Afghan Battlefield Detainees

Fidelis

It's a great world we live in when a country can see fit to reclass anything which is protected by a treaty.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today, that the 20 Afghan prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay were infact 'battlefield detainees' and not POW's. Lovely.

The Pentagon stated that the 20 prisoners were the first of hundreds to be transported to the base and will be held there for questioning... interrogation in order words.

"The temporary detention area has room for 100 prisoners and soon could house 220. A more permanent site under construction is expected to house up to 2,000."

"Prisoners will be isolated in individual, open-air fenced cells with metal roofs. They will sleep on mats under halogen floodlights. They could get wet from rain, but officials say they will be treated humanely" - cbs.com

ykt0di9url7bc3

So they wanted Osama Bin ladin without hard proof......
So they demaned that the Taliban Hand him over and that their war was with Osama and not the Taliban......
So the Taliban wont comply and American starts Bombing the fu<k out of the taliban.......
So American allows the northern Alliance to fight thier war for them.....
So Americans threw a few arms thier way and American comes in when its all over and Polices the country with UK and Russia.....
So America now takes home Taliban Fighters for interrogation\torture.....

American will do what they like with those prisoners within the realms of International Diplomacy, they will do what they like with those prisoners and nothing will change that...

On a personal note I have got to hand it to the Americans for the way they handled the sit...thier way...

DadaKopf

I just think the whole thing is very confusing. First of all, to legitimate the war, the US legitimated the Taliban regime as the (effective) government of Afghanistan. A modern-style nation-state Afghanistan is not, but a civic apparatus of a kind the Taliban had.

Now, when it suits the US, the Taliban fighters are 'battlefield detainees' and are not subject to the protections of the Geneva convention.

When are they going to make up their mind? When are they going to stick to their self-pronnounced hardfast principles?

mike65

Presumably the War on Terror is now not a war....


Mike.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by mike65
Presumably the War on Terror is now not a war....


Mike.

Well said Mike :P

Victor

As presumably Guantanamo Bay, technically Cuban sovereign territory (but leased to the USA), only has American military law, none of these civilian law niceties.

DadaKopf

The Charter of Human Rights still applies though.

Clintons Cat

I am sure they would rather they would rather be under american jurisdiction where the world will monitor albiet from a distance their progress and eventual release/move to more normal method of detention than forgoten about under the jurisdiction of men like General Dostam who finds the capture of prisoners an inconvienience to be disposed of down the nearest well or packed inside a container lorry and ignited.
One of the problems facing the Americans is that to the guerilla fighters of Afganistan who were raised from birth to the harsh necessities of irregular warfare,and their arab allies compassion and mercy to the enemy is considered a weakness. It is concievable that if kept in comfortable surroundings it would reinforce their desire to rejoin the armed struggle or at the very least encourage them to withhold vital intelligence necessary to defeat al queedia and eventually their Backers.
Despite the ease of the military victory it is not beyond the reasonable expectation that should al queedia be capable of regrouping in another country be it Sommallia,Sudan,Albania or As hinted at this week Iran if given enough time launch another attack on the scale of sept 11th.
I am not happy about the circumnavigating of the Geneva Convention,Americas open flouting of conventional international protocols and treaties could well be encouragement to other nations to also flout international law leading to greater instabillity in the long term.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Evil Phil

Justice Not Revenge

Amnesty International site addressing these problems.

adnans

according to the Geneva convention - anyone detained in the course of an armed conflict is presumed to be a PoW until a competent court or tribunal determines otherwise.

US doesnt have the right to decide who is or who isnt a PoW.

adnans

Hobbes

I can't wait for the next American terms of "Torture" and "Dead".

Drugged, chained (understandable) and a bag over their head while on the trip to Cuba.


Btw if they are termed as POW's here is some of the things the US can't do.

willful killing;
torture or inhuman treatment (including medical experiments);
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health;
extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
compelling a prisoner of war or civilian to serve in the forces of the hostile power;
willfully depriving a prisoner of war or protected civilian of the rights of a fair and regular trial;
unlawful deportation or transfer of a protected civilian; o unlawful detainment of a protected civilian; and the taking of hostages.

Hmm, I think they broke a couple of them already.

Of course the Taliban even before the war had broken a lot of the rules of the geneva convention.

I'm just amazed that the US is even noticing that a geneva convention exists seeing as they have ignored a lot of other treaties.

Hobbes

Btw, go read the The Charter.

adnans

im sure all of you have seen the pictures of the prisoners having their eyes, ears, mouths and hands covered up for up to 27 hours by now. i have two questions:

why would this be done to anyone other then having your main senses taken away?

if this treatment was undertaken to prisoners of American nationality, how would everyone react?

adnans

Victor

Apparently the hand-cuffing, manacling, goggling, ear-muffing, masking and mittening was only done for the flight and for about an hour afterwards (as they were 'processed').

However, it does seem over the top. The mittens are allegedly so their hands wouldn't get cold on the 'plane (many military transport planes are only partly pressurised) - odd seeing as the 'boiler suits' they were wearing were short-sleeved.

If I was being treated like this, I would be severely worried about getting a bullet to the back of the head.

Sand

If you were being treated like this youd most likely be a fundamentalist terrorist, highly dangerous, have a complete disregard for the suffering of others and you would be being treated far better than you deserve.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
If you were being treated like this youd most likely be a fundamentalist terrorist, highly dangerous, have a complete disregard for the suffering of others and you would be being treated far better than you deserve.

"far better than you deserve" - thats what it seems to boil down to, isnt it. The Geneva Convention apparently should have a line added to it saying "this only applies to people who deserve it".

The simple fact is that the US signed on board the Geneva Convention, and are now doing their damndest to make sure that it only applies when they see fit. Whether or not these terrorists deserve to be hung, drawn and quartered is not an issue. The simple fact is that while in detention, pending the outcome of a military or civilian trial, they MUST be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, or the US is simply lowering itself to their inhumane levels. And yet it will get on its high horse and criticise the inhumane actions of others, especially when it is in breach of the GC.

And before someone starts going on about the vague possibility that the Geneva Convention may not apply, please remember that in such a case, the US still must treat these people according to the Geneva Convention until such times as an international court rules that it does not apply. This decision is not up to the US.

Of course, most of the pro-US-action body seem to argue constantly that the UN isnt worth diddly, which presumably applies to silly little inconveniences like the Geneva Convention.

On an aside, I noticed that when the US spy-plane crew were held in China, the US were very concerned that these men be treated in full accordance with the Geneva Convention. Guess its not that the US disregards it, then, but rather that they want to disegard it when it suits their case.

What is even more worrying is that a number of "suspected terrorists" or "people with suspected links to terrorists" were handed over to the US rcently from (IIRC) Ethiopia. There was insufficient evidence to try them in their own country, so instead, they were extradited to the Americans as part of the "fight against terrorism" to be held, questioned and tried (if necessary) by the US. Lets get this straight - their own country has not enough evidence to prove anything, and so is handing these people over to a foreign power to do with as they will.

To make matters worse, the press believed that these people would also be held in Guantanamo. While this has not, to my knowledge, been confirmed or denied, the mere psosibility is shocking.

Here, we have a situation where these people are not proveably guilty of anything, who were not involved in the armed conflict against the US, and who are being handed over to be held outside any civilian juristiction, in what are allegedly inhumane conditions.

So....we have the nation spearheading the fight against terror holding people who were illegally extradited from their own nation, and possibly holding them in inhumane conditions. These are our new heroes - this is the bright terrorist-free future we are fighting for? Wonderful.

I also love that Sand allows that the people being held are most likely the horrible people who shouldnt get decent treatment. What if they're not Sand? What if they're innocent? Or simply "foot soldiers" of the Taliban regime. In fact, given that there are ellegedly mostly non-Afghani, non-Pakistani people being held, it is highly more probable that they were Taliban, and not Al Qaeda members.

jc

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey

And before someone starts going on about the vague possibility that the Geneva Convention may not apply, please remember that in such a case, the US still must treat these people according to the Geneva Convention until such times as an international court rules that it does not apply. This decision is not up to the US.

I think that, using the "rules of engagement" that the US military works under, in an armed conflict, a civilian holding a weapon is no longer a civilian. So these people are (by inference) soldiers under those very 'rules'.

There's two things that I don't like about what's happening in Guantanemo.
1). These men are being called "battlefield detainees, etc" when under the rules of engagement, they are soldiers (since they have used weapons against the US -controled forces)

2). Donald Rumsfeld's comment in accordance with the geneva convention "for the most part".

Hobbes

I believe they are now called "unlawful combatants" which is actually covered by the Geneva convention (eg. Spies would be classed as this). However they haven't actually been charged with anything.

bonkey

And what are the suspects from Ethiopia called?

Has the US even commented on where these people are being held?

jc

Von

How do you get information from the "baddest of the bad" religious fundamentalists? How can you break them?

This is from The Rape Of The Mind:

Some experiments have shown that people who are deprived, for even a very short time, of ALL sensory stimuli (no touch, no hearing, no smell, no sight) quickly fall into a kind of hallucinatory hypnotic state. Isolation from the multitude of impressions that normally bombard us from the outside world creates strange and frightening symptoms. According to Heron, who performed experiments on a group of students at McGill University by placing each student in his own pitchblack, soundproof room, ventilated with filtered air, and encasing his hands in heavy leather mittins and his feet in heavy boots, "little by little their brains go dead or slip out of control." Even in twenty-four hours of such extreme sensual isolation, all the horror phantoms of childhood are awakened, and various pathological symptoms appear. Our instinct of curiosity demands continual feeding; if it is not satisfied, the internal hounds of hell are aroused.
The prisoner kept in isolation, although his isolation is by no means as extreme as in the laboratory test, also undergoes a severe mental change. His guards and inquisitors become more and more his only source of contact with reality, with those stimuli he needs even more than bread. No wonder that he gradually develops a peculiar submissive relationship to them.

Sand

We disagree Bonkey. Youre getting very concerned over the welfare of very evil people. Ive yet to hear any stories of medevil torture coming out of Cuba. Best the anti US brigade can come up with is "they cut their beards, those monsters cut their beards!!!". Theyre terrorists, not soldiers. They had no problem ignoring the Geneva convention in their terrorist attacks, or their treatment of their own prisoners- but suddenly they want the protection of the geneva convention? Next thing itll be every petty thief and murderer claiming hes a POW. We can argue about this till the end of time, but at the end of the day youre very concerned over these terrorists welfare and I- to be brief- am not.

By the way, those "sensory deprivement torture implements", are only used when theyre out of their cage - to ensure the safety of their guards and prevent any escape attempts- however suicidal they may be. How else can they read their Koran (donated by the evil US government) or eat their three meals a day ( Which the evil US has taken pains to ensure are not culturally offensive)?

Fidelis

Irish Republican Army, I suppose they own a chain of pubs, Von. Better analogies next time

And Sand, if cowardly American intelligence personnel flying at the limits of Chinese airspace and intercepting communications from the area deserve protection from the Geneva Convention, then so do some innocent Afghans.

Innocent until proven guilty

I do believe they have yet to be tried :rolleyes:

Hobbes

So how do the mittens protect the soliders then?

Weren't you paying attention to the news? Here are the excuses for all the items.

Goggles - We don't want them to see the others so they can communicate with them.

Fine and dandy except that it's two men to a cage and the cages are back to back and chain link. As they don't wear them in the cages I guess that ruins that.

Muffs - To protect their ears on the plane.

Which doesn't explain why they have to wear them when they are taken out of their cells.

Mittens - I have absoulty no idea. I saw it on bbc.news site that it was to dampen noise from when on the plane but still doesn't explain why they wear them leaving their cells.

Face Mask - Apprantly to stop them spreading TB, which was kind of debunked on TV when a doctor on Skynews mentioned that TB only spreads in enclosed spaces and the open air cages shouldn't be an issue.

So after all that the latest excuse is "We don't want them to know they are in Cuba" which is kind of strange because the cages are covered with blankets (for the same reason? would of thought it more for privacy) but apprantly one of the watch towers has a sign showing the direction they have to pray and one would assume that they would have to be able to see outside their cages in that case?

It's the excuses the US is coming out with to justify what is clearly sensory deprevation is funny.

As for escape? Where are they going to run, they are surrounded by a number of fences and gun towers. If by some crazy fluke they manage to get out of that they are surrounded on three sides by the Sea and the other side (Cuba) has a large mine field they would have to pass through.

They don't want protection of the Geneva convention. In fact under the geneva convention a person can neither demand or refuse the right to the convention. The Al-Quida there could more then certainly be covered as "Unlawful combatants" but the Taliban can't, regardless of what they might of done to people prior to the war.

Yes they should be tried for their crimes (both terrorist acts and acts in Afganistan), but seeing as the US has not actually charged them with anything and refuses to give out any information on them it kind of makes you wonder.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
We disagree Bonkey.

Now thats a new one

Youre getting very concerned over the welfare of very evil people. Ive yet to hear any stories of medevil torture coming out of Cuba. Best the anti US brigade can come up with is "they cut their beards, those monsters cut their beards!!!".

Funny, I thought the best the anti-US brigade could come up with was "chained outdoors like dogs, in conditions which fall far short of the Geneve Convention, with the possibility of inhumane treatment added on top in the form of restraints which cause partial sensory deprivation. Oh - and you cut off their beards which is a mortal affront to their religious beliefs, which all only backs the US-is-anti-islamic claims they make in the first place".

Also, its not just the "anti US brigade", unless you count a former U.S. attorney general as part of the anti-US brigade. That would be the one bringing a court case against the Bush administration inside the US at the moment on this issue.

Theyre terrorists, not soldiers. They had no problem ignoring the Geneva convention in their terrorist attacks, or their treatment of their own prisoners- but suddenly they want the protection of the geneva convention?

a) Members of the Taliban are soldiers not terrorists, and it has yet to be shown that all the captives are, in fact, Al Qaeda members. The fact that many are non-arab in origin actually lends to the probability that they are Taliban.

b) Its not an issue of whether or not they want the GC protection. Its a simple fact that as a signatory, the US is supposed to be obliged to give it to them regardless.

Next thing itll be every petty thief and murderer claiming hes a POW.

Dont be facetious.

We can argue about this till the end of time, but at the end of the day youre very concerned over these terrorists welfare and I- to be brief- am not.

I take it you're not concerned about the US soldiers' welfare in the future either then?

If the US shows itself to hold the Geneva Convention in contempt (and remember that the GC does not just apply to some l33t category of "well-behaved" POWs), then why should any nation ever treat US captives within the bounds of the Geneva Convention?

The US is sending a message to the world that it will, if it sees fit, ignore the Geneva Convention for its own reasons. If any nation ever ends up in opposition to the US, and captures a US soldier, their logic will now be simple - the US will not abide by the Geneva Convention, so why should we?

After all, this is the argument being used by many as to why the Afghans dont deserve the GC - they didnt abide by it themselves. What message is the US now sending, if not the exact same one?

Look at your own words - " They had no problem ignoring the Geneva convention ..., or their treatment of their own prisoners- but suddenly they want the protection of [it]"

Reverse roles. Imagine that someone has a US soldier captured in the near future. Does this exact same sentence not now apply?

If for no other reason than the continued welfare of its own soldiers, the US should go to great lengths to make sure it follows the GC in this case. Imagine if another US spyplane was shot down over China next week. The Chinese would be perfectly entitled to say that the US no longer holds the GC in regard, and therefore, by the US' own logic, its soldiers are no longer covered by it. Lock em up, chain 'em down, and do whatever else it is you feel like doing to them. After all - the US has led the way in showing how the GC doesnt apply.

At the end of the day, the simple fact is that the GC covers all prisoners of combat, until such times as a competent court may determine that it does not apply to some individuals. Whether these people were mass-murdering scum who raped children in their spare time off the battlefield, or were model soldiers in a model army doesnt matter. Until such times as they are ruled to be outside the GC's influence, the US as a signatory is obliged to treat these people in accordance to the GC dictates.

Once these people are found guilty, by due process, then their sentences can be executed. Its a basic tenent of western judicial systems, ne c'est pas? As Fidelis pointed out, they have yet to be tried, and therefore the allegations of "these are evil men" are meaningless. They are POWs, who's guilt is yet to be determined. If the US wants them to be treated as anything other than POWs, then it must have a competent, recognised court rule so. In this instance, such a court could not be American in origin.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

(From Article 4) Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are...Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps...provided that such militias or volunteer corps...fulfil the following conditions...That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0%2C1597%2C313630-412%2C00.shtml

Im not a lawyer but it seems pretty clear to me that terrorists arent covered by the geneva convention as they do not conduct their "operations" in accordance with the laws and customs of war. This is before we even get into the 9/11 attacks.

If the US shaved them only to humiliate them and affront their religious beliefs why did they provide them with Korans and culturally inoffensive meals?

Nothing Ive seen regarding the Cuba camp constitutes torture. Torture to my mind bears more resemblance to the beating and torture of the British pilot who was forced to make a television statement condemning the bombings by the Iraqis, the same Iraqis who raped a downed US female chopper pilot (There was a "cleaned up" movie made with Meg Ryan I think- the woman its based on didnt die in the crash however). People, despite their need to criticise the US, need to get a sense of perspective - these people are not being tortured except in the wildest dellusions of the JPF. They are doing a lot better than the ethnic minorities in Afghanistan that they abused and tormented for years - many of whom are now on the brink of famine while these terrorists eat 3 meals a day.

Sure, its in the interests of democracy and all things warm and fuzzy to have a dissenting faction on all things so that all things must be justifiable - but torture? Please.

Victor

the same Iraqis who raped a downed US female chopper pilot

Are you accusing all 26,000,000 Iraqis (including women, the elderly and children) of rape or are you saying that the same Iraqis that beat up the pilots in Baghdad were there to rape the pilot of the helicopter (near the Saudi border)? Rape is an unacceptable fact of life in war.

Nothing Ive seen regarding the Cuba camp constitutes torture.

Sensory deprivation is considered torture under the Geneva convention. Full sensory deprivation is likely to cause hallucination within 20 minutes.

If the US shaved them only to humiliate them and affront their religious beliefs why did they provide them with Korans and culturally inoffensive meals?

The stated reason (by the USA) is to prevent / remove lice and I am reasonably willing to accept that in a prison scenario. I don't think many people are making a particular issue of it.

They are doing a lot better than the ethnic minorities in Afghanistan that they abused and tormented for years - many of whom are now on the brink of famine while these terrorists eat 3 meals a day.

You forget to mention that drought has affected much of Afghanistan for about 4 years (up to the rains in mid-2001). People have been brutal to each other in, in particular, Afghanistan throughout its recent history (even Kipling reported it around the 1870s). Not only is brutality institutionalised, it is normal. I am not saying it is acceptable. And I think that not only are prisoners entitled to be fed, generally throughout the world they are (at varying standards). If the people of Afghanistan have been "abused and tormented for years", who are the American government to prolong this (even for a small number). And prisoner is not equal to terrorist. Terrorist are entitled to criminal proceedings, due process and appropriate imprisonment. Camp X-ray is not appropriate imprisonment.

Sand

Are you accusing all 26,000,000 Iraqis (including women, the elderly and children) of rape or are you saying that the same Iraqis that beat up the pilots in Baghdad were there to rape the pilot of the helicopter (near the Saudi border)? Rape is an unacceptable fact of life in war.

Uh huh- Is there a point here or are you just trying to split hairs and generally act like you dont know what an exspression of speech is? Rape is a form of torture- ask the women of the balkans. It is certainly on the other end of the scale compared to having to wear mittens. Unless of course youre saying the americans are as bad as those Iraqi rapists because they made them wear mittens?

Sensory deprivation is considered torture under the Geneva convention

I care deeply. However geneva convention doesnt apply to them. Wearing mittens or being beaten into making a televised statement- damn Itd be a hell of a choice to decide what the real torture is. But seeing as they dont wear that gear out of their cage (and theyre not out of their cage often) theyre doing alright.

Not only is brutality institutionalised, it is normal. I am not saying it is acceptable.

I understand- but I dont see the point? It being "normal" to send Jews to the gas chamber in a death camp didnt count for anything for a Nazi. How can what youve mentioned count for anything for these terrorists? (I understand youre not saying its okay, Im just wondering why you mentioned it given this).

If the people of Afghanistan have been "abused and tormented for years", who are the American government to prolong this (even for a small number)

First they blame the US for toppling the old regime, now they blame them for not doing it fast enough. Or are you saying that the US is now prolonging the suffering of the afghani people as a policy?

Terrorist are entitled to criminal proceedings, due process and appropriate imprisonment. Camp X-ray is not appropriate imprisonment.

I dont believe terrorists are entitled to much of anything tbh. Youre right though that X ray is not appropriate - its far too good for them imo.

Von

Rape is a form of torture- ask the women of the balkans. It is certainly on the other end of the scale compared to having to wear mittens. Unless of course youre saying the americans are as bad as those Iraqi rapists because they made them wear mittens?

Some people would prefer to take a beating or two rather than go insane from sensory deprivation. Like Victor says, and like it said in the book I referred to, it doesn't take long for sensory deprivation to seriously affect the brain's mental processes. The aim of sensory deprivation is to make the subject compliant and submissive. It's not like the CIA don't know a few things about different modes of torture.

Physical torture is different. It is used not to make people talk - people will say black is white if they're physically tortured enough - it is used to enforce silence. Have you ever asked yourself why torturers use cigarettes to burn their victims or shoes to hit them? Why, when raping women or connecting electrodes to men’s testicles, do torturers have a radio on in the background? There's a good article on it here.

It might not be long before the dudes are tucking into McDonalds. There's one at the camp. Some of them might even end up making good agents in the future.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand

Im not a lawyer but it seems pretty clear to me that terrorists arent covered by the geneva convention as they do not conduct their "operations" in accordance with the laws and customs of war. This is before we even get into the 9/11 attacks.

AFAIK, it would need to be shown that these particular captives did not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Also please note, that this would only cover the actions carried out *during* the conflict. This would exclude the 9/11 attacks and anything prior to that. From what I have seen, other than the M-i-S debacle, there is very little case to say that these men violated the GC.

The problem, which I think Victor is driving at is that you cannot cast a blanket over the many due to the actions of a few. You must show that these *particular* captives fall otuside the GC. You will also notice from reading the GC that where there is *any* doubt, the eligibility of the prisoners for coverage must be determined by a suitable court. In the case at hand, there most certainly is doubt (as expressed by some US lawyers, and some senior political figures) which means that until that doubt is cleared up, the US should be obliged to offer these men the protection of the Geneva Convention until such times as they are given the OK not to do so.

Yes, I know, you have no respect for the UN and would feel that the determination of these men's status should not be left up to such an organisation, but the GC falls under the auspices of the UN. The US can either abide by it, or basically give the UN two fingers yet again. To be honest, it is not in their interest to be seen to give the UN the hump on a humanitarian issue, when they are so desperately to cast themselves as the humanitarian side in this fight (which they are, to the most extent).

jc

Sand

Seeing as the Americans viewed the 9/11 attacks as an act of war by the terrorists, in a similar fashion as to the Pearl Harbour attack (which at the very least was directed against milatary targets) I disagree that 9/11 can be ignored when considering whether these people fought "honourably".

To whose satisfaction should the doubt resolved? Certainly there are people on this board who if they cant say anything bad about the US dont say anything at all. Theyll never be satisfied that the US isnt throwing these terrorists onto a rack every night.

Youre right in that I dont feel the UN is a suitable mediator to decide the status of these terrorists - They are seemingly unable to recognise who the terrorists in the Palestinian conflict are, why should they be trusted here? [Note to all JPFers - Im not going to go off topic about Israel vs Palestine. You know my views and I dont care about yours so keep them to yourself:) There will be no replies to any offshoot into Israel vs Palestine ] This is one case where the bumbling UN cant be allowed to drop the ball.

The Sweeper

Originally posted by Von

Some people would prefer to take a beating or two rather than go insane from sensory deprivation.

Erm, was going to stay out of this thread, and am not trying to split hairs, but your use of the words 'a beating or two' was in response to a reference made to rape. You might find that there's a surprisingly small number of women who would chose rape over sensory deprivation.

For that matter, there's probably a surprisingly small number of men who would make that choice too.

Don't want to make this an issue in this thread, but there is a world of difference between a rape and a beating, even a severe beating. From the physical effects on the victim to the psychological effects.

If, when using 'a beating or two' you weren't referring to rape, then okay, I withdraw this.

*umph*thump
/me gets off soap box.

Von

Originally posted by Minesajackdaniels
Don't want to make this an issue in this thread, but there is a world of difference between a rape and a beating, even a severe beating. From the physical effects on the victim to the psychological effects.

Some people are under the impression that sensory deprivation is not torture at all and that torture must be physical to do serious psychological damage. Which is rubbish. And ignorant. Systematic rape was used in Bosnia as part of the ethnic cleansing policy. It wasn't used to extract information.

On another note: what if yer wan Yvonne Ridley had been subjected to the same sensory deprivation when the taliban held her prisoner?

If, when using 'a beating or two' you weren't referring to rape, then okay, I withdraw this.

Nah, I wasn't.

Ri-ra

Have to agree with Bonkey, Victor and the others regarding the situation of the detainees and the applicability of the GC.

I think the difficulty people have is with the wholesale obliteration of distinctions that apply under international law. Among others they are:

1. Afghan citizen does not equal Talban soldier. (More innocent Afghans have died than innocent Americans in the WTC)

2. That any "war on terrorism" must tackle those socio-political and economic reasons for terrorism, and not be more grist to the terrorists' mill.

3. Taliban soldier does not equal Al Qaeda terrorist. (It would seem that Taliban soldiers did not fly the planes into the WTC)

4. The implementation of the GC governing the holding of prisoners of war. (The Taliban, as has been pointed out numerous times, are not terrorists. Their regime was repressive, but then again so are many others)

5. Sensory deprivation is a form of torture outlawed by the GC.

6. Innocent until proven guilty. (There have been no trials to date)

It seems to me that none of the above amounts to supporting the terrorists who actually carried out the WTC atrocity. It does express a concern that international relations has simply become a game of might=right.

Sand

I read an article in Time there and it made a point regarding the terrorists at X Ray.

Assuming they are classified as POWs as several here appear to want, they are covered by the Geneva Convention. Under the GC POWs must be released at the end of a conflict - Given their potential for terrorism, is this what *anyone* wants? Also, according to the GC, a POW is only required to reveal limited information - Given that the whole point of having them is to interrogate them to prevent further terrorist attacks, is this what *anyone* wants?

Be careful what you wish for in the name of due process- you may just get it.

I would consider the Taliban to be terrorists. They were willing to fight the US for Bin Laden, Bin Ladens forces were integrated into the Taliban forces, and Bin Laden had free reign in Taliban controlled Afghanistan. They made their own choice as to which side they were on.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Ri-ra
1. Afghan citizen does not equal Talban soldier. (More innocent Afghans have died than innocent Americans in the WTC)

Wrong. Plain Wrong. More innocent Afghans have not died than innocent Americans in the WTC. Its an oft quoted 'fact' that many people were using. In fact, the figure your talking about is wildly over-the-top. There was an article i read recently that explained it, but suffice to say, no where near as many afghans have died.

Originally posted by Ri-ra
4. The implementation of the GC governing the holding of prisoners of war. (The Taliban, as has been pointed out numerous times, are not terrorists. Their regime was repressive, but then again so are many others)

The Taliban were the rulling body of afghanistan that offically sponsored terrorisim. They are just as guilty as any Al-Quaeda member.

<edit>Spelling mistake - D'oh </edit>

Ri-ra

Be careful what you wish for in the name of due process- you may just get it.

Ehh. Due process is all we ask. Damnit, I demand it. Unfortunately, prior restraint (essentially your argument) has never been the cornerstone of any system of justice, except, perhaps the ones that chop your hands off for stealing...no fingers, no five-fingered discount. Sound familiar?

And besides, I don't see why you'd WANT to get rid of due process. To claim that due process is what's wrong with the legal system seems to me a ringing endorsement of what it's there for.

Sand

Plenty of guilty people have got off on the merest of technicalities.

Fidelis

You're right, Sand. Just look at Bush :rolleyes:

Ri-ra

Wrong. Plain Wrong. More innocent Afghans have not died than innocent Americans in the WTC. Its an oft quoted 'fact' that many people were using. In fact, the figure your talking about is wildly over-the-top. There was an article i read recently that explained it, but suffice to say, no where near as many afghans have died.

Your source? Here's mine:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2002/0102/opt1.htm

Read the article to find all the details.

BTW, figures now put the dead at the WTC at around 2,800, a far cry from the initial reports of 7-8,000.

adnans

an even figure

its quite sad to compare the WTC death figures with the Afghani civilian deaths. very sad.

adnans

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Plenty of guilty people have got off on the merest of technicalities.

You make the point perfectly. Don't give anyone who deserves the wrath of justice any excuse. Do not give them prima facie grounds for appeal. Do not give them grounds for counter claims. Do not fudge any potential prosecutions. Do not create martyrs. Do not do the victims in the USA and Afghanistan a disservice.

Ri-ra

Originally posted by adnans
an even figure

its quite sad to compare the WTC death figures with the Afghani civilian deaths. very sad.

adnans

Your information is out of date, btw.

The point being, adnans, that it's *all* very sad because two wrongs don't make a right.

So don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm belittling *anyone's* death here.

Sand

Re: The Body Count of Afghan Civillians
Wonderful that after several months there is still argument over how many died in the WTC attacks, but a professor living thousands of miles away can give a figure tabulated from media accounts and the left fall over themselves to claim its the bible. Lets examine this a bit.

First, how many reporters got inside Afghanistan for their "eyewitness" reports? Extremely few since the Taliban were arresting all they could find. So how then did these reporters get their figures? Well they hung around refugee camps and border crossings in Pakistan and picked up second hand, third hand or forth hand and so on "eyewitness" accounts. "What, somebody you met on the road told you, that somebody had told them that they had come from a village where the american bombing had killed 100 people? - well thats good enough for this reporter". Good enough for this report by the professor as well.

Aid agencies have an interest in "hyping" up the scale of any disaster. Saying something along the lines of "Well, its bad but were managing" isnt going to get the same response as "For christ sake, save us- were doomed, all of us doomed". Simple truth is the aid agencies have far better access to afghanistan than they did under the Taliban. No seizures of aid, no "taxes" to negotiate. The same goes for the UN and its agencies.

Second Im not aware that the interim government has released any reports on the amount of civillians killed in the bombings. Wouldnt they have the more accurate information as opposed to a Professor in the US? Certainly if we were looking for figures on how many died in the WTC bombing wed look to US sources, not to Afghani sources- and yet were meant to take this professors "estimate" as the word of god?

People seem to like to say that the Afghan cvillian death tool is greater than the US death toll in the 9/11 attacks. Lets assume it was- what does that prove? That the US is worse than the terrorists who deliberately targeted civillians? Lets assume more died in the WTC. Does this mean the US was completely in the right? Honest answer would be no to both assumptions. Therefore the amount of civillians killed in afghanistan, despite being mentioned in relation to amount killed in the WTC, is a completely different issue. There is no relationship between them.

Re: The Prisoners
I must admit I cant sleep at night thinking of those poor terrorists not getting a UN trial with all the oppurtunities for getting away scot free.

adnans

Originally posted by Sand
Re: The Body Count of Afghan Civillians
Wonderful that after several months there is still argument over how many died in the WTC attacks, but a professor living thousands of miles away can give a figure tabulated from media accounts ...

i dont think you understood what effect i tried to achieve when i posted that link. its morally wrong to compare death rates from the WTC and Afghani bombing raids seeing how they are closely linked toghether.

if you dont agree with the professor living thousands of miles away from Afghanistan, i dont agree with you either seeing as you are quite far away too to make any decent judgement on the number of civilians dead and the aid situation.

Re: The Prisoners
I must admit I cant sleep at night thinking of those poor terrorists not getting a UN trial with all the oppurtunities for getting away scot free.

i thought the eighth amendment of the american constitution prohibited "cruel and unusual punishments." this is the bill of rights, the first ten amendments that americans regard as sacred, and read the words "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

not one category of human being is excluded from america's obligation to refrain from cruel and unusual punishments. The eighth amendment means suspects, american passport holders, it means members of the senate who take contributions from corporations that violate the law, it means enemies, criminals, it means prisoners of war, and it also means the so called "illegal combatants".

why abide by the Geneva Convention when american government cant even abide by its own rules.

adnans

Sand

if you dont agree with the professor living thousands of miles away from Afghanistan, i dont agree with you either seeing as you are quite far away too to make any decent judgement on the number of civilians dead and the aid situation.

Good for you, but unlike the good professor Ive made no such judgement because I know only as much as the good Professor regarding the deaths in Afghanistan- i.e media reports. That was my whole point.

If the death penalty isnt classified as "cruel and unusual" punishment then I think we can get away with locking them in cages.

Ri-ra

People seem to like to say that the Afghan cvillian death tool is greater than the US death toll in the 9/11 attacks. Lets assume it was- what does that prove? That the US is worse than the terrorists who deliberately targeted civillians? Lets assume more died in the WTC. Does this mean the US was completely in the right? Honest answer would be no to both assumptions. Therefore the amount of civillians killed in afghanistan, despite being mentioned in relation to amount killed in the WTC, is a completely different issue. There is no relationship between them.

"Like" is a bit silly. Who "likes" this situation? I must admit that your memory is not as sharp as I thought. The numbers of dead at the WTC were very much part of the rhetoric used by Bush, Blair and the media as justification for this so-called war.

The death toll of innocent Afghans is to me a pretty compelling argument against the overall "success" of the war, the apparent objective of which was to get those responsible for the attacks. The major stated aim has not yet been achieved. Al-Qaeda still operates, and they haven't a breeze where their operatives are. The failures in the war have led to the retroactively defined "objective" of toppling the Taliban (who are not Al-Qaeda). Removing the Taliban was in fact only part of the objective, and which was in fact the *only* "successful" part of the operation. I'm saying just look at the civilian cost.

The only thing the rising death toll proves is that this was a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction that will only exacerbate the situation. Why do you think that India is currently running more missile tests just now? Do you really think that it's a coincidence?

Sand

I dont recall Bush and Co saying "More people died in the WTC attacks so were okay". What you mean is that they used the WTC attack (Or even more precisely the Talibans failure to surrender Bin Laden) as justification for the war. Because it was a terrorist attack. Not because X amount of people died in it.

Hmm it would be inaccurate to say Al Quaeda have somehow "won" because they werent completely destroyed - given the international nature of the organisation and the cellular structure this would be impossible to do in Afghanistan alone. However, Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for them to train recruits, plan attacks and hide from justice. Many of Bin Ladens allies and inner circle of leadership died during the bombing or were captured. Their methodology is now known due to captured training manuals. They have lost tons of weapons, ammo and exsplosive. More importantly the myth of Bin Laden has been broken - his string of "victories" against the US which went unpunished by more lenient administrations has been broken, potential allies will look to the fate of the Taliban the next time Bin Laden comes calling for a favour. These are all significant gains.

Ri-ra

I dont recall Bush and Co saying "More people died in the WTC attacks so were okay". What you mean is that they used the WTC attack (Or even more precisely the Talibans failure to surrender Bin Laden) as justification for the war. Because it was a terrorist attack. Not because X amount of people died in it.

*Sigh* So now we're off topic and you are refusing to read what I wrote. I never said that "Bush and Co" (an alliance that is beginning to show cracks) said anything like the gobbledygook you seem to have come up with.

I'm merely noting that the WTC attack was taken up in a myriad of ways (which you obviously have forgotten) by Bush, Blair, and the media in the US-- "attacks on our freedom," "they hate us because we're free," "we're protecting democracy," yadda, yadda. *One* of the ways in which the attacks were used to justify the collateral damage that would inevitably happen despite all the guff about "smart bombs," was the sheer numbers of the dead at the WTC site.

It's not pleasant, but it was used as an excuse. The American dead were used as counting beans. Remember the comparisons with Pearl Harbor? Those comparisons were drawn not only on the basis of the surprise element, but also on the number of casualties sustained in both cases. I find that offensive.

What has happened to the innocent Afghans is just as much an atrocity as what happened at the WTC. This war will solve nothing. It will make things worse.

I don't see why-- or rather, I could come up with a few reasons, but I won't-- you would want to explain one atrocity away, and condemn the other.

Sand

The numbers of dead at the WTC were very much part of the rhetoric used by Bush, Blair and the media as justification for this so-called war.

I dont recall Bush and Co saying "More people died in the WTC attacks so were okay". What you mean is that they used the WTC attack (Or even more precisely the Talibans failure to surrender Bin Laden) as justification for the war.

you are refusing to read what I wrote. I never said that "Bush and Co" (an alliance that is beginning to show cracks) said anything like the gobbledygook you seem to have come up with.

Um. Okay. Anyway

*One* of the ways in which the attacks were used to justify the collateral damage that would inevitably happen despite all the guff about "smart bombs," was the sheer numbers of the dead at the WTC site.

Again I dont recall anyone saying Y civillian deaths are okay in Afghanistan cos X +1 civillians died in the WTC. The reasoning that was used was much simpler - The WTC attack was a terrorist attack designed only to kill as many civillians as possible. This terrorism must obviously be eliminated. The war in afghanistan did not have civillian deaths as an objective.

The numbers who died in the WTC wasnt important regards the justification of collateral damage in the war- it was the nature of the WTC attack itself. Assuming youre right and the scale of the death tool was the justification used, for what X mentioned above would the war be justified? At what X would it not be justifiable?

Youre right, weve gone off topic - not far but off topic nonetheless.

To get back on
re: Your post on Due Process

If these guys get POW status, they cant be interrogated. Neither can they be held after the war (which is effectively over in Afghanistan). Would they use their POW status as justification for their campaign- much like the IRA wanted POW status when in jail to justifiy theirs?

Perhaps they could be tried as war crinimals or charged in connection with terrorist offences? Justice of the victor? Which court? Afghanistan might want them for that (Would they get all the benefits of western justice- probably not). The US? Would they get a fair trial? Defence lawyers will jump on public hostility to get their "clients" off. The U.N? Well like I said before, these guys seem to be unable recognise terrorism when theyre staring it in the face - You want to let them drop the ball- *again*?.

All of these are bad options, the US court option being the least bad as there a good chance the Judge will piss all over attempts by the lawyers to get their clients off. The best option, whatever about due process and/or cruel and unusual punishment, is to hold them at X ray indefinitly while they continue to pose a terrorist threat, while at the same time interrogate them in the hope of discovering and defeating any further terrorist plots. We can cry over their rights and due process some other time.

On a related note the terrorist who carried out the 1993 WTC bombing put out a guards eye with a comb (i think) while awaiting trial. I wonder why the guards want them all trussed up and unable to do pose a threat? Im sure its just they get a kick out of "torturing" them.