Guantanamo Redux

[DuncanONeil]

I'm sorry, but Gitmo's just a home kennel kit the Pentagon bought from Home Depot. I think any town's drunk tank would be more secure.

As for security, there are two things no active prison in the US can boast.
A no man's land and land mines to the north and the Caribbean in all other directions. I think that tops any security that can be built in the US.

[DuncanONeil]

The prison in Illinois is unused since built.
GTMO is a much safer location than any in CONUS. Both for the detainees and the US.
Also there is no possible way that any prison in the CONUS can be more secure than that in GTMO.

Another Part of closing Gitmo is 2 fold which he might not have realized, if the Goverment decides to buy the Prisobn in Illinois, and they do have to approve the money for it plus the upgrades which I might add it where I am from, Congress 1st has to approve the money to buy, which alone could take months, then 2nd and probably most important they said it could take up to 1 year to upgrade to Prison, to Max Security, it is openend and functining now, but it is NOT a Max SEcurity Prison which they need to make it
So my best guess is completely closing Gitmo will take much more time the annoucement between Congress approving the Purchase then adding in the time and extra Money to upgrade it it, will take they say possible another year, they have 100 inmate there now but it is not secure enough right now to hold those Combatents.
They plan to make it more secure then Supermax is, they claim once all is done that the Prison will be the Most Secure Prison on Earth
Amazingly the people that live in the Twon were it it located are not too terribly opposed to useing it for this, 60% or so agree, plus it will give the area badly needed jobs

[denuseri]

Well if its defined as torture then why are we still using it?

[steelish]

Well if its defined as torture then why are we still using it?

in which capacity? in training...or at gtmo?

[DuncanONeil]

Well if its defined as torture then why are we still using it?

We aren't!

[denuseri]

We aren't!

Sorry but I am married to a man in the military who is very close to this issue and he has all but said we still are indeed doing it and for obvious reasons I can't divulge anything further on that.

[DuncanONeil]

And I am married to a naval Senior Chief that was stationed at the detention facility at GTMO. That and other contacts I have with others stationed there, support my position. (A)nd for obvious reasons I can't divulge anything further on that.

Sorry but I am married to a man in the military who is very close to this issue and he has all but said we still are indeed doing it and for obvious reasons I can't divulge anything further on that.

[denuseri]

And I am married to a naval Senior Chief that was stationed at the detention facility at GTMO. That and other contacts I have with others stationed there, support my position. (A)nd for obvious reasons I can't divulge anything further on that.

So you have a source you consider valid saying that torture is no longer taking place who is stationed at GTMO as a what? Interogator?

Where as I have a scource who's job involves things I can't speak about, but who is also directly involved with the issue in question, yes ...DIRECTLY. He isnt at GTMO on any regular basis that I know of however, (but GTMO isnt the only place where interogations take place now is it) but some of his friends who are interogators there are; and well, as Ive allready mentioned, its still happening.

As for what our police do and do not, read over the list of things I presented again. I am not talking about a little sleep deprevation now am I?

You can try to self justify and candy coat and side step the issue all you want. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

[denuseri]

My Owner pretty much explained in detail why they use certian techniques in training for specific personel.

My question is why, if we are supposed to be the good guys is it that we are running around torturing prisoners of war and civilian detainees.

Why allow ourselves to sink to the enemies level?

The USA "used" to be one of the biggist supporters of the Genieva Conventions.

And Gitmo is not the only place it is still happening at, from what Ive heard we are doing all over the place.

[steelish]

My Owner pretty much explained in detail why they use certian techniques in training for specific personel.

My question is why, if we are supposed to be the good guys is it that we are running around torturing prisoners of war and civilian detainees.

Why allow ourselves to sink to the enemies level?

The USA "used" to be one of the biggist supporters of the Genieva Conventions.

And Gitmo is not the only place it is still happening at, from what Ive heard we are doing all over the place.

That is a difficult question to answer. I do not condone the use of torture and it is quite possible that there are "rogue correctional officers" out there. BUT, it is my belief that wardens and others look the other way when such things are going on...why? Possibly because the prisoners do not behave unless they feel the "threat" of it hanging over their heads.

Personally, in my humble opinion, terrorists have absolutely NO respect for Americans because of their humanity and compassion. So what are we to do? How do YOU feel about people who will terrorize and kill us while looking down their noses at us simply because they don't understand/believe in our way of life?

[Thorne]

Personally, in my humble opinion, terrorists have absolutely NO respect for Americans because of their humanity and compassion. So what are we to do? How do YOU feel about people who will terrorize and kill us while looking down their noses at us simply because they don't understand/believe in our way of life?

I agree with you. Sadly, it is sometimes necessary to fight like your enemy in order to defeat your enemy. There has to be a way to distinguish enemy combatants from terrorists. If the enemy abides by the Geneva convention, even to the point of using guerrilla warfare, then prisoners are captured combatants and can be held, without trial, until cessation of hostilities. If they do not abide by the convention, then they should not be treated according to the convention.

[DuncanONeil]

I agree with you. Sadly, it is sometimes necessary to fight like your enemy in order to defeat your enemy. There has to be a way to distinguish enemy combatants from terrorists. If the enemy abides by the Geneva convention, even to the point of using guerrilla warfare, then prisoners are captured combatants and can be held, without trial, until cessation of hostilities. If they do not abide by the convention, then they should not be treated according to the convention.

There are specific requirements for an individual to fall under the purview of the conventions. The individuals engaging in the acts favored by the likes of Al Quaida do not qualify. In spite of that we actually are according them many of the rights of the Conventions, even though it is not required. That is just because of who we are.

[DuncanONeil]

Do not forget that the greatest threat to health, life, and limb comes not from the authorities but from the inmates!

That is a difficult question to answer. I do not condone the use of torture and it is quite possible that there are "rogue correctional officers" out there. BUT, it is my belief that wardens and others look the other way when such things are going on...why? Possibly because the prisoners do not behave unless they feel the "threat" of it hanging over their heads.

Personally, in my humble opinion, terrorists have absolutely NO respect for Americans because of their humanity and compassion. So what are we to do? How do YOU feel about people who will terrorize and kill us while looking down their noses at us simply because they don't understand/believe in our way of life?

[DuncanONeil]

My Owner pretty much explained in detail why they use certian techniques in training for specific personel.

My question is why, if we are supposed to be the good guys is it that we are running around torturing prisoners of war and civilian detainees.

Why allow ourselves to sink to the enemies level?

The USA "used" to be one of the biggist supporters of the Genieva Conventions.

And Gitmo is not the only place it is still happening at, from what Ive heard we are doing all over the place.

[COLOR="Yellow"]

The truth of the matter is that anything and everything that did not fit the mold of "please tell all you secrets" was portrayed as torture. Many of the techniques used are precisely the same as those used by police departments when questioning criminal suspects!

[denuseri]

[/B][COLOR="Yellow"]

The truth of the matter is that anything and everything that did not fit the mold of "please tell all you secrets" was portrayed as torture. Many of the techniques used are precisely the same as those used by police departments when questioning criminal suspects!

Being tied in an over the head suspension for 6 hours is not used by our police.

Having ones hands cuffed to their ankles with a choke tie around the neck to force the prisoner to lean back to breath in an uncomfortable possibely damaging position for an hour or more at a time is not used by our police.

Being water boarded, is not used by our police.

Being stripped nude, and kept in a small confinment box in near hypothermic conditions for extended periods is not used by our police.

Electroshock is not used by our police.

The list goes on and on and on.

[DuncanONeil]

I presume that your source is the aforementioned spouse?

Being tied in an over the head suspension for 6 hours is not used by our police.

Having ones hands cuffed to their ankles with a choke tie around the neck to force the prisoner to lean back to breath in an uncomfortable possibely damaging position for an hour or more at a time is not used by our police.

Being water boarded, is not used by our police.

Being stripped nude, and kept in a small confinment box in near hypothermic conditions for extended periods is not used by our police.

Electroshock is not used by our police.

The list goes on and on and on.

[denuseri]

I presume that your source is the aforementioned spouse?

I would say Duh!....But:

Its not him alone, the other guys in his unit that I know also have mentioned things.

[denuseri]

Side steping the issue of torture being wrong is no excuse for our practice of it.

[DuncanONeil]

Side steping the issue of torture being wrong is no excuse for our practice of it.

This is like the third time that you express the belief that torture is still practiced by the US as a matter of policy. Such has never been the case, but just what are you using to support that position?

[denuseri]

The Geneva Conventions comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, for example:

wounded or sick fighters
prisoners of war
civilians
medical and religious personnel

The United States Ratified these some time ago along with a bunch of other nations.

No where in the Conventions does it say" ...but if your enemy doesnt abide by the Coventions then you don't have to eaither"

Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial.Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

taking of hostages
extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.

Further, those provisions are considered customary international law, allowing war crimes prosecution even over groups that have not formally accepted the terms of the Geneva Conventions.

I am ashamed to see our beloved country fall so low as to use such dishonorable methods and even try to validate there use, especially when all it does is to garner more opposition against our cuase!

[Bren122]

The Geneva Conventions comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, for example:

wounded or sick fighters
prisoners of war
civilians
medical and religious personnel

The United States Ratified these some time ago along with a bunch of other nations.

No where in the Conventions does it say" ...but if your enemy doesnt abide by the Coventions then you don't have to eaither"

Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial.Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

taking of hostages
extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.

Further, those provisions are considered customary international law, allowing war crimes prosecution even over groups that have not formally accepted the terms of the Geneva Conventions.

I am ashamed to see our beloved country fall so low as to use such dishonorable methods and even try to validate there use, especially when all it does is to garner more opposition against our cuase!

These Geneva Conventions only apply to those that can be clearly identified as soldiers. This is defined within these conventions and within the Protocols. The Taliban, not being recognised as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda are regarded as non-state actors AT BEST. The US made a determination that members of these two organisations did not fit the description, provided under the Protocols, for non-state actors and are therefore not subject to the limitations of the Convention or the Protocol.

This was in order to try them in US courts, which is not permitted under international law for PoWs. They do not qualify as civillians because they were taken in arms. Ironically it was countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, etc. who were the most opposed to widening the definition of a non-state actor in order to, for example, use nerve gas on their populations or ethnic cleansing or to enable them to use torture techniques more in line with a real definition of torture. One favoured technique is to nail a prisoner's hands to a heavy table or wall mount and then sever the fingers a joint at a time with bolt cutters; this is very different to water boarding.

The Geneva conventions only apply to civillians and soldiers of legitimate governments recognised by a majority of the UN- it does not protect freedom fighters, partisans, terrorists or any other term you wish to use. The Protocol extends the Geneva Conventions to civillians supporting these movements- civillians being strictly defined as not being in possession of weapons and not being taken in company of others possessing weapons. A legitimate non-state actor must meet many qualifications, all of which Al-qaeda fail and most of which the Taliban fail. It is an all or nothing definition- which is why no nation has attempted to suggest that they are before an international court.

[denuseri]

These Geneva Conventions only apply to those that can be clearly identified as soldiers. This is defined within these conventions and within the Protocols. The Taliban, not being recognised as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda are regarded as non-state actors AT BEST. The US made a determination that members of these two organisations did not fit the description, provided under the Protocols, for non-state actors and are therefore not subject to the limitations of the Convention or the Protocol.

This was in order to try them in US courts, which is not permitted under international law for PoWs. They do not qualify as civillians because they were taken in arms. Ironically it was countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, etc. who were the most opposed to widening the definition of a non-state actor in order to, for example, use nerve gas on their populations or ethnic cleansing or to enable them to use torture techniques more in line with a real definition of torture. One favoured technique is to nail a prisoner's hands to a heavy table or wall mount and then sever the fingers a joint at a time with bolt cutters; this is very different to water boarding.

The Geneva conventions only apply to civillians and soldiers of legitimate governments recognised by a majority of the UN- it does not protect freedom fighters, partisans, terrorists or any other term you wish to use. The Protocol extends the Geneva Conventions to civillians supporting these movements- civillians being strictly defined as not being in possession of weapons and not being taken in company of others possessing weapons. A legitimate non-state actor must meet many qualifications, all of which Al-qaeda fail and most of which the Taliban fail. It is an all or nothing definition- which is why no nation has attempted to suggest that they are before an international court.

A bit of legal loop holing to justify it doesnt mean its right. Besides there are quite a few legal scholars out there that disagree with your point of view.

[Bren122]

A bit of legal loop holing to justify it doesnt mean its right. Besides there are quite a few legal scholars out there that disagree with your point of view.

They can disagree all they like- only governments can bring actions under the conventions and the protocols.

and i didn't say it was right- i just pointed out you can't use either and why.

[DuncanONeil]

It is not legal loop holing. It is clearly spelled out who is not covered by the Conventions. And the people in question do not meet the requirements of the Conventions.
Yet in spite of that they are being provided with many if not most of them!

A bit of legal loop holing to justify it doesnt mean its right. Besides there are quite a few legal scholars out there that disagree with your point of view.

[denuseri]

Yet more side steping.