LOOK AT THIS ONE: Gitmo Poll

[ViperPilot 0]

I had to repost this as an actual poll, not just a text thread, sorry.

It is fact that the media (not all, but a good amount) has been bashing Guantanamo as a terrible place that tortures people. They condemn it like it's popular. But how popular is their opinion? A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 20% of Americans believe prisoners are treated unfairly, while 70% think Gitmo is fine. Even 36% of that believe the prisoners there are treated better than they deserve. So, what's your opinion on Gitmo? Was Amnesty International correct in calling Gitmo "the gulag of our time," was Senator Durbin in line when he compared the US military (specifically at Gitmo) to Nazis and Pol Pot? I'd like to see how the results of this poll line up on DZ.com.

(poll edited at original poster's request)

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

BillVon:
------------------------
US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo; in Iraq, Afghanistan

GENEVA - Washington has, for the first time, acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.

The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.

'They are no longer trying to duck this and have respected their obligation to inform the UN,' the Committee member said.
--------------

I'm glad to see this, because once we admit that we have a problem we can fix it. For too long we've been saying "Oh, it's just a few bad apples" "it's just some soldiers blowing off steam." We're the USA. We shouldn't torture people; that's for people like Saddam Hussein. I'm glad to see that we are finally taking the steps we need to take to stop it.

I defintely agree that torturing is for people like Saddam. And for those soldiers, CIA members, etc. who have truly tortured someone at Gitmo, shame on them. They deserve just punishment for that. But, because some people have been out of line, does that mean that the entire Gitmo operation is out of line? That's kind of what I'm trying to get at. I want to know if people think the whole thing is just completely out of line and all the prisoners should be set free, or if people think it just needs to be fixed, i.e. punishing those who torture and take better steps to prevent such behavior.

[lawrocket 3]

I think what's going on at Gitmo is an aside from the key argument, which is "Should we operate it like that in the first place?"

The Bush Administration is of the opinion that Gitmo prisoners are detainees under Article II of the Constitution. They argue that Articxle III, which defines the scope of the judiciary's powers, does not have control. Therefore, without a vehicle in the Constitution for judicial review, i.e., habeus corpus, the only due process necessary is a review of whatever form the executive branch sees fit. This is consistent with no review for EPW's, and that the only review is via military tribunal.

I have a problem with that....

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ViperPilot 0]

Well, can they really be labeled as EPWs when they do not wear a uniform, do not answer to a recognized military organization, and sell fruit by day, but shoot at soldiers by night? These insurgents are nothing more than vigilantes. So, isn't the current Administration correct in saying that they are not EPWs? If they do not meet the criteria listed above, then by law they ARE NOT EPWs. Am I missing something?

[Darius11 12]

To the people who say they have it to nice do they not know that we have imprisoned people who are innocent? Not to mention many are not even charged ?

I don’t know what you have been reading but you can be sure there is shit going on there Why?

Simple if the pictures were not leaked me, you and the rest of the world would know nothing about what went down there. If someone would have come out and said yes there torturing prisoners people would say oh there paranoid or way too much in to conspiracy.

I am willing to bet a lot more shit goes down then we know. Why is it that all the bad things we hear about have video or pictures to prove that they happened?

Are you going to tell me soldiers only torture or murder people when there is cameras around?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Michele 1]

Quote

Why is it that all the bad things we hear about have video or pictures to prove that they happened?

And then, of course, the flushing of the Q'ran. Which, once brought to the news media, killed several (a dozen?) people during riots in Muslim countries. Which then was found to not have happened at all....

I also seem to recall several detainees who were deemed "innocent" or unchargeable, and were released. Brought back to their country, and were either rearrested or wounded (maybe killed) in subsequent battles with the US. And before some folks cry "well, they learned how to hate the US while they were at Gitmo," they were fighting with the same folks they had been fighting with when they were detained the first time.

I have issues with the not charging and trying them, but I also understand some of the reasoning behind it. I further understand that some people will do things which are inappropriate and illegal. I refuse to blanket judge everyone for the actions of a few.

Darius, if I did that, I'd hate all Iranians. There is a double standard, inasmuch as you want people to make their decisions about you based on you, not based on your country's behavior. I'd ask that you judge those individuals who are implicated, and not the entire whole, as you ask that those not judge you based on the actions of the Iranian government.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Darius11 12]

WOW I don’t know how you can write that with a straight face.


So it is bad to make blanket statements but if we arrest every one who is a Muslim and in the same area that’s ok?

It is easy to say you can see why it is necessary to arrest anyone and risk even arresting an innocent person because that person is not you. Or it is not someone of your race or religion. I bet your view would change quickly if they started arresting people of your color and your belief.

Just like the many who can easily sit there and say if we kill a few thousand innocent Iraqis it will be worth it in the long run. I wonder if they would feel the same way if their children got killed? I bet not.


What I made was not a blanket statement. It was what we have seen so far.
Every time there is an unjustified shooting or murder as I like to call it. Or a torture case it is proven by a video or photograph. I am not so naïve to think that are military would let us know exactly what they are doing. I have never heard the military just come out and tell the truth specially when it reflects them in a bad way. The only time they do tell the truth (maybe the whole truth) is when there is hard evidence against them


Michelle you really need to do a little bit of research. I like you as a person but your views are simply wrong

Quote

And then, of course, the flushing of the Q'ran. Which, once brought to the news media, killed several (a dozen?) people during riots in Muslim countries. Which then was found to not have happened at all....

Acording to the US militeryThere was even an incident mentioned that the Q'ran was urinated on. They did also say that the solder who did it reported the incident right away. That was not the only incident.

Quote

I also seem to recall several detainees who were deemed "innocent" or unchargeable, and were released. Brought back to their country, and were either rearrested or wounded (maybe killed) in subsequent battles with the US. And before some folks cry "well, they learned how to hate the US while they were at Gitmo," they were fighting with the same folks they had been fighting with when they were detained the first time.

Wrong again

So the driver who they arrested by mistake and lost years of his life and is still in prison even thou according to the US government he did not have any thing to do with terrorist activities he should be ok with spending god knows how long in prison. Let me guess when he gets out if he gets out and hates the US it will be because we are free right?

There is endless people like him.
If they are guilty charge them.

I am not sure if you know this but under the status that they are imprisoned. They can be held even with out being charged until the war on terror is over. The chances of the war on terror coming to an end and us having no more terrorism ever is the same chance that the war on drugs had on eliminating all drug use.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[mikkey 0]

Lawrocket puts it well, the lack of due process and check and balances is a slippery slide no matter how "noble" the cause. There is enough evidence from several detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo that the "system" is flawed.

The way this is handled and denies rights to the detainees, it works against the values the west is supposed to defend. There are now so many proven cases where innocent people (or very small fish) have been caught up in the "enemy combatant" system that it must be changed. One example: why - after 3 years+ - has no one - no one - actually been tried in front of the military commission?

I saw an interesting documentary the other week about the origin of the term "enemy combatant" and the military tribunal / commission system. It was the case of a bunch of German spies / saboteurs who landed in the US during WW2.

AFAIK the evidence was not very strong and as they had not yet committed any sabotage. So the legal system had not much scope to impose harsh punishment if found guilty. The administration - keen on "hanging the suspects" - created the new definition of enemy combatant and installed a new military commission system so that standard of proof could be lowered and penalties increased. The commission promptly condemned most of the accused to death. There were a lot of people who were very uncomfortable (from a constitution / due process point of view) how this case was run - so the system was never used again - until the Bush administration "discovered" it to handle detainees in "the war on terror".

The key concern with Gitmo and other facilities is still that it defies many of the values and rights western style societies are built on.

Saying that due process and protection from torture applies to one person but not another - and somebody without real accountability somewhere in the chain of command making that decision - is undermining the values of a free and fair society. One of the objectives of many terrorists is to undermine the western style of democracy and values - why is the Bush administration helping them in doing so?

PS: VP have you learned how to create a poll at Fox News? You are clearly not interested in really measuring peoples oppinion the way you constructed the choices, i.e. one optionout of four to say Gitmo is wrong and in order to click it you have to identify yourself with the term "20% crowd". Why no posting a real poll?

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,107]

>one optionout of four to say Gitmo is wrong and in order to click it
> you have to identify yourself with the term "20% crowd". Why no
> posting a real poll?

Remarkably, even with the wording that makes it clear what choices one should not pick, it's running 45% gulag and 45% too-easy. Would be interesting to do the same poll and word it differently:

1. I think there have been abuses at Gitmo and other US prison camps
2. Everything is fine; leave it as it is
3. Get more sadistic torturers in there!

[penniless 0]

unfortunately, what people believe is not always in line with the facts. A large % of Americans believe extraterrestrials are walking among us, yet no evidence exists.

What we DO know for sure is that Gitmo is run under rules that have no place in the western values system.

[Michele 1]

Quote

So it is bad to make blanket statements ...

Yes. Always not the best choice to make. All dems suck. Or, alternatively, all repubs suck. Or all of Clinton's actions were excellent. All Bush's choices were wrong. Blanket statements prevent looking at, understanding, and re-deciding for ones self where they stand on a particular topic. All Muslims are murdering assholes. That's a blanket statement. Is it correct? Not in the least. See how blanket statements do nothing either to forward or defend a position or argument?

Blanket statements are wrong.

Quote

I bet your view would change quickly if they started arresting people of your color and your belief.

Well, "they" have been beheading people of my color, perhaps of my religious beliefs, and sometimes of my country and gender. Does that make all muslims bad? No. Does it make the individual whose actions I speak of bad? Absolutely.

Quote

What I made was not a blanket statement. It was what we have seen so far.

See, I think it is. How long as Gitmo been there? How many people are being held there? How many of them have been murdered?

When you look at it from that perspective, you'll see that "all" service men and women working at Gitmo are not murderers. Not all of them are disrespectful. Not all of them (add the comment here.). When one makes that assertation, then one does indeed make a blanket statement.

Quote

Michelle you really need to do a little bit of research. I like you as a person but your views are simply wrong

I like you, too. And to me, your views are just as wrong as you perceive mine to be. As I said in another thread, how cool is it that we can sit here, typing away, and express ourselves like this? Way way cool...

Quote

Acording to the US militeryThere was even an incident mentioned that the Q'ran was urinated on. They did also say that the solder who did it reported the incident right away. That was not the only incident.

From what I understand, there was a single incident of the Q'ran being urinated on...and that indeed is not flushing it down a toilet. And even if it were flushed down the toilet, to me that is not a reason to go rioting and kill people. The point I was making with my comment is simply this: the media published a story which was beyond inaccurate, and that story cost people their lives.

In thinking about that incident, I seem to recall some photos that were published in Britain about torture and abuse in Iraq. Those photos were shown to be false, too. In other words, reckless media reporting has cost people lives, and is not to be trusted completely without finding out the entire story (like the Britain situation I'm talking about.).

Quote

Quote
I also seem to recall several detainees who were deemed "innocent" or unchargeable, and were released. Brought back to their country, and were either rearrested or wounded (maybe killed) in subsequent battles with the US. And before some folks cry "well, they learned how to hate the US while they were at Gitmo," they were fighting with the same folks they had been fighting with when they were detained the first time.

Wrong again
How am I wrong? Did that not occur? Or did you not hear about it? I'm not sure what you're calling wrong. Please clarify, and I'll try to answer it more in depth for you. Deal?

Quote

I am not sure if you know this but under the status that they are imprisoned. They can be held even with out being charged until the war on terror is over. The chances of the war on terror coming to an end and us having no more terrorism ever is the same chance that the war on drugs had on eliminating all drug use.

I don't know if you read it in my earlier post, or if I wasn't clear, but I agree - that's a difficult thing to handle. I think there is a way to handle it, but I'm not sure what it is.

Mikkey, you're right - it's the slippery slope. I haven't ever said differently...I just am not sure what would be a viable alternative.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Acording to the US militeryThere was even an incident mentioned that the Q'ran was urinated on.

OK can you explain this one to me? I'm not being sarcastic, I really am wondering why of all the crap alleged to be going on in Gitmo that people fixate on the treatment of an object instead of the the treatment of human beings!

There's dozens (millions) of more copies of that book to be had, what's the problem with one getting dirty? Sure I can understand that it's insulting to someone who practices Islam...but wtf, it's an insult. People get over insults. They don't get over torture.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 3,107]

>I really am wondering why of all the crap alleged to be going on in
>Gitmo that people fixate on the treatment of an object instead of
>the the treatment of human beings!

It is ironic that, in another thread here, some SC folks are insisting that the treatment of an object IS as important as the treatment of human beings.

[Michele 1]

Quote

It is ironic that, in another thread here, some SC folks are insisting that the treatment of an object IS as important as the treatment of human beings.

Not I....

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[ViperPilot 0]

I wouldn't doubt there are innocent people there. That's unfortunate and I do hope their situations are cleared up immediately. However, you are misled to think that we just round up hundreds of people simply because of their religion, creed, etc. There is reasoning behind each one. There is evidence against them, or they were caught in the act of planning a terrorist act, or something along those lines. I'm sure there are some there that are there simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's unfortunate and I hope they are freed quickly, but to say we just arrest people because they're muslim is ludicrous.

Quote

I am willing to bet a lot more shit goes down then we know. Why is it that all the bad things we hear about have video or pictures to prove that they happened?

Probably, but that goes both ways. You think you know all about how the war is in Iraq, you have no idea. Do Americans behead people? No. Do we have total disregard for unarmed civilians? No. Do we purposely kidnap and murder civilians? No. But, you wouldn't really know about this stuff because its too easy to claim the American military are the sadistic ones. Until you see a little girl's head chopped off by a machete, you'll keep thinking that way. But many of us know it is the terrorists who are the sadistic scumbags plaguing this earth, not the military. So yes, much more shit goes down than you know, but it's not from us, it's coming from the terrorists.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

You are clearly not interested in really measuring peoples oppinion the way you constructed the choices, i.e. one optionout of four to say Gitmo is wrong and in order to click it you have to identify yourself with the term "20% crowd"

I'm very interested in measuring opinions. You are correct, I looked at it closer and the 20% term is too subjective. I apologize for this error and would change the wording if I knew how...can you even edit that stuff? If I find out, I'll edit the wording to be more objective. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

3. Get more sadistic torturers in there!

I would vote for that one! I'm just wondering why all the bleeding hearts didnt scream this much when the US civilians got there heads sawed off? I never get an answer on that one.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

I'm just wondering why all the bleeding hearts didnt scream this much when the US civilians got there heads sawed off?

Yeah seriously. Not that prisoners don't deserve humane treatment, but why do some people seem to care more about the well being of terrorists than they do of the innocent contracters?

[Zenister 0]

we as a nation have no influence or responsibility for the way the enemy behaves.. we are completely responsible for the way WE behave, no matter what is done against us...

it is what distinguishes us from them

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[akarunway 1]

we as a nation have no influence or responsibility for the way the enemy behaves.. we are completely responsible for the way WE behave, no matter what is done against us... ======================================Thank you. I read today we will not allow>
http://www.amnestyusa.org/< into Gitmo. What's up w/ that? And to be honest if some fucking country came here>invaded< to steal our commodities (oil maybe?) I'd be doing >whatever< nessesary to stop it. We quit trying to take over the fucking world and maybe they will quit fuckin w/ us

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[rasmack 0]

I get so tired...

US constitution, article VI, clause 2

Quote

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...

So, the "law of the land" is:

3rd. Geneva convention, Part I, article 4

Quote

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy
...
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements...
...
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
...

Quote

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Pair this with:

3rd. Geneva convention, Part I, article 1

Quote

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

and you reach the conclusion that two violations of the 3rd. Geneva convention are clear:

1) Marking people as "enemy combattants" without due process by a "competent tribunal" is illegal according to the Geneva convention and therefore illegal under US law.

2) It is no excuse that "they are terrorists" as the US is under law obliged to abide by the convention in all circumstances.

You may argue until you turn blue in the face whether the people detained "deserve it". It still does not make the detainment legal.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements...

Interesting, but I looked further...

Article 4

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So, looking further, they do not meet criteria number one, as they are not members of one of the Party's armed forces. They also do not meet criteria number two because they do not meet sub-criterias b, c, and d. Thusly, under full legalities of the Geneva Convention, they are not legally EPWs/POWs.

So, legally they can be held as they are now because they do not have the protection of the Geneva Convention; wether that is morally right or not is a separate argument, but it is definitly legal. It is plainly seen above in Article 4 that there has been no breaking of the Geneva Convention by the US.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements...

Interesting, but I looked further...

Article 4

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So, looking further, they do not meet criteria number one, as they are not members of one of the Party's armed forces. They also do not meet criteria number two because they do not meet sub-criterias b, c, and d. Thusly, under full legalities of the Geneva Convention, they are not legally EPWs/POWs.

So, legally they can be held as they are now because they do not have the protection of the Geneva Convention; wether that is morally right or not is a separate argument, but it is definitly legal. It is plainly seen above in Article 4 that there has been no breaking of the Geneva Convention by the US.

That depends on whether the conditions you stated were actually fulfilled, doesn't it? The GC's give the benefit of doubt to the prisoners, not to the captors. And without any hearings, there certainly is plenty of doubt.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

That depends on whether the conditions you stated were actually fulfilled

Conditions b,c, and d were NOT filled. Therefore they are not legally considered EPWs/POWs, per the GC. That's what I was getting at. Yes the GC does give the benefit of a doubt to the prisoners, but since these detainees are not legally held under the GC, nothing in the GC applies to them. That should be agreed on. A sound argument here would be a moral-based one. The portion of the GC I pasted 100% proves that how they are held is indeed legal. However, is it morally correct? That's a better question to ask.

[billvon 3,107]

>(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
>(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
>(c) That of carrying arms openly;
>(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

US troops often don't meet those requirements. Would you be OK with indefinite imprisonment of US troops by, say, China?