Guantanamo Bay (dention camp) thoughts

[sacase]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

I have no first hand knowledge and have not read any credible reports of the torture at Gitmo.

I will say I think there probably are things that have or do happen but I doubt it is on a regular basis...in other words I would imagine it is isolated incidents.

I think the ones they want to torture and the like are the ones that are shuttled to different countries in "torture taxis".

It is hard to say that the US does not torture as we have seen the whole Abu Ghraib situation.

I just happen to think they do it elsewhere when it is done.

Personally I have a feeling that Gitmo, at least the detention centers there, will be shut down within the next couple years. I would imagine it would be after the next president is in office.

I think they will just use facilities in other countries.

[View Full Quote]I question the admin for what I think is circumventing the geneva convention code at times which by doing so is against our constitution.

The line that they are much worse to our troops does not hold water as WE are part of the geneva convention code. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard and honor our agreements and laws. We should not bring ourselves down to their levels.

However as I said I think IF it happens at gitmo it is an isolated instances and you can not always control when a soldiers gets stressed out and does something stupid.
Does not mean the soldier is off the hook for actions but it is not something that is mandated through his chain of command.

So. I think gitmo is ok but I also feel they are going to close those centers down, move them to foreign areas and that by doing so they can get away with more things without as much accountability.

What we do, even if we torture, is still MUCH better than the treatment our soldiers would get from the enemy. However it still does not justify torture because we are held by a higher standards and by the Geneva Convention code and the constitution.


We will see.

I understand what you are saying but here is the thing about the Geneva Covention. It is supposed to be used between countries that have signed it. For instance if we go to war against France it applies since both france and ourselves have signed it. However if we go to war against a country that has not signed it then niether party is obliged to follow it. Therefore we are not bound by it. Now if people want to say we should follow it because it is the "right" thing to do, then that would be hard to argue since it is purely a moral stance.

Many countries have skirted the Geneva Convention, it is common practice. For instance, you are not supposed to use .50 cal weapons on people, you are only supposed to use them on equipement, but yet all of our vehicles have them mounted. So how we get around this is simply this. That uniform you are wearing...its equipment, your LBE/LBV...that's equipment, your weapon....that's equipment. The gunner is simply shooting at those things and the person just happend to be in the way, so sorry. If you look up the .50 cal sniper rifle, it is called a Anti-Material rifle, not anti-personell, there is a reason for it.

My pesonal feelings on it is simply this. Our enemy thinks of us as weak because of all the restrictions that we put on ourselves. I think some of them are good because I do not want to turn our soldiers into unfeeling killing machines, that would not be fair to them. But on some level we need to get down to the enemy's level and "talk" to them on it so that they "understand" us better.

If we have to use snapping barking dogs then so be it. For the most part Terrorists are deathly afraid of dogs. If we have to parade them around in women's underware, I have no problem with that. If we were fileting them alive I would have a problem with that. SO basically if we are not causing permenent physical harm and are just scaring the hell out of them, then I don't see any issues.

[burmafrd]

Anyone who thinks what happened at Abu Ghraib was torture knows nothing about what torture really is. Abuse- yes there was abuse there. But NOT torture.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

Anyone who thinks what happened at Abu Ghraib was torture knows nothing about what torture really is. Abuse- yes there was abuse there. But NOT torture.

There was torture...including a death.

Just because you or the administration wants to say it is not torture does not make it so.

It was torture under previous ideals and that is exactly why the administration was trying to change the definitions of torture and update the military guidelines for it to get around it.

It is also why they were using "torture taxis" to other countries that don't have a problem with torture and denying doing it until it was exposed.

One can be abused and one could argue that it is not torture.

One can not be tortured without abuse.

You have the right to the opinion that there was no torture at Abu Ghraib. I would say there was indeed torture both of a physical and mental nature.

[burmafrd]

I happen to know a couple of soldiers who were at Gitmo and knew people who were at Abu Graib. There was no torture at either one. There was abuse at Abu Graib. There was no torture. You can keep bleating about it brain but it does not make it true.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by sacase

I understand what you are saying but here is the thing about the Geneva Covention. It is supposed to be used between countries that have signed it. For instance if we go to war against France it applies since both france and ourselves have signed it. However if we go to war against a country that has not signed it then niether party is obliged to follow it. Therefore we are not bound by it.

You may wish to read the following....

LINK from Official White House site


This was a Statement given on May 3rd 2003

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Geneva Convention
The James S. Brady Briefing Room

1:40 P.M. EST

MR. FLEISCHER: I have an announcement to make. Today President Bush affirms our enduring commitment to the important principles of the Geneva Convention. Consistent with American values and the principles of the Geneva Convention, the United States has treated and will continue to treat all Taliban and al Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo Bay humanely and consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention.

They will continue to receive three appropriate meals a day, excellent medical care, clothing, shelter, showers, and the opportunity worship. The International Community of the Red Cross can visit each detainee privately.

In addition, President Bush today has decided that the Geneva Convention will apply to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al Qaeda international terrorists.

Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Convention. Although the United States does not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate Afghani government, the President determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the Convention.

========

So your idea of who or who does not fall under the geneva convention code and the reasons why are incorrect.

The other country does NOT have to be a part of the geneva convention code.

Now there are other reasons why they might not fall under it...if you read later in that briefing but not for the reasons you describe.


Also...can you provide a link to the Geneva Convention code talking about 50 Cal weapons. I am not saying you are wrong but I do not remember reading that. I was thinking the only weapons the Geneva Convention ever talked about were chemical or biological weapons.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

I happen to know a couple of soldiers who were at Gitmo and knew people who were at Abu Graib. There was no torture at either one. There was abuse at Abu Graib. There was no torture. You can keep bleating about it brain but it does not make it true.

So nobody was ever tortured at Abu and nobody was ever tortured that led to a death at Abu.

Ok...you believe what you want, I will believe what I want.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

I happen to know a couple of soldiers who were at Gitmo and knew people who were at Abu Graib. There was no torture at either one. There was abuse at Abu Graib. There was no torture. You can keep bleating about it brain but it does not make it true.

What is the defined difference? I honestly don't know what is considered abuse and what is considered torture.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

What is the defined difference? I honestly don't know what is considered abuse and what is considered torture.

The difference, legally, is what those in power tell you is the difference.

I know that sounds sarcastic and silly, but it really is true.

The admin has been trying to change how things are defined for some time now.

We are part of the United Nations..many times to our dismay.

However we are part of the United nations.

Somewhere between 84 and 87 they defined torture as the following...

1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

[bbgun]

Ed Koch (lifelong Dem and no Bush stooge):

The civilized world — friends, allies and adversaries in this war of civilizations being waged every day which may continue for decades — denounces our retention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. The number currently detained there is approximately 500. The U.S. military has released large numbers in the several years that the camp has been in existence and has stated that it will hold military trials for those still detained.

Whatever the U.S. Supreme Court decides must be done with the detainees will be done, but the calls by many abroad and here at home to close the facility are ridiculous. If the Bush administration were to oblige its detractors and close Guantanamo, wouldn’t those same detractors demand that every one of the enemy combatants held in the new prisons be freed?

Is there any doubt that among those prisoners are many who, if freed, would re-dedicate themselves to killing us? Many certainly view us as infidels who they are charged by their religion to kill.

Under the rules of war, enemy personnel captured by the U.S. may be detained until the hostilities end and a peace treaty is signed. That policy applies to other nations as well. In World War II, German prisoners were held ten years after the end of hostilities with the Soviet Union. During the American Civil War, President Lincoln decided against an exchange of prisoners before the war ended, believing that the South, which had a smaller number of citizens able to bear arms, would benefit more than the North by prisoner exchanges.

If Guantanamo were shut down, our government would have to find another location to detain enemy combatants. The President and government officials state that these prisoners are treated humanely. The prisoners say otherwise, but that, according to U.S. authorities, is part of their strategy to obtain release. My advice to the President is to have a distinguished panel of Americans given full access to Guantanamo and its prisoners, and have them report to the American public on the conditions at the prison.

It is an impossible job to identify all the diehards from those who on release would lead a peaceful life. It is not our obligation to do so. When the war against international terrorism ends, only then are we required to free the Guantanamo enemy combatants.

[burmafrd]

None of this (50 cal) is part of the Geneva Conventions.
The Hague Peace conference of 1899 forbid dum dum bullets. 1907 set was more specific. It never got into size. There have been mentions of about the same thing in other international conventions. Explosive projectiles are supposedly not to be used on personel. Very vague. But since 50 cal does not have explosive projectiles it does not apply. 20 MM would apply. But we use 40 MM HE rds against personel. So does a lot of other armies. It really has been pretty much ignored.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by bbgun

Ed Koch (lifelong Dem and no Bush stooge):

The civilized world — friends, allies and adversaries in this war of civilizations being waged every day which may continue for decades — denounces our retention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. The number currently detained there is approximately 500. The U.S. military has released large numbers in the several years that the camp has been in existence and has stated that it will hold military trials for those still detained.

Whatever the U.S. Supreme Court decides must be done with the detainees will be done, but the calls by many abroad and here at home to close the facility are ridiculous. If the Bush administration were to oblige its detractors and close Guantanamo, wouldn’t those same detractors demand that every one of the enemy combatants held in the new prisons be freed?

[View Full Quote]Is there any doubt that among those prisoners are many who, if freed, would re-dedicate themselves to killing us? Many certainly view us as infidels who they are charged by their religion to kill.

Under the rules of war, enemy personnel captured by the U.S. may be detained until the hostilities end and a peace treaty is signed. That policy applies to other nations as well. In World War II, German prisoners were held ten years after the end of hostilities with the Soviet Union. During the American Civil War, President Lincoln decided against an exchange of prisoners before the war ended, believing that the South, which had a smaller number of citizens able to bear arms, would benefit more than the North by prisoner exchanges.

If Guantanamo were shut down, our government would have to find another location to detain enemy combatants. The President and government officials state that these prisoners are treated humanely. The prisoners say otherwise, but that, according to U.S. authorities, is part of their strategy to obtain release. My advice to the President is to have a distinguished panel of Americans given full access to Guantanamo and its prisoners, and have them report to the American public on the conditions at the prison.
It is an impossible job to identify all the diehards from those who on release would lead a peaceful life. It is not our obligation to do so. When the war against international terrorism ends, only then are we required to free the Guantanamo enemy combatants.

I think what many people fail to realize, as this person you quoted, is the idea that just because you close Gitmo it does not mean you are letting those people go.

There have been prisons in the US that have closed down over the years...it does not mean they just let everybody go free.

No of course not, they moved them to other facilities and it is my opinion that is just what will happen with these prisoners.

They will be moved to facilities on foreign soil not in the Americas.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

None of this (50 cal) is part of the Geneva Conventions.
The Hague Peace conference of 1899 forbid dum dum bullets. 1907 set was more specific. It never got into size. There have been mentions of about the same thing in other international conventions. Explosive projectiles are supposedly not to be used on personel. Very vague. But since 50 cal does not have explosive projectiles it does not apply.

Thanks...I did not think I remember anything in the Geneva Convention code other than what I posted.

Not as familiar with the Hague.

I remember they quit using Flame Throwers but was not sure if that was party of any treaty or not.

While in basic training when we went out to New Mexico for our field training there were still some sites where you could make out signs for the flame thrower course. Not that it means anything to anyone but just found it interesting.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by bbgun

Ed Koch (lifelong Dem and no Bush stooge):

LOTS OF WORDS

Without having taken a side here, this strikes me as the most reasonable approach there is. Whether torture/abuse is or has occurred at Gitmo is important. However, closing the facility would serve as nothing more than a political/public move.

Even whether it is widespread torture or isolated events, it seems foolhardy to close a facility that will just require the detainees to be moved to a seperate facility. The better course of action is to determine whether civil wrongs are being conducted and end them.

[burmafrd]

We used flame throwers in Afghanistan. By weird chance I happen to know a guy who collected old flame throwers. He was contacted and actually TRAINED some of our Special Forces personel in how to use them after 9/11.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

We used flame throwers in Afghanistan. By weird chance I happen to know a guy who collected old flame throwers. He was contacted and actually TRAINED some of our Special Forces personel in how to use them after 9/11.

So was it a voluntary withdrawl from using them and not part of a treaty we signed?

As I said I have never heard one way or the other.