Can’t have it both ways, Diogenes. If we charge them with crimes, then they’re no longer entitled to protections of the Geneva Conventions, as these apply to prisoners of war and not criminals.
In any case, said Geneva Conventions require that prisoners of war be allowed to send and receive mail and parcels from their family. It doesn’t require phone calls, email, hugs and kisses, or conjugal visits.
I know this disappoints you terribly. They obviously drafted these agreements without your input.
The article that Squink linked to makes it clear that torture is being used and that the Pentagon has been aware that they may not be operating within the law.
<snip>
One technique that I have heard referred to recently was what we called “Chinese water torture” in the 1950’s. It sounds like it would be easy to deal with, but it is called torture for a reason.
Don’t think that because something is psychological that it isn’t real pain. I have had physical pain that made me wish for death, but I have had mental anguish that was worse.
As evidenced by what Durbin described, physical torture is also being used. I don’t think anyone knows the full extent yet.
Did you notice that one of our own men was beaten to the point that he is brain damaged and suffers seisures? That was before the guards realized that he was an American soldier.
When were the prisoners at Gitmo ever classified as POWs and afforded their rights under the GC? I’m not the one trying to have it both ways, your president is. I’m saying pick one or the other. Either call them POWs (which the US refuses to do and I can’t believe you didn’t know that) or charge them as criminals. As it stands, we have refused to accuse them of ANYTHING.
Mr Moto, you are aware that the prisoners at Gitmo do not have the rights of Prisoners of War, aren’t you?
They’re not getting treatment that is acceptable according to the Geneva convention.
Even if they charged these people, which they haven’t, their treatment is unacceptable and reduces us as a people to be at their level. If in fact they are guilty. Are you sure all of them are guilty?
It’s nice to see that the good citizens of the board, who are so quick to jump on a Republican for overheated rhetoric, are so forgiving when a Democrat exhibits the same fault.
I’m certainly not saying that the situation in Guantanamo shouldn’t be criticized, and I have criticized it myself. But by making the comparison that he did, Senator Durbin went too far. By doing so, he allowed the targets of his criticism an easier out - they can dismiss his remarks as essentially unserious. He also may have emboldened our enemies abroad not skilled in the finer points of political debate here.
It is also an insult to victims of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. Whetever has happened at Gitmo pales in comparison with these massive crimes, and overusing these comparisons serves to minimize the truly horrific scale of what these men did.
It was poorly done, and Senator Durbin should have apologized. Not doing so compounded this offense.
Oh, that daffy, daffy Doggyknees! What a fuzzy-thinking liberal doofus, suggesting that prisoners get hugs and kisses and conjugal visits, cappucino…
Fuck you, Mr Moto, if you even THINK a statement about political strategies by Santorum is remotely comparable to someone pointing out the grave abuses going on in OUR NAME. Fuck you for making this political, and a giant fuck you to everyone who condones or excuses this shit.
Proud to be an American, not me. Oh no, not with this shit going on. We SHOULD be ashamed, dammit, because this is not what we are supposed to be. We are supposed to be the good guys. If we’re the good guys, I’d HATE to see what the bad guys look like.
I think Moto is an insult to the very concept of honesty.
Anything to further your repressive agenda.
Nice way to avoid the issue, dipshit.
Are the prisoners at Guantanamo considered POWs and afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention, as you imply above, or are they not?
If they are, why aren’t they being treated as the Geneva Convention requires. If they are not, why aren’t they being afforded the rights and the treatment accorded to prisoners who are charged with crimes under the American legal system?
If you had been living in a cave for five years and when you came out you heard about something like, say, the glowsticks up the ass but weren’t told who the perpetrators were, just that innocent people were capture by an invading army and had glowsticks shoved up their asses, would you immediately gues it was Americans delivering this service or might you guess it was a country less inclined towards human rights? If someone told you to guess whether it was Americans or say, Chinese communists, what would you guess first?
There’s been several threads on this in GD. The Prisoners at Gitmo are supposedly affored the full rights as if they were POW’s. The ICRC is allowed full access and does Inspections. They have apparently made complaints, and the USA has made changes in response to the ICRC complaints. ONLY the ICRC has the right to inspect and make complaints.
Here is a quote: "The ICRC has had regular access to the persons detained at Bagram, but not immediately after their arrest. Initially detainees were only held for limited periods of time before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay or released. However, since mid-2003 many persons have been detained for longer periods at Bagram, in some cases for more than a year. Therefore, the ICRC is increasingly concerned by the fact that the US authorities have not resolved the questions of their legal status and of the applicable legal framework.
The ICRC’s observations regarding certain aspects of the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees in Bagram and Guantanamo have not yet been adequately addressed."
Currently, it seems that the ICRC big complaint is indeed the prisoners status. The holding power (that’s us) is allowed to have a *hearing *to determine whether or not such prisoners should be held as War Criminals or POW’s. If they are held as War Criminals, the trial would be like that at Nuremberg, ie a Military trail. This is pefectly legal under both International and US law. (SCOTUS having made a ruling about this in the case of the Nazi sabotuers who came ashore in those u-boats during WWII). The problem is, when they wrote the GC, they apparently left out any time limit on how long a delay can be before such a hearing is held to determine status. Thus, we are using a legal, if not particulary moral loophole to keep them in limbo.
And, even if we held a hearing, and determined they were to be charged as War Criminals, they would get a Military Tribunal, not an American type jury trial.
I think you should better educate yourself about what is actually going on at Guantanamo Bay. These men have been denied POW status for three years for a reason. It has been a year since the Supreme Court of the United States said that they cannot be held without due process.
So much for the Geneva Conventions. So much for the Constitution.
Durbin did not compare all of the situation in Gitmo with what Pol Pot did and what the Nazis did. He read one description of something that is going on there and said that it sounded like something that could have gone on in Pol Pot’s Cambodia or the Nazi concentration camps. You have to twist it to make it anything else.
And he is right! It certainly isn’t something that I ever would have thought would have gone on under an American flag!! Every day that we mince words about the level of injustice and torture and inhumanity that we Americans perpetrate in the prison camps, we become more and more like the very thing that we have pointed to with the most revulsion all of our lives.
I don’t give a flying fuck whether he’s a Democrat or a Republican or a Sand Dobbie. I am sick to the death of partisan politics.
Doesn’t anyone have any principles anymore?
[politician]
Let me check the most recent polls and get back to you on that.
[/pol]
Cite?
For gods sake, READ. :mad: "Here is a quote: "The ICRC has had regular access to the persons detained at Bagram, but not immediately after their arrest. Initially detainees were only held for limited periods of time before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay or released. However, since mid-2003 many persons have been detained for longer periods at Bagram, in some cases for more than a year. Therefore, the ICRC is increasingly concerned by the fact that the US authorities have not resolved the questions of their legal status and of the applicable legal framework.
The ICRC’s observations regarding certain aspects of the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees in Bagram and Guantanamo have not yet been adequately addressed."
Go back to that GD thread, then to the link to the ICRC site, and read every fucking word that the ONLY organization on this Earth has any right to do Inspections under the GC has said.
Do note my word “supposedly” as the ICRC isn’t entirely happy with us. Neither are they making complaints to the World Court, either, so…
I’m surprised at y’all. Expecting a Bush admin asslicker like Moto to look at reason. He’s a jerk like the rest of the Bush asslickers.
Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
PART III, Section l, Article 17
Well, now, if they haven’t been declared to be actual honest-to-goodness POW, then the IRC can go pound burdocks, no? They can’t make any determination on thier own?
And IIRC, in an act of astonishing geo-political prescience, we have exempted ourselves from the vexations of the World Court, so as to circumvent tiresome proceedings.