Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote: there is nothing there that hasn't been used on US Soldiers as training with the exception of water boarding.

fear that we might be killed at any minute
two-and-a-half-year ordeal has also left them with serious physical problems including knee and back pain - because of the positions in which they were shackled - and, in the case of Rhuhel Ahmed, permanent eye damage.
cold, dehydration, hunger and uncertainty as well as dysentery and injuries.
punched, kicked, slapped or struck with a rifle butt at least 30 or 40 times
"I was taken ... for a so-called cavity search ... told to bend over and then felt something shoved up my anus. I don't know what it was but it was very painful"
systematically deprived of sleep and that they were kept on a restricted diet to weaken them
the level of fear was sky-high. We were terrified we might be killed at any minute. The guards would say, 'Nobody knows you're here, all they know is that you're missing and we could kill you and no one would know,'
months in isolation and on a block with non-English-speaking detainees,
rat, snake and scorpion-infested cages in which the men lived, exposed to blistering daytime temperatures, freezing nights and torrential rain.
short-shackling [when detainees are chained into a squatting position] started, loud music playing in interrogation, shaving beards and hair, putting people in cells naked, taking away people's 'comfort' items [eg towels] ... moving some people every two hours, depriving them of sleep, the use of a/c [air-conditioned, cold] air.
keeping prisoners naked for more than 30 days, threatening by dogs, and extreme temperatures.

I seriously don't think that any American soldier has been subjected to this level of prolonged psychological anguish

Hordini wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Hordini wrote:I'm not saying there's no chance that some people who are in Guantanamo might be there for the wrong reasons, but seriously, aren't the majority of them enemy combatants?

there is literally no way of knowing.

The problem is that any given source of any information has every reason to lie (the US military and government vs. the prisoner).

Your view on the issue will almost assuredly come down to how much you trust the Bush administration.

Well, and how much you trust Obama and his administration, since he promised to close it and then decided it was so important it needed to stay open. Maybe it says something about the situation that two Presidents from opposing parties decided to keep it open, one even going to far as to go back on a pretty significant campaign promise to do it.

LoneLictor wrote:

Hordini wrote:I'm not saying there's no chance that some people who are in Guantanamo might be there for the wrong reasons, but seriously, aren't the majority of them enemy combatants?

We don't know. Maybe if we gave them trials we could find out.

But basically, what we do is whisk people away and then torture them because there's a chance that they might be useful to us. And for some reason, very few people view this as immoral.

Why should we give an enemy combatant a trial? What crime should we charge them with? Again, the point of taking prisoners of war isn't to charge them with crimes and punish them, it's to keep them off the battlefield without killing them. Should we just send them back to Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever to be recycled into the local insurgent groups and militias, until they get killed or recaptured, and possibly killing other people in the process?

If they are a PoWs then Guantanemo has broken the Geneva Convention by denying them contact with their families, not to mention torture of prisoners. So your government would be guilty of a war crime.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

InquisitorVaron wrote:It may not be right but something I just want to say is.
There's two planes one's planning to be bombed, some information is gained through torture by another country.

How many people will pick the bombed plane?

I don't agree with torture but in cases like that we might aswell use it.

This is different, the army are not civs. They understand the dangers, torture shouldn't happen but keeping them away from the battlefield I agree with.

You have no guarantee that information gained through torture is accurate. Someone will tell you whatever they think you want to hear to make the torture stop.

A Town Called Malus wrote:If they are a PoWs then Guantanemo has broken the Geneva Convention by denying them contact with their families, not to mention torture of prisoners. So your government would be guilty of a war crime.

Except they aren't.

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Good luck finding gitmo prisoners that meet those rules.

Nobody disagrees that POWs should not be treated like that. Which would be relevant if they were POWs.

The partisanship on both sides of this makes my face hurt.

Polonius wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:If they are a PoWs then Guantanemo has broken the Geneva Convention by denying them contact with their families, not to mention torture of prisoners. So your government would be guilty of a war crime.

Except they aren't.

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Good luck finding gitmo prisoners that meet those rules.

Nobody disagrees that POWs should not be treated like that. Which would be relevant if they were POWs.

So if they are not PoWs they must be found guilty of a crime to be incarcerated and so must stand trial.

Polonius wrote:
Nobody disagrees that POWs should not be treated like that. Which would be relevant if they were POWs.

So because they don't fit certain criteria they are fair game?

Melissia wrote:The partisanship on both sides of this makes my face hurt.

I think there's an element of that, but ignorance of International law is a larger driving factor.

Now, that's understandable, as international law does a great job of legislating how the last major war should have been fought, but with few exceptions has done little to prevent future war crimes. (The western european front in WWII being a notable counterexample.)

the problem is, most people aren't comfortable with our government keeping people locked up for years. Most peope see that sometimes we need to. the problem is that we don't know who we've locked up and why.

We were asked, in 2001, to trust the Bush administration that they were doing the right thing. For many people, that was a tall order.

Of course, one thing that most people forget is that we don't know everything. In international relations and security, there just isn't much partisanship. What there is a large, professional, cadre of men and women who make a career out of finding and keeping secrets. In the modern world, the idea that secrets are actually kept seems quaint, but the big secret is that professionals do it every day.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

You have no guarantee that information gained through torture is accurate. Someone will tell you whatever they think you want to hear to make the torture stop.

An illiterate thug beating you with a pipe for information has no way of verifying your information. The CIA, NSA, Armed Forces and anyone else interrogating these guys can sort the the wheat from the chaff. Professional interrogators don't take your word for it.

I also find it interesting that Malaysia of all places convicted Bush of war crimes. This is same country notorious for caning and is ranked 131st out of 175 by Reporters without Borders in freedom of the press. Champions of civil and human rights indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Malaysia

A Town Called Malus wrote:So if they are not PoWs they must be found guilty of a crime to be incarcerated and so must stand trial.

Based on what law?

Traditionally, non-uniformed forces, be they commandos, partisans, insurgents, or whatever have enjoyed zero legal protection.

If you fire on soldiers when you aren't a soldier, your life is forfeit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:So because they don't fit certain criteria they are fair game?

Under international law, yeah.

Look, as individuals we are bound by various rules. Laws, social norms, and personal ethics. People live their lives based on those in different orders, but for the most part people are generally law abiding, usually moral, and often conform to norms.

Nations have no morality, little law, and few if any social norms. The more powerful a nation, the more it can flaut norms, and even violate international law.

Look at it this way: there is no law against lying. I mean, you can't when under oath, but you can lie all you'd like to your mom or girlfriend or boss. That doesn't mean that people always lie. They are bound by some combination of morality and social norms to tell the truth.

Polonius wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:So if they are not PoWs they must be found guilty of a crime to be incarcerated and so must stand trial.

Based on what law?

Traditionally, non-uniformed forces, be they commandos, partisans, insurgents, or whatever have enjoyed zero legal protection.

If you fire on soldiers when you aren't a soldier, your life is forfeit.

You can legally lock up two types of people, PoWs and Criminals. If you do not stand trial then you cannot be found guilty and therefore cannot be a criminal. I would also point out that your Supreme Court ruled that all those detained at GITMO are entitled to the same protection under your Constitution as you are.

As for your point on shooting at soldiers, how many of the prisoners at Guantanemo have actually shot at soldiers? How can you say that they have without evidence being presented in a court of law, be it civilian or military?

A Town Called Malus wrote:You can legally lock up two types of people, PoWs and Criminals. If you do not stand trial then you cannot be found guilty and therefore cannot be a criminal.

Again, under what law?

You can lock up many more kinds of people than that, actually. Those accused of a crime. Those with a dangerous mental illness. Those with contagious and dangerous disease.

They all share a common thread: when the safety of the state is at great enough risk, a person can be held.

Regardless, find me a law that applies to Afghanistan or Iraq that prohibits it.

As for your point on shooting at soldiers, how many of the prisoners at Guantanemo have actually shot at soldiers?

Nobody knows. As I pointed out above, both sides have every reason to lie.

Polonius wrote:
Based on what law?

Traditionally, non-uniformed forces, be they commandos, partisans, insurgents, or whatever have enjoyed zero legal protection.

If you fire on soldiers when you aren't a soldier, your life is forfeit.

If the unlawful combatant is not from a co-belligerent state or a neutral state he retains vague protections under GCIV, which essentially amount to the right to a fair trial; though there is no stipulation that it be a civilian trial.

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Based on what law?

Traditionally, non-uniformed forces, be they commandos, partisans, insurgents, or whatever have enjoyed zero legal protection.

If you fire on soldiers when you aren't a soldier, your life is forfeit.

If the unlawful combatant is not from a co-belligerent state or a neutral state he retains vague protections under GCIV, which essentially amount to the right to a fair trial; though there is no stipulation that it be a civilian trial.

Aren't most Gitmo prisoner's non-local? I didn't think we kept many afghans or iraqis there, but I could easily be wrong.

I'll agree that not even having the pretense of a hearing seems odd.

What has Guantanamo actually achieved apart from maybe the radicalisation of people that were once moderate, possibly even supported intervention against the despotic regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq.

As for the interrogators being professional, they still use polygraphs, which are very unreliable, hence inadmissible in European courts. And thats in a standard environment, nevermind accounting for the stress levels of those interrogated, after months, if not years of psychological abuse.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
You can legally lock up two types of people, PoWs and Criminals.

No, that's incorrect. You can detain virtually anyone in a combat zone until such time that their status relative to international law can be determined by a qualified tribunal. Until this determination is made the detainee is a de factor protected person. After the fact they may be considered a POW, an unlawful combatant, or they may remain a protected person.

Outside of certain narrow circumstances (basically if they're nationals of the country in which they were engaged in hostilities), unlawful combatants have the rights granted to them at the behest of the detaining nation.

Polonius wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:You can legally lock up two types of people, PoWs and Criminals. If you do not stand trial then you cannot be found guilty and therefore cannot be a criminal.

Again, under what law?

You can lock up many more kinds of people than that, actually. Those accused of a crime. Those with a dangerous mental illness. Those with contagious and dangerous disease.

They all share a common thread: when the safety of the state is at great enough risk, a person can be held.

Regardless, find me a law that applies to Afghanistan or Iraq that prohibits it.

1) Someone accused of a crime. - Very few of the prisoners at GITMO have actually been accused of a crime.
2) Those with a dangerous mental illness. - That would require a Doctor to go before a court and testify that the person needed to be locked up for their own and others protection.
3) Those with contagious diseases. - Again, this requires a doctor and you're allowed out when you get better, which is decided by a certified doctor.

As for your point on shooting at soldiers, how many of the prisoners at Guantanemo have actually shot at soldiers?

Nobody knows. As I pointed out above, both sides have every reason to lie.

Right, so them shooting at your soldiers cannot be used as an argument for why they are incarcerated.

Polonius wrote:
Aren't most Gitmo prisoner's non-local? I didn't think we kept many afghans or iraqis there, but I could easily be wrong.

I honestly don't know, but my guess would be that's the case as it would seem counterproductive to extradite Iraqi and Afghan nationals. Though, at least in the case of Afghanistan, who counts as a national is difficult to determine; both because of lax reporting and just how long the Mujaheddin have been active there.

Polonius wrote:
I'll agree that not even having the pretense of a hearing seems odd.

Generally there has to be a hearing to classify any detainee, though how thorough the process is can obviously be debated.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Polonius wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:You can legally lock up two types of people, PoWs and Criminals. If you do not stand trial then you cannot be found guilty and therefore cannot be a criminal.

Again, under what law?

You can lock up many more kinds of people than that, actually. Those accused of a crime. Those with a dangerous mental illness. Those with contagious and dangerous disease.

They all share a common thread: when the safety of the state is at great enough risk, a person can be held.

Regardless, find me a law that applies to Afghanistan or Iraq that prohibits it.

1) Someone accused of a crime. - Very few of the prisoners at GITMO have actually been accused of a crime.
2) Those with a dangerous mental illness. - That would require a Doctor to go before a court and testify that the person needed to be locked up for their own and others protection.
3) Those with contagious diseases. - Again, this requires a doctor and you're allowed out when you get better, which is decided by a certified doctor.

You misunderstnad. I'm not saying that the gitmo prisoners qualify under those rules, only pointing out that you had an overly simple view of the matter in a very concrete way, in much the same as you have an overly naive view of the matter in the more abstract way.

Speaking of which, you still cannot come up any positive law to support your claim.

Right, so them shooting at your soldiers cannot be used as an argument for why they are incarcerated.

I suppose not. I basically see two options: 1) there is some reason to suspect that the person is dangerous and worth detaining, or 2) The US is simply being a dick.

Plenty would agree with the second possibiltiy, but it's probably more the first.

Hordini wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Awesome.

What a thoughtful and indepth response.

It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconstitutional thing imaginable. People are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.

Barring a few of the more high profile exceptions, aren't most of the prisoners people who got picked up as enemy combatants in Iraq or Afghanistan? That's a little bit different than just being "whisked away." And how is it different than basically any prisoner of war camp ever? If someone gets captured during a fight with US forces, you don't lock them up to charge them with a crime and make them stand trial. You lock them up until the fighting is over in order to keep them off the battlefield without killing them .

And you water board them to maintain hygiene?

Malaysia owns

As with other countries who have tried this trick, I would love to see them try to do anything about it.

Seriously. Try to arrest a former president. See what happens.

Hint: it won't end well for Malaysia.

Yeah, We will roll out the red carpet to his house and get the arrestors a parade afterwords.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Yeah, We will roll out the red carpet to his house and get the arrestors a parade afterwords.

In your wildest pinko dreams.

biccat wrote:As with other countries who have tried this trick, I would love to see them try to do anything about it.

Seriously. Try to arrest a former president. See what happens.

Hint: it won't end well for Malaysia.

What would happen if he murdered 20 people?

biccat wrote:As with other countries who have tried this trick, I would love to see them try to do anything about it.

Seriously. Try to arrest a former president. See what happens.

Hint: it won't end well for Malaysia.

The article itself has said it probably won't achieve anything. The most they can do is recommend it to the International Criminal Court.

Though if the former president Bush rocked up in Malaysia, how would that turn out? Exactly who would be jumping to his rescue?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

biccat wrote:As with other countries who have tried this trick, I would love to see them try to do anything about it.

Seriously. Try to arrest a former president. See what happens.

Hint: it won't end well for Malaysia.

The article itself has said it probably won't achieve anything. The most they can do is recommend it to the International Criminal Court.

Though if the former president Bush rocked up in Malaysia, how would that turn out? Exactly who would be jumping to his rescue?

I would imagine his Secret Service detail if they could pry themselves away from those Malaysian hookers.

AustonT wrote:I would imagine his Secret Service detail if they could pry themselves away from those Malaysian hookers.

The Secret Service are going to crack open a Malaysian prison to extract someone convicted of war crimes? That cannot look good for the US on the world stage, given how public the whole thing would be.

Who decides who gets tried at the Hague for war crimes? Would that be the International Criminal Court? It has been proved that Iraq was based on evidence that was "sexed up." So how is it ok to kill 100,000+ civilians on false pretences? I'm sure that Assad will get the full weight of law thrown at him eventually, but not Bush and Blair.

purplefood wrote:

biccat wrote:As with other countries who have tried this trick, I would love to see them try to do anything about it.

Seriously. Try to arrest a former president. See what happens.

Hint: it won't end well for Malaysia.

What would happen if he murdered 20 people?

Hypothetically, he would be impeached and tried in the United States.

But if he could claim those murders were official acts, then he would be immune from prosecution.

Also, this is relevant.

Polonius wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
So keep the blame where it belongs.

Ah, you mean the heavily Democrat controlled congress from 2009 til 2011?

I'm glad to see we can focus on what's truely important: partisan bickering.