Pjen, while I share some of your concerns, I watched that report, and though they mentioned Guantanamo, they then interviewed an ICRC representative, who said the difference between the British MOD film of Iraqi POWs, and the Iraqi film of US POWs was “intent”, and in this particular case the Iraqi regime was out of line, whereas the British weren’t.
Personally speaking, I wish I could scrub the expressions of fear on those servicepeople’s faces out of my mind. Not that I don’t think there’s equal fear being experienced in Bagram and Guantanamo.
You know, if I’m in a crack house when it’s raided, even if I’m not doing crack or anything illegal, I’m not going to be surprised when the cops place me under arrest and take me to jail until they can figure out what, if anything, I can be charged with. Quite frankly, I’d be bitching at myself for being so stupid as to be in the place to begin with. Your fellow countryman may have not been doing anything wrong in Afghanistan, but you have to ask yourself, “What the hell was he doing there to begin with?” After all, it’s not like Afghanistan under the Taliban was the place to go for vacation. Perhaps your country hasn’t protested his being held because your leaders know something you don’t. Frankly, I don’t sweat the issue of the folks being held at Gitmo. Why? Because despite claims to the contrary Bush & Co. aren’t smart enough to be able to pull off the fascist dictatorship their so often accused of desiring.
I agree 100% Tuckerfan, if I were in their shoes, or in the hypothetical crack house, I would expect to be arrested, too. I would expect to be questioned and detained. I probably would also be wondering what the hell I was doing to put myself in that sort of situation.
What I wouldn’t expect would be to be held for years with no charges being laid. That isn’t democratic or legal. I’m quite happy for them to be imprisoned for life if they’ve broken laws. But since they haven’t even been charged, let alone found guilty, I’m a little annoyed that the US government thinks it has some right to do this, and also that my leaders haven’t kicked up a fuss about it. Like I said, if they’ve done something wrong, I hope they get what’s coming to them, but I hope it’s done fairly and legally, not like this. If my leaders and your leaders know more about this and have proof or even good reason to suspect these detainees did something wrong, I fully support them charging them. I do not support them holding people, without trial or charges, for an indeterminate period of time. That is wrong. What the other side does or does not do, doesn’t even enter into the equation, IMO.
And I’ve never claimed that Bush was a fascist dictatorship. I just don’t think the US government is doing the right and legal thing in this case. I sweat the issue simply because it is wrong, illegal and inhumane.
How long do you think the US should be able to hold these non-American detainees, before charging them or freeing them ? Forever ? A decade ? A year ?
I wasn’t implying that you had. Its just that a lot of people who object to this war have been screeching that Bush is hell-bent for world domination. These are the same people who called Bush a drooling moron before 9/11. I don’t think that Bush is a drooling moron (but he’s certainly not far from it) and I don’t think that he’s bent on world domination. I mentioned in my post because it seemed to fit.
You know, if these guys had been picked up in a crack house, or were suspected of simple murder, I’d be pissed if they were held for more than a few months without being charged. However, they were picked up in an area occupied by folks who have no problems with slaughtering innocent men, women, and children by the thousands. In fact, they feel that they have a moral obligation to do so. Because of that, I’d rather the US government spend years holding them, while they make sure that they’re not a threat to anyone. I do think that if they are found to be innocent of wrong doing, that the government should monetarily compensate them for what they’ve had to endure. (Admittedly, the government probably won’t do that until decades after the person’s released. Nor will the money make up for it, but it’s better than turning them lose with little more than a plane ticket home.)
I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree then.
I don’t think it should be any different if they were picked up in a crack house, or a war zone. I think either situation demands charges being laid or freedom. I don’t think holding them for a decade then offering them a wad of cash as compensation if they are innocent of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time is sufficient or justifiable.
I’d don’t think the government should be in the business of holding anyone, on the off chance they may be a threat. Either they’re a threat and should be charged or they aren’t and should be let free after a resonable amount of time has passed to investigate. I submit that a reasonable amount of time ran out a long time ago.
[aside]I wasn’t trying to say you were implying I thought Bush was a fascist, I just wanted to make it clear that I didn’t think that way. Sorry if I made it seem like I was accusing you of putting words in my mouth, I wasn’t trying to do that. And I don’t see what this current war in Iraq has to do with the detainees either, but that’s probably another thread.[/aside]
Indeed, we will have to agree to disagree, Goo. I don’t like that they’re being held for so long, but at the same time I don’t like that 3,000 or so innocent folks died because of a bunch of nutjobs. If holding a few hundred folks for a couple of years prevents that from happening again, I can live with that.
It may very well not be the right thing to do, as it might turn some folks against us, who might have otherwise just ignored us, but I don’t have any better solution. These are very dangerous times, my friend, and there’s not much we can do about it without running the risk of making things worse.
But people aren’t equal. A person who contributes positively to a society is an asset, a person who murders innocents (whether it be one or a million or more) is an onus on society.
When you’re dealing with a mass-murderer you can’t afford to make any mistakes. Because if you screw up, lots and lots of people could die.
Germany has banned the Nazi party, I don’t hear of any many folks (outside of the racist nutbags, anyway) getting their panties into a bunch over that and screaming about how it’s a violation of anyone’s right to deny them to form or join the Nazi party.
[quote]
…It just disgusts me to see people who seize on everything the US does and twist it around so that they can screech, “The US is evil!”…
Cite? Except for comments made by foreign enemies, the only time that I hear anyone say “The US is evil” is when a conservative is claiming that someone protesting the war said it.
On balance: U.S. prisioners, including the ones at Gitmo, are generally being treated humanely (but not fairly, in the case of Gitmo). Iraq’s prisoners are being treated horribly.
The prolonged detention without trial at Gitmo is in fact a shameful thing. The government should charge these guys or release them. It’s not like they haven’t had any time to collect evidence.
See also George Monbiot’s editorial on this matter:
where he rehearses the arguments about Gunatanamo and also details official US collusion in the killing of POWs at Qala-i-Zeini, Mazar-i-Sharif and Dasht-i-Leili in Afghanistan and their part in the cover-up.
Makes seven detainees and four shot in the head seem small beer!
But enough of this serious stuff, in a letter to today’s Guardian, a Steven Calrow of Liverpool writes:
“I notice Donald Rumsfeld’s appeal to the Geneva Convention. These bleeding heart liberals make me sick?”
Tuckerfan, this is real easy. You guys think that David Hicks did something wrong (I think he did something wrong), then go ahead and charge him. Give him a trial. Let him be properly represented. If you find him guilty, then lock him up. Don’t just leave him in limbo.
If he’s not a criminal, and you can’t charge him, then hold him as a P.O.W. And give him the rights that he is allowed under the Geneva convention, you know, that thing that you guys have just discovered a great fondness for.
And it’s absolutely ridiculous that I’m having to post this, but knowing that the conservatives will jump on any chance to show us lefties as Iraq-loving America-haters:
Saddam, start treating U.S. P.O.W.s properly. Anything more I need to say about what you’re doing can only be properly expressed in a pit thread.
Without agreeing with the justification for this undeclared war, I find it doubtful that U.S. forces fit the definition of “unlawful combatants” simply because the U.N. did not agree to the invasion. By that standard, the vast majority of conflicts in the world can be said to be unlawful, and no one has to treat prisoners according to any standards.
I see that among the links tossed in here by the la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you crowd are to a tabloid still repeating the false charge that the U.S. was jailing prisoners shackled and hooded (instead of the truth, which involved brief secure transport of dangerous men), unsubstantiated rumors involving nameless informants etc.
The U.S. did not stage photo-ops of captured members of the opposition thrown onto national television to be grilled by government lackeys, as Iraq has done. Had no photos at all been taken of those captured in Afghanistan, the Brit tabloids would have been screaming coverup.
I’m sure we’ll be seeing lots of Iraqi photos to document the fine conditions under which our troops are being held, and that they’ll welcome international inspection teams in the same manner as the U.S.
