand over to the infirmary the perishable goods contained in the parcels.

The POWs’ families have no idea if they are even alive.

Article 127

The transfer of internees shall always be effected humanely. As a general rule, it shall be carried out by rail or other means of transport, and under conditions at least equal to those obtaining for the forces of the Detaining Power in their changes of station. If, as an exceptional measure, such removals have to be effected on foot, they may not take place unless the internees are in a fit state of health, and may not in any case expose them to excessive fatigue.

On their flights to Cuba, POWs were forced wear chains and hoods so they had no idea what was happening to them. That was intentional so they would suffer mental collapse and be more pliable to US interrogators. This goes much farther than exposing them to "excessive fatigue." It is downright torture reminiscent of the Hanoi Hilton.

How does the USA get away with the above outrage? It does so by redefining reality:

The US says that the POWs are not POWs at all; they are now to be called, "unlawful combatants."

Unlawful combatants don’t deserve any human rights whatsoever because the biggest gun on the planet says so. It doesn’t matter that every other nation calls a POW a POW, the USA is above other nations, it is above the law, it is above its own citizens and it is above even reality.

US President Bush loves pointing out that, "America is liberating Iraqis from human rights abuses by Saddam Hussein." However America abuses the rights of anyone it so chooses by just by giving them a different label.

Even though bush calls it a war, it legally isn't, its a 'conflict'. The President is forbidden to declare war, only Congress can, and they didn't. But the president can invole the country in conflicts.

It's semantics, I know, but thats how he can get away with his crap.

How does the USA get away with the above outrage? It does so by redefining reality:

The US says that the POWs are not POWs at all; they are now to be called, "unlawful combatants."

Unlawful combatants don’t deserve any human rights whatsoever because the biggest gun on the planet says so. It doesn’t matter that every other nation calls a POW a POW, the USA is above other nations, it is above the law, it is above its own citizens and it is above even reality.

US President Bush loves pointing out that, "America is liberating Iraqis from human rights abuses by Saddam Hussein." However America abuses the rights of anyone it so chooses by just by giving them a different label.

funny isn't it how most of the posts are pro-terrorists, yet the poll says let them rot?

-edit-

I still haven't seen any credible proof of widespread inhumane treatment. People keep saying that it's happening, but no one is showing it. Recently the US govt. invited some human rights organization to inspect guantanamo and the group refused and then put out a bad report. Seems like everything is based on hearsay to me.

So, to all y'all who want to shut 'er down - what do we do with all those suspected terrorists? Military tribunals? Criminal courts - even though any crimes happened outside of their jurisdiction? just set 'em free?

I'm all for Military tribunals followed by execution of the ones that can be shown to have actively participated in slaughter of civilians.

Originally posted by docb77
funny isn't it how most of the posts are pro-terrorists, yet the poll says let them rot?

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Unlawful combatants don’t deserve any human rights whatsoever because the biggest gun on the planet says so.

actually unlawful combatants have never been given rights so blaming that on the US is irrelevant

not to mention the fact that even if they were POW's then the geneva convention is only applicable to A) countries who signed up for the original convention which afghanistan did not and B) countries who ratified the 2 subsequent ammendments of the convention which the US did not

infact after a little bit of research, the only thing binding the US with regards to how it treats the people in guantanamo is the body of principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp36.htm

you also are misled in thinking that if something is defined as a war then the people in it who are captured are therfor prisoners of war

when infact it is the actions of the people who have been captured that determine whether they are defined as prisoners of war

there are 4 defining attributes for one to qualify as a POW

The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

neither al qaeda nor the taliban nor the insurrgency in iraq follows these definitions and so POW status wouldnt apply even if the US had ratified the geneva convention ammendments

Originally posted by docb77
funny isn't it how most of the posts are pro-terrorists, yet the poll says let them rot?

I was projecting the reaction I expected to see from some of pro-Bush crowd. I guess you missed that.

Originally posted by docb77
I still haven't seen any credible proof of widespread inhumane treatment. People keep saying that it's happening, but no one is showing it. Recently the US govt. invited some human rights organization to inspect guantanamo and the group refused and then put out a bad report. Seems like everything is based on hearsay to me.

Click on the link to the Amnesty International website for details.

Aside from that, do you not classify people who have been kidnapped from their homeland, hooded and bound, transported thousands of miles to a foreign country, and incarcerated for years without charge inhumane? If you don't, then I guess the reason you're not seeing the credible proof is because you're not human. That's cool, but being human is kind of a necessity when considering the nature of of the word.

The rest of your post is garbage, so I've dumped it in the trash can.

Edit: I now see that the poll comment was in reference to the most popular choice.

I guess it can be seen to represent how the majority of the people who are in acceptance of what goes on at Guantanamo realise that they have nothing to defend their view with, other than their own simple ignorance.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
[B]How does the USA get away with the above outrage? It does so by redefining reality:

The US says that the POWs are not POWs at all; they are now to be called, "unlawful combatants."

Unlawful combatants don’t deserve any human rights whatsoever because the biggest gun on the planet says so. It doesn’t matter that every other nation calls a POW a POW, the USA is above other nations, it is above the law, it is above its own citizens and it is above even reality.

US President Bush loves pointing out that, "America is liberating Iraqis from human rights abuses by Saddam Hussein." However America abuses the rights of anyone it so chooses by just by giving them a different label. [/B]

If these people had there way they would either destroy or convert you.
I don't lose sleep knowing there rotting in that shit hole.