American justice at Guantanomo Bay. Humane or Not ?...

Paddy20

American justice, humane or not. Poll: Yes or No ?... comments very welcome.

Tonight on ITV. Released British born Jamal Al-Harith gave the first exclusive interview by a detainee of 2 years to be released ' Without Charge' from the American detention centre called Guantanomo Bay.

When asked how he and other prisoners were treated he replied:- " The detainees gave up asking for the basic human rights to which they are entitled under the Geneva convention, and would have happily settled for basic Animal rights ! ".

When asked what he now thought of the Americans. He replied:- " That he had no axe to grind with ordinary American citizens, but he would be seeking compensation from the American military and the American Government for unjustified degrading inhumane torture and imprisonment ".

Do you consider the American treatment of detainees as humane or inhumane ?...

He alleged/ claimed the tortures included:-

1; Being hooded and locked up alone except for a five minute walk once a week.

2, Being regularly beaten and kicked into submission.

3, Being given strange injections against their agreement.

4, Being stripped naked and shaved all over, including private body parts.

5, Being subjected to disgusting behaviour by Prostitutes, against the Islamic religion and designed too break their spirit and human decency.

P. :ninja:

Sparks

Here is his actual interview.

K!LL!@N

Totally wrong.
What gives the US the right to go to another country and take people captive, hold them for 2 years with no legal representation, no contact with their families, living in terrible conditions and subject to beatings and torture?
Whatever about afghans being held against their will, you can understand there not being much representation for them. I mean their government aren't the most influential of governments.
But i find it really hard to believe that the British government let some of it's citizens be held in this way. Although they've been known to do it themselves. Internment of Irish people, anyone?
I wonder what kind of compensation those released will get?
Not that anything can really compensate you for 2 lost years of your life.

Killian

df001i6876

why were these people there ? did they not know that there was a war going on /? i do not believe them / spain + america ? whos nexts ? there still a live /

df001i6876

Originally posted by df001i6876
why were these people there ? did they not know that there was a war going on /? i do not believe them / spain + america ? whos nexts ? there still a live /

WW2 japs + germans +camps. + The moon made out off cheese /

Paddy20

df001i6876,

I have a feeling that you do not have a clue about the individual named in this, my thread and poll ?...

P. :ninja:

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Paddy20
.

Tonight on ITV. Released British born Jamal Al-Harith gave the first exclusive interview by a detainee of 2 years to be released ' Without Charge' from the American detention centre called Guantanomo Bay.

No, Paddy, I think you'll find that the "first exclusive interview" Al-Harith gave was to the Daily/Sunday Mirror in exchange for £60,000 !

Do you believe that his testimony of the treatment at the detention centre (inhumane or otherwise) was an unbiased one? Would you concede that he just might be have an anti-American agenda here?

The AMericans have already condemned as ludicrous the idea of using prostitutes to humiliate the detainees (for example).

Beruthiel

if even one person is in there and is not guilty of ‘whatever crime’ the Americans think he is guilty of, then it’s a disgrace.
It’s a disgrace anyway, with no right to a lawyer how is anyone supposed to prove their innocence. Even the worst war criminals in the world get to have a trial when caught, why should the Americans be allowed to act differently. It’s all very well saying they are most likely guilty and therefore deserve what they get, but put yourself in their place, if you had ‘accidently’ been picked up by the Americans when you had just been backpacking or whatever, wouldn’t you feel you had a right to a lawyer? You cannot be given your years back once they’ve been taken away.
I find the double standards of the Americans to be disgusting and a backward step for mankind and what we are trying to achieve with regards to human rights, they make a mockery of the rest of us

Sparks

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Do you believe that his testimony of the treatment at the detention centre (inhumane or otherwise) was an unbiased one? Would you concede that he just might be have an anti-American agenda here?

If I'd been locked up by the US without charge or trial or communications or legal representation or access to due process for two years, I think I'd have an anti-american bias when released even if I'd spent the two years in a harem. So saying he's biased is a bit of a truism, don't you think?
Besides, if you were locked up for two years for no reason without compensation and had the US advertising your name and face as a suspected terrorist during that time, wouldn't you take the money? Remember, he wasn't compensated by the US for time served, he's been unable to work for more than two years, and he now has a rather large legal bill coming up I suspect.

The AMericans have already condemned as ludicrous the idea of using prostitutes to humiliate the detainees (for example).

Yeah, they've also said that they don't beat prisoners and yet the ICRC have lodged offical protests, there's a report out detailing that they do just that by the human rights watch crowd, and two prisoners have already been beaten to death deliberately in US custody (the coroner's reports stated death by blunt force trauma and classed the deaths as homicides).

Paddy20

pro_gnostic_8,

Ok then, If it makes you happy. It was his first exclusive "Television" interview :rolleyes: .

I believe his "testimony" was extremely unbiased considering what he had been through. Do you really think the American military and the current government are in the habit of releasing anti- Americans who might be guilty ?... Not bloody likely.

You obviously have a pro-American leaning if you believe they would not use Prostitutes too degrade the sensibilities and dignity of innocent devout Muslim detainees. Most of whom are now being gradually released 'without charge'.

I am very concerned about the American military and Nuclear arsenal, along with their we want the world too be like us mentality. A highly dangerous combination as far as I and a large part of the worlds citizens are concerned.

Innocent Vietnamese citizens are still suffering the terrible after effects of the Mustard Gas ' Agent Orange' used by the American Military in Vietnam in the Sixties.

Do you condone that type of inhumane military and government behaviour as well ?...

P. :ninja:

Manach

My own view ( I no great sympathy for them being caught in Afganistan ), is pre-existing treaties exist for their detention eg Geneva Convention, and these rules should have been followed and not floated/ignored as at Guantanomo Bay. Of course if American POWs were held in a similar fashion ...

laoisfan

i think if i had been captured by the american, held for 2 yrs without trial etc i would develop an anti-american view!!

i have no problem with ordinary americans, i do have cousins over there. however, i believe the problem is with the government. this is the country where you are assumed innocent before being proven guilty.

i think the american & uk governments are 2-faced and liars. recent events in spain have proved that the war in iraq did not have any affect. the people of spain spoke when they voted at the weekend.

hopefully in the coming months we will see the same in the US.

--laoisfab

Ps. did they ever find any of those WMD ?

dr_manhattan

My main concern with X-ray is this:

the practice of taking a geographically disparate enemy, who wages guerilla warfare from a variety of locations with the possible consent of the population, and putting them all in a camp, without specific charges, was started by the british in South africa during the Boer war (at least, in its modern form it was)

At the time, the brits were waging a war that was "like no war ever waged" - the most lasting military result of the Boer war was that troops stopped wearing red uniforms with white crosses on the front and started wearing camouflage: sniping and ambushing was not, at that time, an accepted mode of "sportsmanlike" conduct in war.

The camps which resulted were called "concentration camps", as they concentrated your potential combatant population, making them "easier" to govern (the Uk still lost)

So to my mind, I could respect the US a little more if they'd just call X-ray a concentration camp and be honest for a change. you ant to wage total war against "terror", a bull**** idea if you ask me but hey, if you WANT to, then be honest about the sacrifices being made with regard to human rights. Be honest that you are behaving as an empire does, and treating the world and international law as if it were a joke.

But regardless of the honesty of the situation, no it is nt humane. Of course it is not: the US may have made a joke of the UN and the geneva convention, but their meaning is still clear: people have rights.

And as Manach says, if US POWs got this treatment... let's just say it would go ill for their enemies.

laoisfan

btw had a sleepless night so my spelling may be a bit off forgive me pleaseeeeeeeeee. good draw with galway yesterday!!

Catsmokinpot

its completely inhumane some of it is more than likely true they were hooded most of the time they were probably beaten, i mean if they were agreeing to the geneva convention they would have allowed them to be shown to prove it, america shouldnt be in guantanamo bay anyway, they have all this land in america yet they wont detain their own prisoners in their own country.

ps: i voted humane by accident rofl

amp

Originally posted by df001i6876
WW2 japs + germans +camps. + The moon made out off cheese /

Maybe I'm too stupid to understand you df001i6876, but if you're going to participate in debates on Humanities could you please at least try and make some sense?

pro_gnostic_8

Yeah, it's all "ifs" and "buts", isn't it? "If" they were beaten; "if" they were degraded by prostitutes.

Paddy, Cat, and Sparks, let me set out my stall here OK? And, this is something I should have made an addendum to my original post. If I could be certain of al-Harith's testimony, then I would unhesitatingly vote the #1 option in Paddy's poll.

However, until there is indisputable, verifiable evidence to confirm his (paid for) story then I have to decline any participation in this poll.

The poll offers only options based on an uncertain premise.

dr_manhattan

Actually, pro_gnostic_8 - the third option is objectively 100% the case. The camp *is* in breach of the geneva convention, and therefore illegal.

I have my own doubts as the the autheticity of the more outrageous claims. However, knowing the histories of the various agencies involved (NSA, CIA et al) I am hardly going to say "no way, they wouldn't do something that ridiculous in the name of america". These are, after all, the people who trained Osama Bin Laden.

As regards humane or inhumane practice, I'm assuming that you would believe a verifiable source. However, given that america will release no information, allow no cameras to film, and give no details of procedures, then the only testimony we will ever get is going to be from former inmates: and that, as you say, is unreliable....?

So I find it hard to make up my mind either way. But I'll do what i always do in circumstances where my knowledge limits my opinion: I'll consider the protagonists.

The US:

Has demonstrated lack of respect for non-american life consistently over the past 50 years: has, for example, been instrumental in positioning dictators and murderers to do its dirty work in central america and the middle east.

Has set up X-ray specifically for the purposes of dodging international law: if X-ray is humane or above board, then why keep it off american soil and why deny world access?

Has already lied to, or at least misled, the rest of the world as regards its reasons for engaging its enemies: legitimate security concerns mixed with profiteering, mixed with political handshaking makes for very untrustrworthy material

The detainees:

Are *possibly* heavily anti american: however, the very fact of their release would suggest that they are of no real concern to the US in terms of terrorism. Therefore, while they may be biased, they are hardly acting on an ulterior agenda.

Represent a cross section of people that we know nothing about: all we know about them is that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and are not dangerous to the US right now.

Have definitely been wronged under POW laws and the geneva convention. May also have been subjected to abuse, which remains a possibility as long as the US denies film crrews access to X-ray: but the circumstances are definitely *suspicious*


...so there's my pros and cons. I mean, think about it this way: if you saw a film where 300 people were kept for two years with no due process on an island military base you'd laugh at the crappy, silly unreality of it. Until 2 years ago you would anyway.

I think that silly deatils like prostitutes confuse the issue anywyays. Perhaps you think that being kept away from any letters or human contact for two years, with no charges on an island in the caribbean is "humane". I personally do not: but you may be among the people who refer to our civilian prisons as "holiday camps", in which case, I'm guessing that you say any treatment for suspected terrorists is "too good", etc., etc.

When you strip away the "ifs" and "maybes" the facts here are still impressively insane.

Paddy20

amp,

Yep, I could not work out what on earth he was on about either I decided he must be on something mindblowing. So I decided just to ignore his posts in order to try and preserve something of my fragile sanity.

P. :ninja:

Hobbes

What I find amazing isn't the ones being let free, its the ones who never made it to the camp.

For example apprantly in the mad rush to get thier cash on handing over every *Taliban* they find the NA packed a train full of people who were unable to breath. Solution? machine gun the train to make air holes.

Something like 20 or so out of 300 survived. Those who lived get to sit in a cage for a couple of years while the US+UK scratch thier asses.

What I find strange is that people tend to disbelieve what the people who have been let free are saying, yet they are innocent.

730 days is a long time to be stuck in prison innocent.

Oh yea, and thier interview will just probably guarantee that no one else will leave gitmo bay (at least alive)

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Actually, pro_gnostic_8 - the third option is objectively 100% the case. The camp *is* in breach of the geneva convention, and therefore illegal.

Fair 'nuff, the above is very true.

But, why did you offer a poll requesting a respondence on the humane/inhumane treatment of detainees when there is no independent evidence to validate the testimony of al-Harith which you so obviously pro-actively advocated?

A poll regarding the legality/illegality of G. Bay with regard to the Geneva convention would be something else entirely, and something which we could confidently vote on.

dr_manhattan

Yup.

America and the Uk clean up the messes made by their policy of hiring the maddest ****ers to kill everyone as best as possible by...

...hiring the maddest ****ers to kill everyone as best as possible.

Excellent work, guys :mad:

pro_gnostic_8

Oh-oh ................ apologies to dr_manhattan. I quoted you in my previous post and wrote as if I was replying to Paddy20. Sorry............. a hasty oversight; I know now that you (manhattan) didn't originate the poll. For some reason I had read your post as if it was from Paddy. Doh. Sorry again. Okay?

Paddy20

pro_gnostic_8,

I think we all copped on to your error. Understandable, you can't get me out of your mind [as the song goe's] I forgive you anyway.

As for your legal/illegality of Guantanamo Bay 'Concentration camp' being "something else" ?... which you could confidentently vote on. Thats why I included the illegal under the Geneva convention vote option. Sorry if I am not as pernickity as your goodself, and yes I did pro-actively advocate Mr al-Harith's testimony. As I believe in the democratic legal process of 'innocent until proven guilty' form of justice, unlike the American law as practised even in their own country against their own citizens, where they still implement the death penalty in an inhumane manner as well.

If you get the impression that I personally regard America as the most dangerous country in the world. You are correct.

However, in this country voting is still optional. The choice is entirely yours.

All the best.

P. :ninja:

AngelofFire

No it is not humane. by treating these prisoners in an unjust manner, inhumane manner the US government are threading on the virtues of the democratic society that they are trying to protect. thus lowering themselves to the level of these terrorists. i agree that these are probably bad people but that is no excuse to defy the geneva convention. everyone is entitled to the due process no matter how serious their crimes are.

I cannot believe the lenghts bush, rumsfeld etc will go to in order to justify their treatment. its absolutely appauling

dave13

I'm pretty sure he was the one who was in involved in the prison riot in masir-i-sharif. Would he have felt better if he had been handed over to the northern alliance like he should have been. He problaby would have had something to complain about then. They were claiming to be tourists who got lost, or studying computers i think, you know as you do in the mountain ranges of Afghanistan.

Catsmokinpot

Originally posted by AngelofFire
i agree that these are probably bad people

how do you know they are all bad? how do you know that the us havent got it completely wrong they have released prisoners from there with no charge, the prisoners that are there still havent been tried or charged..........

they could all be innocent for all we know but ah sure we wont do anything about it we'll just let the americans and the israelis and whoever wants to act like hitler because they are a democracy and we believe some of the same things they do and because they are soooooo powerful!

well...
they are a democracy..... ok lets look at that, the majority won the vote in the election and the majority was against bush --- but who won? bush
who makes the decisions in parliment, the people? --- wrong again, its the senate -- governed by big business..........

power?
europe has power if they'dd only just cop the **** on to themselves!! bunch of squabbling idiots....

guilty or not, america are going to continue doing whatever the fúck they want, because they dont have any opposition! the uk have split europe apart because now not all of europe believes in the same thing. which is stupid! we are the eu we should show solidarity!! we are the united nations we should show solidarity!! we should unite and show america that we are not weak without them that they are accountable for their actions and untill they stop acting the dick! they will never be accepted by the rest of the world.

Sparks

From the Observer, more detailed accounts.

dr_manhattan

That is harrowing. I have to say though, I'm curious about one thing:

As I've said before, if one ignores what the prisoners say -

(personally I find that account 100% believable. It fits with what i knew of the northern afghanistani warlords (who have now ramped their opium production back up towards pre taliban levels) that the US was dealing with. It fits with my knowledge of detention procedure, which allows me to hypothesise what the procedure for kidnapping on a large scale would be. basically it rings true)

- and treats it as the testimony of a rampant anti-american, one has no other information to go on.

All one has heard or seen independently is footage from outside the camps: but this shows that X-ray and Delta are detention camps. So therefore we know that 300 people have been kept without charge in a detention camp for two years, denied access to any material needs, legal defence, or hope. Tended by soldiers, not prison personnel.

So, pro_gnostic_8, i'm wondering what you think has been going on. It's unusual to ignore one person's account, without a version to rely on for oneself: so if you believe these hardships are a fabrication, then what do you think has been happenning, and do you think it's acceptable?

Meanwhile, I cannot but think that the next 20 years will reap the rewards of the treatment dealty out to these people: to be honest, if the US really wanted to "fight terror" with camp X-ray, it's in the process of achieving the exact opposite of its objective. X-ray will be the rallying cry of every anti american in the world, and the massacres in northern Afghanistan will be their martyrs.

George Bush is a ****ing liability. As a sign in Madrid said, "you war, our blood". I don't see any Bush family members on any casualty lists, or shopping on oxford street: nor any rumsfledts or cheneys. Decisions made behind bulletproof glass are shaping the world currently: this is not good.

Paddy20

Latest News,

Another 26 detainees were released 'without charge' today from Guantanamo Bay. Those released are allegedly claiming that they were treated "Worse than animals" .

Many of those released had been held 'without charge' for over 2 years. Official American agencies while confirming the releases. Refused too comment on why these detainees were released.

pro_gnostic_8,

What is your view on these detainees, who were released today ?... Do you think their being held in deplorable conditions for over two years 'without charge' is acceptably humane ?...

P. :ninja:

df001i6876

International agreement establishing a code for wartime treatment of the sick , wounded,and prisoners of war ?What is it any one know /whats the code/?how many countrys or nation agree too it ? or follow it [ name me one ]is england one america china japan ?

amp

The Geneva Convention? df001i6876, it's extremely hard to figure out what your posting.

Paddy20

df0016876,

Re: The Geneva Convention !. :rolleyes:

With respect, try clicking on this link:- http://defencejournal.com/oct99/geneva.htm
188 Countries signed up to the four Geneva Conventions of August 12th 1949.

Or if you have the time try a *Google search for:- The Geneva Convention. You will be presented with the first 10 direct most popular links out of only 850,000 relevant information sites.

It should only take you about 10 years to read through them all if you find you need too ?... as I for one have no intention of reading them on your behalf.

P. :ninja:

df001i6876

I do not like camp x and i thank you for the web address off the geneva convention /? my heart is not in to this ? poll ? so has sign off respect to spain i decline ?

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
So, pro_gnostic_8, i'm wondering what you think has been going on.

What do I think happened to them? Well, I don't believe that they "had their private parts shaved" as an act of humiliation , or that they were subjected to "naked prostitutes touching themselves" to test their devout faith. I've no doubt that they were rigorously interrogated, probably injected forcibly with sulpha truth drugs. Chances are some of them were on on the receiving end of a fist or a boot. But, you see, until we have independant evidence of inhumane treatment, then voting in a poll assuming there was inhumane treatment is an exercise in futility.

A question that should be addressed, perhaps, is can a situation arise where the rights of the individual could legitimately be subsumed to, or superceded by, the consideration of the greater good of the society at large. When a society is under attack is it understandable, or indeed even necessary to condense the civil rights of those who are attacking.. All societies, from the time of the 19th century anarchist bombers up to the present era have curtailed the civil liberties of certain individuals when that society finds itself under threat from within or without. I'm not syaing that I agree with this (knee-jerk?) response ............... just that it is the way of the world. America is not unique in this. Spain has legislation which allows the indefinite detention of suspected ETA members without trial and allows the the non-disclosure of police evidence from the accused legal team. Here in Ireland, a person can be incarcerated for five years on the word of a Garda Superintendent suspecting him of "being a member of an illegal organisation" An instance of this happened only a couple of months back.

I can't help agreeing with wonderboy ................ if these individuals had been arrested by the Northern Alliance would they be selling their stories two years later. I'm also reminded of the treatment meted out by the Taliban to their prisoners. The case of journalist Daniel Perle comes to mind -- ritually having his throat slit in captivity. There is "inhumane" and then there is "inhuman"

Sparks

So being held for no reason for two years with no legal status, or acess to legal representatives, or communication with the outside, or visits from the ICRC isn't inhumane? You must be one tolerant person, gnostic.

And what about those being brought from kandahar who were machinegunned in containers so that twenty or so survived out of more than a hundred? Was that humane?

And as to comparisons with the Taliban, since when does reciprocity apply to either the geneva convention or the definition of "humane"?

dr_manhattan

"if these individuals had been arrested by the Northern Alliance would they be selling their stories two years later"

Errr... my reading of it was that they *were* taken by the "northern alliance", pro_gnostic_8. My question to you was, *ignoring* any allegations of being shaved or the prostitutes, (read my post above) - do you still agree with their detention for two years without charge?

" A question that should be addressed, perhaps, is can a situation arise where the rights of the individual could legitimately be subsumed to, or superceded by, the consideration of the greater good of the society at large."

So then, who decides what is the greater good? The detention of jews in 1939 was validated by precisely this idea of "the good of society". Fact is, it's a piece of propagandist rhetoric to say that when you are attacked, then "society" or "freedom" is under attack. The Geneva convention is there to stop countries from behaving in this way, and to enable an amount of objectivity to be used in treatment of prisoners of war.

Let's get this in perspective here: from an islamic fundamentalist's point of view, less people were killed in Madrid than were killed in Jenin in the early 80s, when Ariel Sharon sanctioned the murder of innocent refugees, yet no sanctions were made against Israel then or since.

By kidnapping and imprisoning suspected terrorists for 2 years with no legal recourse, we are legitimising the taking of hostages by paramilitary organisations: Terry Waite was at the UN last week to say this - and I for one trust the views of a man who was held hostage for so long. We are creating a situation where we disobey our own laws, and then invade countries for disobeying those same laws.

Putin has recently dismissed comments about the legality of his elections by saying that america's last elections were a joke and they have no right to comment: the continued ignoring of due process will simply lead the world down the road to savagery, as it did in the 1940s, when the whole world was at war over varying degrees of allegiance to european powers.

Should all the work done since 1945 to stop a world war happenning again be in vain? Should we allow our enemies, who have their own story to tell, and who, in fairness to them have suffered greatly in order that the western world be so privileged, to bring us down to their level?