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.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/guantanamo-hunger-strikers-dont-destroy-evidence-of-our-torture/190811/

Men on hunger strike in the Guantanamo Bay offshore prison have asked a U.S. court to intervene to stop the military from destroying evidence of atrocities committed in the course of force-feedings.

According to an emergency motion filed by the detainees on Tuesday, the Department of Defense acknowledged this week for the first time that it possesses videos depicting the force-feeding of inmates—a highly controversial process that has been condemned as torture and a violation of international law by the United Nations human rights office. From painful insertion of tubes to the pumping of food to the threat of stomach damage and asphyxiation, the practice of force-feeding has been compared to water-boarding.

The hunger strikers say the footage provides critical evidence of their abuse and torture, making it key to their legal challenge of this practice. In February, a federal appeals court ruled that judges can oversee Guantanamo Bay detainees’ complaints about their conditions—opening the door to challenges to force-feedings.

U.S goverment wants to destroy evidence to hide it's human rights violations

Well. Let's see.

Men on hunger strike in the Guantanamo Bay offshore prison have asked a U.S. court to intervene to stop the military from destroying evidence of atrocities committed in the course of force-feedings.


According to an emergency motion filed by the detainees on Tuesday, the Department of Defense acknowledged this week for the first time that it possesses videos depicting the force-feeding of inmates—a highly controversial process that has been condemned as torture and a violation of international law by the United Nations human rights office. From painful insertion of tubes to the pumping of food to the threat of stomach damage and asphyxiation, the practice of force-feeding has been compared to water-boarding.


The hunger strikers say the footage provides critical evidence of their abuse and torture, making it key to their legal challenge of this practice. In February, a federal appeals court ruled that judges can oversee Guantanamo Bay detainees’ complaints about their conditions—opening the door to challenges to force-feedings.

I can see if they manage to die from starvation that the US Military starved them to death be all over the papers Keep up with the Anti US Military hate

WTF is mintpressnews?

 Seaward wrote:
WTF is mintpressnews?

The place where he gets his claims that the Taliban and Al Quaeda treat their prisoners well, as long as you ignore the beheading videos and eyewitness accounts of people being tortured to death.

Relapse wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
WTF is mintpressnews?

The place where he gets his claims that the Taliban and Al Quaeda treat their prisoners well, as long as you ignore the beheading videos and eyewitness accounts of people being tortured to death.

You lied about the ignore list, just like the U.S lied about its wars of occupation.

Once again, don't cross into another thread if you cannot form a cohesive rebuttal there.

I said quite clearly bergdahl and bergdahl alone. Enough of your plunger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Well. Let's see.

Men on hunger strike in the Guantanamo Bay offshore prison have asked a U.S. court to intervene to stop the military from destroying evidence of atrocities committed in the course of force-feedings.


According to an emergency motion filed by the detainees on Tuesday, the Department of Defense acknowledged this week for the first time that it possesses videos depicting the force-feeding of inmates—a highly controversial process that has been condemned as torture and a violation of international law by the United Nations human rights office. From painful insertion of tubes to the pumping of food to the threat of stomach damage and asphyxiation, the practice of force-feeding has been compared to water-boarding.


The hunger strikers say the footage provides critical evidence of their abuse and torture, making it key to their legal challenge of this practice. In February, a federal appeals court ruled that judges can oversee Guantanamo Bay detainees’ complaints about their conditions—opening the door to challenges to force-feedings.

I can see if they manage to die from starvation that the US Military starved them to death be all over the papers Keep up with the Anti US Military hate

Or liek they could totally like give the inmates the trials instead of indefinite defention? or even liek totally improve the conditions of the camp?

Naw... if the US and A says you are a terrorist then you are one, they don't even need evidence or fair trials or habeas corpus.

he May 2007 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq occurred when Iraqi insurgents attacked a military outpost in Qarghouli, Iraq, west of Yusufiyah and south of Baghdad, killing four U.S. Army soldiers and an Iraqi soldier before capturing Specialist Alex Ramon Jimenez, Private First Class Joseph John Anzack and Private Byron Wayne Fouty on May 12, 2007. A fourth soldier, Sergeant Anthony Jason Schober, was also thought to have been captured, but his remains were identified later.[3]

Actually I talk Relapse out of the ignore list Ronin being I'm debating you Just to show an incident on how they treat their "prisoners"

You brought up "prisoners" or those captured by either side. You strong armed the concept that Bergdahl was very well treated but no "proof" on his excellent treatment by the enemy.

 44Ronin wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
WTF is mintpressnews?

The place where he gets his claims that the Taliban and Al Quaeda treat their prisoners well, as long as you ignore the beheading videos and eyewitness accounts of people being tortured to death.

You lied about the ignore list, just like the U.S lied about its wars of occupation.

Once again, don't cross into another thread if you cannot form a cohesive rebuttal there.

I said quite clearly bergdahl and bergdahl alone. Enough of your plunger.

Nope didn't lie, but some of the answers you were giving must have been comedy gold, so I took you back off.

No, you are the one that is venturing into creative territory, since you tried to deny that terrorist prisoners(plural)were executed by this statement:

"If you can cite the executed POW's then we'll talk about it. Otherwise I suggest you apologise for your "troll" comment"

I cited, along with Cptn Jake and Jihadin, who reported what he witnessed over there, and you ignored our proof rather than talk about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

he May 2007 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq occurred when Iraqi insurgents attacked a military outpost in Qarghouli, Iraq, west of Yusufiyah and south of Baghdad, killing four U.S. Army soldiers and an Iraqi soldier before capturing Specialist Alex Ramon Jimenez, Private First Class Joseph John Anzack and Private Byron Wayne Fouty on May 12, 2007. A fourth soldier, Sergeant Anthony Jason Schober, was also thought to have been captured, but his remains were identified later.[3]

Actually I talk Relapse out of the ignore list Ronin being I'm debating you Just to show an incident on how they treat their "prisoners"

You brought up "prisoners" or those captured by either side. You strong armed the concept that Bergdahl was very well treated but no "proof" on his excellent treatment by the enemy.

Have an exalt, old sport.

Yes,

one guy posted a different faction of Taliban killing pakistani's

the other posted iraqi insurgents.

What are we talking about? it is not Iraq. That makes the second one irrelevant because it's not taliban. Not even the same country.

As for the first., these victims were targeted for apsotasy by TIT.

As you can see the Meshud just split from Tehrik-i-Taliban (TIT lol) from a difference in values.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/mehsud-group-parts-ways-with-pakistan-taliban/article1-1223644.aspx

You can see a clear fractionalisation within the taliban between ideology. They are not a homogenous group as you pretend.

There also seems to be more to the story than meets the eye. A sympathetic disposition perhaps?

 44Ronin wrote:
Yes,

one guy posted a different faction of Taliban killing pakistani's

the other posted iraqi insurgents.

What are we talking about? it is not Iraq. That makes the second one irrelevant because it's not taliban. Not even the same country.

As for the first., these victims were targeted for apsotasy by TIT.

As you can see the Meshud just split from Tehrik-i-Taliban (TIT lol) from a difference in values.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/mehsud-group-parts-ways-with-pakistan-taliban/article1-1223644.aspx

You can see a clear fractionalisation within the taliban between ideology. They are not a homogenous group as you pretend.

There also seems to be more to the story than meets the eye. A sympathetic disposition perhaps?

You made a blanket statement, so I answered with such. BTW, how many people in Gitmo were beheaded for "apostasy"? Your humanitarian claims for these jokers loses ground with every statement you make.

 44Ronin wrote:

Naw... if the US and A says you are a terrorist then you are one, they don't even need evidence or fair trials or habeas corpus.

Frankly, Terrorists don't and shouldn't deserve trials. Nor should habeas corpus apply. They don't even deserve the dignity of being classified as Prisoners of War, that would imply they have legitimacy as combatants.

Of course Terrorists don't fit neatly into any other classification. So we should make one for them. A category with zero rights whatsoever, as befits their crimes against humanity. Any rights they may have had as a citizen of any respective nation or as a human being should be revoked for the duration they are detained.

And anyone who willingly collaborates with a terrorist should also be classified as a terrorist.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

Naw... if the US and A says you are a terrorist then you are one, they don't even need evidence or fair trials or habeas corpus.

Frankly, Terrorists don't and shouldn't deserve trials. Nor should habeas corpus apply. They don't even deserve the dignity of being classified as Prisoners of War, that would imply they have legitimacy as combatants.

Of course Terrorists don't fit neatly into any other classification. So we should make one for them. A category with zero rights whatsoever, as befits their crimes against humanity. Any rights they may have had as a citizen of any respective nation or as a human being should be revoked for the duration they are detained.

And anyone who willingly collaborates with a terrorist should also be classified as a terrorist.

I can't tell if this is satire or not...

Edit: no, that has to be a joke. Nobody could honestly be that insane.

Relapse wrote:
Your humanitarian claims for these jokers loses ground with every statement you make.

There are and were plenty of innocent, wrongfully imprisoned people who ended up in gitmo. That is not conjecture, it is fact.

The Uyghurs are perfect examples. Falsely Imprisoned for being enemy combatants.

This is big brother, 1984 stuff bought by the ignorant masses who can't think two steps ahead of them.

 Peregrine wrote:
Edit: no, that has to be a joke. Nobody could honestly be that insane.

Sorry perigrine, retraction on my part.

The problem with the "if they are terrorists then..." statement is that they are only terrorists because somebody says so. There is no trial to determine that they are terrorists, there is no defense from it, there is just the word of somebody that decided that.

They don't get trials or rights because they are terrorists, but they don't get a trial to determine if they are terrorists either. What if they decide that captured US soldiers are terrorists and not POWs and that they don't deserve rights either?

I think that Guantanamo Bay was a huge mistake. I think that the way we are treating the people detained there is a huge mistake. I don't think that we gained any worthy intelligence out of it that we couldn't have gotten the traditional way, and I think that our soldiers have suffered because of it. I believe that we create more terrorists every day we keep it open and that in the end more lives are hurt or lost because of it than will ever be saved. It should never have existed and our American values of "truth, justice, liberty, freedom, blah blah blah" are forever damaged by it and we have zero right to ever pretend to be the moral voice for the rest of the world again.

But I'm also very pragmatic about it. I realize I'm just some civilian bitching about it. For all I know there could have been some valuable intelligence that was gained and it's just way to classified to be known to me. I would think that it would have been made public by now to defend the existence of it, but who knows. I also have zero clue about what we should do with the people we have there, many of which will probably turn to terrorism and try to kill US citizens for what happened to them.

I don't know how to give them a fair trial, I don't know how to rehabilitate them, I don't know where to put them, I don't have any answers of any kind there.

I'm not happy about it and I don't mind telling people that I am not happy about it. But I don't have any ideas about any solutions either. On one hand I'm pissed at the people that made the decisions, but I'm also very happy that I'm not the one that has to make them. I truly believe it's wrong, but I don't have any better proposals either at this point.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

Naw... if the US and A says you are a terrorist then you are one, they don't even need evidence or fair trials or habeas corpus.

Frankly, Terrorists don't and shouldn't deserve trials. Nor should habeas corpus apply. They don't even deserve the dignity of being classified as Prisoners of War, that would imply they have legitimacy as combatants.

Of course Terrorists don't fit neatly into any other classification. So we should make one for them. A category with zero rights whatsoever, as befits their crimes against humanity. Any rights they may have had as a citizen of any respective nation or as a human being should be revoked for the duration they are detained.

And anyone who willingly collaborates with a terrorist should also be classified as a terrorist.

I have no idea why they would not be classified as combatants. People have fought for causes in countries not of their birth for all of history , I don't know why this action makes you a terrorist. Is a big "T" Terrorist actually a term now? .

I'm finding it difficult to swallow that people arbitrarily given a title of TERRORIST (i think all caps looks better instead of just capitalising the first letter ) are then denied trials , and then regarded as though they have committed crimes against humanity. That act in itself seems like a crime against humanity.

44Ronin happens to be my new favourite poster. So arguments, much laughter , wow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
It should never have existed and our American values of "truth, justice, liberty, freedom, blah blah blah" are forever damaged by it and we have zero right to ever pretend to be the moral voice for the rest of the world again.

Quoted for mega truth. I also loved your jpeg you posted in another thread , the america/foreign country oil one, I laughed hard when I read that.

Because Terrorists target civilian populations to sow terror and rule through fear, killing innocents is their goal. They aren't soldiers, they aren't freedom fighters, they're animals.

Innocents will be inadvertently harmed in war, but deliberately targeting them is morally unacceptable. You have ceased to be a combatant and become a rabid dog who is only suited to be euthanized.


Fighting in another country doesn't make you a terrorist, attacking another country by bombing its citizens does, or bombing your own countries citizens, or beheading people because they aren't of your religion, or killing people for sending their children to school, etc...

Its also been a long standing rule of war that anyone who fights without a uniform is classed as a spy, can be shot on sight, and is not afforded the protection of any of the rules of war.

Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

 dæl wrote:
Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

US history was just made up by liberals.

Liberals and commies.

 dæl wrote:
Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

Care to give some specifics?

And I mean actual terrorism. Not something where civilians happened to be in the wrong place and were collateral damage.

Is 44Ronin trying to say that the Taliban are gracious hosts?

 Jihadin wrote:
Well. Let's see.

I can see if they manage to die from starvation that the US Military starved them to death be all over the papers Keep up with the Anti US Military hate

Or maybe we could listen to why their starving themselves, and give them due process?

 Mysterious Pants wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Well. Let's see.

I can see if they manage to die from starvation that the US Military starved them to death be all over the papers Keep up with the Anti US Military hate

Or maybe we could listen to why their starving themselves, and give them due process?

As soon as we hear a compelling argument for why terrorists deserve the same legal rights as people who aren't terrorists.

 Grey Templar wrote:



Fighting in another country doesn't make you a terrorist, attacking another country by bombing its citizens does, or bombing your own countries citizens, or beheading people because they aren't of your religion, or killing people for sending their children to school, etc...

Its also been a long standing rule of war that anyone who fights without a uniform is classed as a spy, can be shot on sight, and is not afforded the protection of any of the rules of war.

By your own logic, America is a terrorist considering it not only firebombed, but nuclear bombed Japan.

Is that fair logic?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Mysterious Pants wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Well. Let's see.

I can see if they manage to die from starvation that the US Military starved them to death be all over the papers Keep up with the Anti US Military hate

Or maybe we could listen to why their starving themselves, and give them due process?

As soon as we hear a compelling argument for why terrorists deserve the same legal rights as people who aren't terrorists.

Sure.

We need to give everyone equal rights to due process, for the sake of not undermining the basic concepts of our legal system.

I'm not saying we give them a blank check or set them free. I'm saying we have a little more transparency/oversight (when possible), and proper due process. Can anyone really say what's going on in there, when it's all so secretive and consequence-free? I personally believe some innocent people might be in Gitmo. And I know we've done some horrendous humans rights abuses there.

Anyway, with your logic we could overlook due process for all sorts of reasons. pedophiles don't deserve due process, they molested children! etc. etc. Terrible idea.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

Care to give some specifics?

And I mean actual terrorism. Not something where civilians happened to be in the wrong place and were collateral damage.

Look up the Reagan Doctrine and what sort of things were going on with the Contras in Nicaragua, or the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Not to mention more recent cases such as using Al Qaeda in Libya and the destabilisation of Syria into civil war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
As soon as we hear a compelling argument for why terrorists deserve the same legal rights as people who aren't terrorists.

Because as soon as rights are not universal you then allow for greater and greater exceptions.

 Mysterious Pants wrote:



Sure.

We need to give everyone equal rights to due process, for the sake of not undermining the basic concepts of our legal system.

I'm not saying we give them a blank check or set them free. I'm saying we have a little more transparency/oversight (when possible), and proper due process. Can anyone really say what's going on in there, when it's all so secretive and consequence-free? I personally believe some innocent people might be in Gitmo. And I know we've done some horrendous humans rights abuses there.

Anyway, with your logic we could overlook due process for all sorts of reasons. pedophiles don't deserve due process, they molested children! etc. etc. Terrible idea.

I don't know what's in your pants , but after that comment I sure like the cut of your jib!

Can't we get back to discussing relevant issues like, Duck attacks, Peking Duck and childrens' games involving Ducks.
I'm also liking this capitalisation of random words.
I think that the Duck that attacked Ahtman was a Terrorist. No trial for him, go directly to butchering and having some Chinese cook, breathe all his germs under the skin.That's a thought, I wonder if the breathing under the skin adds to the tenderness of the meat since it hangs for a while.

WD me, wrong post ion wrong thread, that will teach me to read 2 at the same time, anyways, Ducks....

I do not find force feeding inmates to be a crime. It's a regrettable medical necessity. Any physical damage that may occur through repeated applications is again borne of the doctrine that having an inmate die of starvation is less desirable than damaging their digestive systems.

A crime would be holding people in custody in an extrajudicial gulag for years without ever giving them the chance to challenge their detention or giving them a trial for their alleged crimes.

 Grey Templar wrote:
As soon as we hear a compelling argument for why terrorists deserve the same legal rights as people who aren't terrorists.

Wait, you actually are serious about this? You weren't just trolling when you made that first post?

"Terrorists" deserve the same legal rights because of this little thing called innocent until proven guilty. You don't just get to declare that someone is a "terrorist" and take away all of their rights, you provide a compelling case in court (and if they're as obviously guilty as you seem to think you should have no problems convincing a jury) and then you punish them appropriately. I really don't see how this is so hard to understand.