Guantanamo Bay - Camp Delta/X-Ray

[weemadando]

I'm seeking opinions on it. See the poll.

Legally refers to international law. Ethically refers to your personal opinion.

Is it right to be holding people there, under the conditions that they are in, without any rights?

[Crown]

I chose the last option. It totally viloates the entire Geneva convention, if they aren't combatants than they are civilians, if they are combatants then they do still have the rights.

[GonK]

last option.
was going to try to explain why but it's too late here and i need some sleep.

basically taliban fighters were defending there government from attack by foreign power.
either prisoner of war (geneva convention)
or
civilian prisoners (sure some sort of human rights apply)

either way I have to ask what right america has to hold these people?

[phongn]

I chose the last option. It totally viloates the entire Geneva convention, if they aren't combatants than they are civilians, if they are combatants then they do still have the rights.

I disagree. Civilians can be combatants as well. The status of the Al Queda forces in Camp X-Ray more properly belong under the designation "illegal combatant," whereas the Taliban forces are "legal combatants."

[Crown]

I disagree. Civilians can be combatants as well. The status of the Al Queda forces in Camp X-Ray more properly belong under the designation "illegal combatant," whereas the Taliban forces are "legal combatants."

But there's the rub isn't it? What proof has there been that these are Al Queda and not Taliban. IIRC wasn't the administration's whole selling point on the war that they were one in the same? Either way human rights still apply.

[Stormbringer]

I think the legality of it is a grey area because of the mess that is the Taliban/Al Queda combatants status.

Ethically, locking them up and interogating them for information on potential future attacks is perfectly ethical provided that humane methods of interogation are used. There's nothing wrong with holding them.

[Crown]

I think the legality of it is a grey area because of the mess that is the Taliban/Al Queda combatants status.

Ethically, locking them up and interogating them for information on potential future attacks is perfectly ethical provided that humane methods of interogation are used. There's nothing wrong with holding them.

When they have no access to legal council, when 3rd party observers aren't allowed to interview them and check up on their status, how can you assure that they are beign treated ethically?

Look I know that these people are not in the most righteous cause that ever existed, but that is no reason to through the key away when you lock them up.

[weemadando]

Look I know that these people are not in the most righteous cause that ever existed, but that is no reason to through the key away when you lock them up.

Did you see Foreign Correspondant the other day?

My god.

Lights on 24 hours a day. Dischordant noise/music piped in 24 hours a day. Living in a wire mesh cage 2.4mx<2m. And you are allowed out twice a week for 20 minutes each time for excercise by yourself. Of course, I'm guessing that silence rules would be in effect etc, with talking between the inmates banned. Families that had been in limited contact (POW mail - censored, no point of origin etc) have had their letters returned unopened for the past 8 months. I'm also guessing that they aren't allowed access to news items (be it TV, radio, print)...

How the hell does ANYONE deserve that?

[Stormbringer]

When they have no access to legal council, when 3rd party observers aren't allowed to interview them and check up on their status, how can you assure that they are beign treated ethically?

That's the rub of it. People have claimed all sorts of horror stories based on nebulous stories but everything released seems to contradict them. I think that we do need to allow outside observors.

And since when have POWs been entitled to trials? Both groups certainly qualify as combatants (legal or illegal) rather than criminals.

Look I know that these people are not in the most righteous cause that ever existed, but that is no reason to through the key away when you lock them up.

No, but the fact is that you don't let them loose to kill again. Until we can release them with out them returning to war with us and the new government in Afhghanistan it's reasonable to hold them. To do otherwise would be incredibly stupid.

[weemadando]

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s850760.htm

A link to the foreign correspondant websites version of the story.

[Stormbringer]

Did you see Foreign Correspondant the other day?

My god.

Lights on 24 hours a day. Dischordant noise/music piped in 24 hours a day. Living in a wire mesh cage 2.4mx<2m. And you are allowed out twice a week for 20 minutes each time for excercise by yourself. Of course, I'm guessing that silence rules would be in effect etc, with talking between the inmates banned. Families that had been in limited contact (POW mail - censored, no point of origin etc) have had their letters returned unopened for the past 8 months. I'm also guessing that they aren't allowed access to news items (be it TV, radio, print)...

How the hell does ANYONE deserve that?

With the excetion of the noise/music that's not that different from a super-max prison. None of those rules are unreasonable for trained and potentially/probably suicidal prisoners. The idea is to prevent them from coordinating uprisings and/or further attacks. Limting and censoring contact is routine for POWs and regular prisoners.

[weemadando]

With the excetion of the noise/music that's not that different from a super-max prison. None of those rules are unreasonable for trained and potentially/probably suicidal prisoners. The idea is to prevent them from coordinating uprisings and/or further attacks. Limting and censoring contact is routine for POWs and regular prisoners.

Oh I'm sorry, did you miss the bit about no legal representation, no official recognition of their detention. A complete lack of basic human rights. No trial, by ANY system.

I mean, hell, they've been in their for 15 damn months, if they haven't been able to crack these people in 15 months... Then well, the US sucks at interrogation.

Also, in regards to the "not releasing them until there is no chance of them killing again", many of these people were detained on SUSPICION of being Taliban members. Some were detained merely because they were in the same vicinity as others who were detained. Again, there is no reason to be holding these prisoners. And if you really want to hold them, then at least hold them in accordance with the goddamn Geneva Convention.

[Stormbringer]

Oh I'm sorry, did you miss the bit about no legal representation, no official recognition of their detention. A complete lack of basic human rights. No trial, by ANY system.

Since when have POWs been entitled to trials? These are combatants not criminals.

I mean, hell, they've been in their for 15 damn months, if they haven't been able to crack these people in 15 months... Then well, the US sucks at interrogation.

Who says we haven't got them to talk? But really that isn't the entire

Also, in regards to the "not releasing them until there is no chance of them killing again", many of these people were detained on SUSPICION of being Taliban members. Some were detained merely because they were in the same vicinity as others who were detained.

Part of the problem with fighting soldier that look no different that the civilians. If the nice terrorists/guerillas would just put on a uniforms then that'd solve it all.

We have been releasing them. Not all of them and not all at once but those that have been cleared are being released.

Again, there is no reason to be holding these prisoners. And if you really want to hold them, then at least hold them in accordance with the goddamn Geneva Convention.

Aside from the fact that the war is still going on and most of them would take up arms all over again. Yeah, lets just let soldiers go back to fighting and killing us.

And we have treated them humanely if not followed every last rule because they would harm our efforts to get information out of them. They have been treated humanely and that's what is important.

[phongn]

The IRC has been visiting the camp, IIRC, but they do not publically release their reports.

[weemadando]

The IRC has been visiting the camp, IIRC, but they do not publically release their reports.

Red Cross is granted supervised access to the camp on the condition that they can ONLY EVER report their observations (not findings, observations) to the authorities that run the camp.

[phongn]

The IRC has been visiting the camp, IIRC, but they do not publically release their reports.

Red Cross is granted supervised access to the camp on the condition that they can ONLY EVER report their observations (not findings, observations) to the authorities that run the camp.

Got a link?

[Knife]

People wishing to push this shit into the local or even federal courts must realize that this is not a criminal situation, rather a military issue. I wished that the so-called military tribunuals would start on some of these fuckers, but then again it has only been 15 months. How many mother fuckers wait longer than that in a criminal court?

[Vympel]

Did you see Foreign Correspondant the other day?

My god.

Lights on 24 hours a day. Dischordant noise/music piped in 24 hours a day. Living in a wire mesh cage 2.4mx<2m. And you are allowed out twice a week for 20 minutes each time for excercise by yourself. Of course, I'm guessing that silence rules would be in effect etc, with talking between the inmates banned. Families that had been in limited contact (POW mail - censored, no point of origin etc) have had their letters returned unopened for the past 8 months. I'm also guessing that they aren't allowed access to news items (be it TV, radio, print)...

How the hell does ANYONE deserve that?

I enjoyed the dodgy glorious motherland Soviet-style propaganda movies they were showing the troops at Gtmo to keep them reassured that they were doing "the right thing"

[weemadando]

The IRC has been visiting the camp, IIRC, but they do not publically release their reports.

Red Cross is granted supervised access to the camp on the condition that they can ONLY EVER report their observations (not findings, observations) to the authorities that run the camp.

Got a link?

It was mentioned in the Foreign Correspondant story. Look earlier in the thread.

[weemadando]

I enjoyed the dodgy glorious motherland Soviet-style propaganda movies they were showing the troops at Gtmo to keep them reassured that they were doing "the right thing"

That was damn hilarious. To start with I thought that it was a screen that the detainees were forced to watch, an "indoctrination" effort or something like that.

Then when they pointed out the fact that it was run before the movies on camp to "reassure" them, I nearly died laughing. Its sick. Fucking disgusting. And it gives us so much ammunition with which to mock.

I'm sorry? Who's been accusing certain groups of brainwashing their young recruits into believing without question? The United States of Al'Qaeda - I mean America? Damn. I would never have guessed.

[Axis Kast]

Legality is in this case objective. The United States will use any means possible to strengthen their argument that al-Qaeda, as terrorists, no longer fall within the confines of either the “civilian” or “combatant” communities. In that, they are largely correct. As terrorists, al-Qaeda are clearly combatants intending to deal harm. By extension, as combatants, they are no longer granted civilian status. They are at best irregulars. On any battlefield, they would be held, if captured, as prisoners of war. But strictly speaking, they serve no nation and more importantly, fail to abide by the “rules of war.” They are technically in violation of the Geneva Convention – which they never signed anyway. They are thus not afforded the protection of actual national combatants or regular soldiers. While indefinite detainment is extremely harsh, it is also legal. Why? Because al-Qaeda exists outside the bounds of legality. They are among the “gray area” where law becomes hazy. Who speaks for the silent?

As for ethics? I’d do the same thing if I were a member of the American government. Do I personally feel that what’s being done to these people is wrong? No. They deserve the treatment dealt to them from my point of view. But that’s really a non-sequiter; an appeal to emotion, if you will. As you have all doubtless guessed by this point already, the “right” or “wrong” of the situation doesn’t concern me. Indefinite containment and interrogation – even by “unacceptable” means – is preferable to their being free.

Also keep in mind that “absolute” torture of the physical type is generally avoided. Most nations – even China – deploy psychological torture wherever possible. It tends less toward obliging false information out of hopes of mercy.