I’m torn on the whole issue. The emotional side of me says If a detainee is a murdering terrorist with info that could save lives, then let’s get all Jack Bauer on his ass. But the intellectual side says I don’t trust the government enough to put appropriate limits on what’s done and to whom, plus, the accused should be able to have a lawyer and a trial like Moussaoui. Ain’t nothin’ like living in a (dangerous) catch-22 world.
U.N. panel sees Gitmo as torture
A key U.N. panel yesterday joined European and United Nations leaders in urging the Bush administration to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects there violates the world’s ban on torture.
The report by the Committee Against Torture came as the U.S. military disclosed that prisoners wielding improvised weapons clashed with guards trying to stop a detainee from apparently committing suicide.
The panel also said the United States should ensure that no prisoner is subjected to torture.
And then there’s this:
Big Fish: It’s Time To Put The al-Qaida Ringleaders On Trial
Four and a half years after Sept. 11, we are still struggling to decide whether this “War on Terror” should be fought in courts, on a battlefield, or in some black hole in between. The government uses courts to prosecute low-level terrorists: the guys who trained at camps in Afghanistan, or played paintball in the Virginia woods. But it uses the rules of war, modified for its own convenience, to indefinitely hold the ringleaders either at Guantanamo or at so-called “black sites” around the world. Those black sites were appealing precisely because the government intended to hold no trials. There was never a plan for what would happen next.
…
The problem with the legal argument—and, to be fair, it’s a point that I have made myself—is that it’s a cop-out. Claiming that torture evidence could taint future prosecutions was, initially, a very good argument against abusing captives. But, years after the torture has happened, it’s somehow morphed into an argument against holding open criminal trials. The government still has a legal and constitutional burden to afford its prisoners some due process. That doesn’t end because it decided to torture them.
Imagine yourself on United 93 – or one of the other hijacked airplanes the suicide Al Queda terrorists wantonly killed thousands of us with. Imagine that the terrorist who just slashed your wife’s throat had been released from jail for humanist reasons. Imagine your rage!
We are at war, and in war soldiers are not let lose to kill, but are held in prison camps till hostilities cease. War is terrible, beyond description. But, it is a fact and it has been through our strenght we are not an english colony nor do we speak German or Japanese. In war, prisoners are almost always held as prisoners so they cannot be freed to kill again.
There is ample basis that this rule be followed stricly when the enemy is a fanatical terrorist whose code includes sneaking back into our society so he can kill again.
Now imagine if we released all 1,000 terrorists and just one of the released prisoners returned to do a terrorist act on you or your family. It certainly would be a nice world not to need prisons and police. But, we are not there, yet. The folks in the military are our neighbors before and after their service. Most of share the abhorence of torture. If there is torture, it is being done by those exceptional few bullies we have among us.
I may vote for the candidate who supports releasing the quantamino prisoners. Voting is the way it works in this country. We knew George Bust was hard minded about this issue, and we elected him with a mandate. Not supporting our government in tough times weakens us and emboldens our enemny. Let’s hang tough till the next election,
Jim
I wonder what they suggest be done with POWs then? The whole idea is that they are locked up indefinitely until the war is over. For terrorists, they could just shoot them and be done with it. And people wonder why we don’t work with the international diplomats to solve problems.
Personally, Jim, I would be greatly shocked and horrified if a guilty suicide bomber was ever convicted and given jail time…let alone let out.
“I would be greatly shocked and horrified if a guilty suicide bomber was ever convicted and given jail time…let alone let out.”
Don’t you mean an attempted suicide bomber?!
Jim and Unc’ Dave, Strongly suggest you go to
Without taking a position on Gitmo…I don’t trust or care what the UN says about anything anymore. I’m one of those “whackos” who thinks the UN should be disbanded and a new organization, made up of new people from around the globe who have absolutely no connection to the former UN, should be formed. In other words, no slipping former UN diplomats and bureaucrats into the new group. Start fresh. The UN is broken beyond repair.
You can’t win this game, learn from history. For every one you imprison, hundreds will replace them. They become martyrs and inspiration for the cause. I have no good answers, and neither does anyone else. Only a political solution or genocide will end this. Religious fanatics are all irrational by definition, whether they be Muslim, Christian or Hindu.
Ugh. I spent enough time on this site in the tax debate that I don’t want to sink into another one. So here’s the super nutshell version and then I’m gone (hopefully):
You’re assuming that everyone in there belongs in there. There’s reason to believe many of them don’t. Maybe you don’t need to have a full “beyond a reasonable doubt” trial, but you need something to determine if there’s good reason to keep them there. Indefinite detention without trial or counsel is un-American. Bush, to his credit, is finally starting to move in that direction. The POW comparison isn’t good because the WOT doesn’t have a well defined end like a war between nations does. As someone said, it’s more like the war on drugs. Your scare tactics don’t faze me. As for torture, it could be limited in scope but that’s not definite. Either way, it’s wrong and most experts agree it does not produce useful intelligence, television shows notwithstanding.
Jim, you’re wrong in the sense that you think we can either keep them forever or let them go free and that there is no middle ground. Further, if this is a war and they are POW’s then let’s give them the rights that POW’s have, rather than calling them “enemy combatants”
Also, you are assuming that everyone in gitmo is a terrorist, that they are guilty until proven innocent. Some were picked up on the battlefield, but even they could have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some were handed over by governments, such as Pakistan, which are dictatorships that should not be trusted. And some were turned in by private citizens who wanted ransom money. Again, the citizens can’t really be trusted either. We have a process to determine if someone is innocent or guilty, and it is called a trial. In a trial, the accused is allowed to see the evidence against them and have a lawyer argue their case. If you have a better idea, too bad. That’s what a majority of Americans have agreed upon.
Now please, look at what our country is doing! We are going around the globe, taking people from their homes and families, flying them to a communist dictatorship (Cuba) away from international law, so that they can be “interrogated” (tortured? Depends on your definition) without habeas corpus. We are also putting some detainees on planes and flying them to countries where we know they will be tortured! Oh, and our private phone calls at home are being monitored. And we are doing all of this in the name of freedom?
The sick fact is that none of this will save lives, because people will say anything under torture to make the pain or fear stop. It is the most inaccurate way to get information. Also, a terrorist in a Yemenese cell has no clue what is happening in the Spanish or British cell. Especially years in advance. So even if they did want to cooperate, they are of little intelligence value.
Hmm. If what is being done is so OK, why is it not done on US soil?
The norm now seems to be: anything goes so long as it’s not done in or to America.
POWs should be protected by international convention. Those detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are not receiving such protection. So please don’t call them POWs.
I don’t blame the US for wanting to protect itself; obviously it has every right to do so. But surely there needs to be limits on the lengths nations can or should go to provide such protection. The US is clearly taking the moral (and legal) low ground on this one.
Russ Campbell
Guys, the US GOVERMENT DOES NOT TORTURE PEOPLE.
That’s why the suspects are flown over other nations to be “interrogated” by the police forces of those countries.
Unfortunately, the US has a strong tradition of doing unamerican things and supporting unamerican people off US soil. See South Vietnam and Iran for details.
Zarcharias Moussawi escaped the death penalty because of his lawyer’s insanity plea. Moussawi himself called it “a bunch of American bullshit.” As he was lead off to prison, he was heard to shout “America, you’ve lost; I’ve won!!!” Clearly, he was right: our “justice” system is a bunch of American bullshit.
Back in the early 20th Century, we knew how to deal with radicals. General Black Jack Pershing was lined them up before the firing squad, and slaughtered pigs before the terrified Muslims, who believe that even touching one of those filthy animals will block them from paradise and damn them to hell. Talk about torture!! He splattered the bullets with pig blood and buried the enemy combatants in with the pork. He then let the last one go, and when word got out, he never had another terrorist attack again.
>most experts agree it does not produce useful intelligence,
So the guys donig this for the government are doing it just for fun then? Or they have no access to these experts? They’re just total idiots torturing people and thinking they’re getting good intel when they’re not?
What if it does yield some good intel. Are you then wililng to torture?
they aren’t POW’s….they are enemy combatants (terrorists). They were put in Gitmo so they wouldn’t fall under our Justice system(seems thats a law).
If you believe they are being tortured, well, what can I say. I don’t. One mans torture is another mans jail term. Almost half of them can’t be sent home, because we (the inhumane tortorters) won’t send them back to their own countries if there is a chance of them being abused or executed. We just sent 6 or 15(i honestly don’t remember) Chinese Muslims to Albania since China said they would jail them and try them for terrorism and they would be executed, so none of our *enlightened* European friends, nor our peace loving friends to the North, would take them so we finally got Albabnia to take them. It is, after all, a Muslim Country.
They are fed food compatable to their religion, they are allowed to do daily prayers as prescribed by Islam, none of them has gone home without his head attached, in fact not 1 has died at Gitmo. Obviously, they must be pretty well taken care of, since they were almost able to over come their Marine guards yesterday. So save your piety for the American, Phillapino, Korean, Japanese, German, British civilian prisoners of the Sunni and al quida insurgants……most of those folks don’t come out alive or with their heads.
Joshua, They are called “enemy combatants” so the Bush Administration can get around the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War and Torture. The Administration has not allowed the International Red Cross complete access to the prisoners and the IRC is not allowed to publish anything without US approval first. That means there is no independent oversight of what is happening.
So how the heck can you or anyone else claim that the prisoners are not being tortured? The Administration doesn’t have any credibility so they can’t be believed. Amnesty International has documented cases of released detainees who claimed they were tortured.
We do know that they are kept in solitary confinement. We do know that they are not allowed visits from family and only supervised visits with outside lawyers. Military lawyers are restricted in what they might ask or do.
By lowering ourselves to the same level as al Qaida is just plain wrong. Because they are animals is not an excuse for us to become animals.
Hmmmm….Australian citizen David Hicks was arrested in Afghanistan guarding an obsolete tank. Yes, he had undergone al Qaeda paramilitary training. Yes, he had been at a desert seminar attended by bin Laden. Yes, he had fought to defend the muslim minority in Bosnia against the genocidal regime. Yes, he is a misguided fool.
But…a terrorist? I doubt he has the brains, quite honestly. Why not put him on trial…give him the same rights enjoyed by the lowest rapist or baby killer? What is the harm? If he is found gulity, imprison him. If he is not guilty, set him free. That is the way the law works in civilised countries.
Jack (aged 14), please be careful…how do we define what a radical is? One who disagrees with the majority opinion? Today’s protestor is tomorrow’s radical and the next day’s “terrorist”. It is a very thin line and the powerful will twist it to suit their agenda. Don’t give away your faculty for critical thought.
One time, for about 90 seconds, I thought I was going to drown in the Tule River in California. I still remember the terror of that. So, don’t tell me water boarding isn’t torture.
Somebody out to waterboard Rumsfeld or Alberto Gonzales and THEN let them call it “stress.”
Oh so many opinions. It is so very confusing. That is why we hold elections. Majority rules. As much as I don’t like the way President Bush is doing most of his job, we’ve elected him and I’m glad he makes decisions and sticks to them. At least we are not in a quagmire of doubt waiting for a “Quaker consensus” while our enemies hijack more planes and bomb more buildings, ships or embassies.
Jim
There’s no need to go around the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention allows these people to be tortured or killed at will. Read it for yourself.