Let's not split hairs. Whether or not these prisoners are prisoners of war would have to be determined by the International Court of Justice at the Hague. By declaring prisoners terrorists and holding them outside the US these basic "Geneva" rights are being denied. Fortunately the US courts are finally taking on these cases.xpanda said:
The Newsmax article simply quotes Rumsfeld and hence his agenda.
They are probably eating better at Gitmo than in the caves. I'd like to see what they weighed in at and what they weigh now. I'd imagine they all have gained weight. This is terrible torture, Rummy should be promoted to VP immediately. Then I'd appoint Saddam to secretary of defense. Thats' all.
Can you prove, without blinking, that they're using these techniques in moderation?
No, and you can't prove they aren't. Neither of us would personally be allowed on the base to view it for ourselves. We have to take their word for it that they're following the rules...you are a believer in innocent until proven guilty, right? Or...if we're simply going to discount everything our military says, then this isn't going to be a very productive discussion.
Further, what constitutes an "extended period" of sleep deprivation?
Not really sure. The GC doesn't give specific time tables of what is or isn't excessive. I think they left it up to the judgement of the countries harboring the prisoners.
Find me the bits from Geneva to back up your assertion. I think you're making it up.
If you had bothered to read the second article I posted, you'd have seen that our own secretary of defense said we were not in violation of the GC...and his claim was backed up by an ultra liberal news source. I've also read the GC in it's entirety. You can find it here:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
and (much to your dismay) will find that none of our actions violated the GC. If they did, then you tell me which article I should re-read.
I don't just pull random thoughts out of thin air and pretend they're fact.
Funny that you seem to gung-ho on upholding the GC rules, yet don't even realize that making the pictures from Abu-Grabass public was actually a violation of one of the GC's articles. Nice selective outrage.
If it's only 'interrogation' that is happening at Gitmo, then why all the secrecy?
Becuase that's how you conduct interrogations...privately. You won't find any of them on Court TV. If interrogations were made public, you'd basically be giving the questions you plan on asking away...and potential prisoners would have ample time to cook up some kind of BS responses they think would get them by. Detecting lies would then be much more difficult on the part of the interrogators.
Do you know anything at all about how interrogations are conducted?
Because we aren't them. We should behave by our own standards, not theirs. That's why.
Very warm and fuzzy. But also incredibly naive.
Let me repeat what I've been trying to tell you since I've been posting here. These people we're up against do NOT understand negotiation. They do NOT understand compromise. They ONLY understand brute force. I'm not advocating we start lopping heads off with dull knives, but I am saying we're doing the right thing by chasing them to the ends of the earth trying to wipe out their insurgencies. You kill one of our's? We'll kill 100 of your's. The goal is to create a mentality that no matter where they go, we'll be right on their bumpers looking to send them to an early grave. That's the only way to suppress an insurgency.
We've already tried to be nice. We're still being nice to civilians....by telling them where to go to avoid staying in battle zones, and how to avoid getting killed should they stay. But the time has come to not be so nice to these insurgents.
Of course they'll talk ... but will it be credible??
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That's why most interrogations usually have multiple lie detectors present (both mechanical and human). It's up to them to decide whats a credible confession.
For sixty years, we have followed you into your wars, not ours, and have not once required that you come to our defence. Not one time.
First, tell me what war has Canada been involved in (where they either attacked another country or were attacked) over the past sixty years. That would be...zero? How can we come to your defense when you haven't been involved in a war?
Even if some country thought it was in their best interests to take over Canada, they wouldn't dare...and it ain't because of your sorry Canadian Army. It's because they know it would basically be considered an act of aggression against North America, and they'd be taken down by the US. Don't even make yourself look foolish and pretend that isn't the case.
We appreciate whatever little help you've given us over the years. Our president has even said so. In return, you have the privelage of living under the protective umbrella of the United States. Most yanks are cool with that, cuz we like most of you guys. Its the Canadians who show no appreciation for what we do who get under our skin.
No, and you can't prove they aren't. Neither of us would personally be allowed on the base to view it for ourselves. We have to take their word for it that they're following the rules...you are a believer in innocent until proven guilty, right? Or...if we're simply going to discount everything our military says, then this isn't going to be a very productive discussion.
Further, what constitutes an "extended period" of sleep deprivation?
Not really sure. The GC doesn't give specific time tables of what is or isn't excessive. I think they left it up to the judgement of the countries harboring the prisoners.
Find me the bits from Geneva to back up your assertion. I think you're making it up.
If you had bothered to read the second article I posted, you'd have seen that our own secretary of defense said we were not in violation of the GC...and his claim was backed up by an ultra liberal news source. I've also read the GC in it's entirety. You can find it here:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
and (much to your dismay) will find that none of our actions violated the GC. If they did, then you tell me which article I should re-read.
I don't just pull random thoughts out of thin air and pretend they're fact.
Funny that you seem to gung-ho on upholding the GC rules, yet don't even realize that making the pictures from Abu-Grabass public was actually a violation of one of the GC's articles. Nice selective outrage.
If it's only 'interrogation' that is happening at Gitmo, then why all the secrecy?
Becuase that's how you conduct interrogations...privately. You won't find any of them on Court TV. If interrogations were made public, you'd basically be giving the questions you plan on asking away...and potential prisoners would have ample time to cook up some kind of BS responses they think would get them by. Detecting lies would then be much more difficult on the part of the interrogators.
Do you know anything at all about how interrogations are conducted?
Because we aren't them. We should behave by our own standards, not theirs. That's why.
Very warm and fuzzy. But also incredibly naive.
Let me repeat what I've been trying to tell you since I've been posting here. These people we're up against do NOT understand negotiation. They do NOT understand compromise. They ONLY understand brute force. I'm not advocating we start lopping heads off with dull knives, but I am saying we're doing the right thing by chasing them to the ends of the earth trying to wipe out their insurgencies. You kill one of our's? We'll kill 100 of your's. The goal is to create a mentality that no matter where they go, we'll be right on their bumpers looking to send them to an early grave. That's the only way to suppress an insurgency.
We've already tried to be nice. We're still being nice to civilians....by telling them where to go to avoid staying in battle zones, and how to avoid getting killed should they stay. But the time has come to not be so nice to these insurgents.
Of course they'll talk ... but will it be credible??
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That's why most interrogations usually have multiple lie detectors present (both mechanical and human). It's up to them to decide whats a credible confession.
For sixty years, we have followed you into your wars, not ours, and have not once required that you come to our defence. Not one time.
First, tell me what war has Canada been involved in (where they either attacked another country or were attacked) over the past sixty years. That would be...zero? How can we come to your defense when you haven't been involved in a war?
Even if some country thought it was in their best interests to take over Canada, they wouldn't dare...and it ain't because of your sorry Canadian Army. It's because they know it would basically be considered an act of aggression against North America, and they'd be taken down by the US. Don't even make yourself look foolish and pretend that isn't the case.
We appreciate whatever little help you've given us over the years. Our president has even said so. In return, you have the privelage of living under the protective umbrella of the United States. Most yanks are cool with that, cuz we like most of you guys. Its the Canadians who show no appreciation for what we do who get under our skin.
Woody, I already argued this with him. JD and I engaged in a fight over the semantics, which is all this is, regarding 'prisoners of war' and 'enemy combatants.' It's a disgrace that the Bush admin is 'splitting hairs' as you say, and that the Supreme Court appears to be letting them get away with it. Technicalities and extreme bullshít.Woody0 said:
I certainly favour an investigation when there is evidence to suggest that torture may be occuring. Gee, we've got 1/ Prior Bad Acts, 2/ witness testimony, 3/ Motive, 4/ asking the Supreme Court's permission to submit evidence obtained through torture.JDeuce said:
You don't think this warrants an investigation? (A legitimate investigation.)
If you were forced to stay awake for several days, would you consider that to be excessive sleep deprivation? How about lit cigarettes in the ears? Is that okay by you, too? Beatings give you goosebumps?
You gave me the impression that the techniques used at Gitmo, if this allegation is true, are not in violation of the GC, even if the inmates there were considered POWs. Both of your articles have Rumsfeld saying Gitmo isn't a GC violation because they don't have jurisdiction over this particular class of inmate. That, my friend, is a bullshit technicality.
How would you even know?
I did get pissed at the photos being taken in the first place, and even more pissed that your so-called 'liberal media' enjoyed its ratings boost by showing them over and over again. It only added to the shame the prisoners already suffered.
Nobody is allowed at Gitmo. This is out of the ordinary.
Lybia.
That's kinda my point. We don't go to war unless we're following your ass into some mess your gov't probably created for itself.
Of course that's the case, and I've made that point several times. Of course, it works the same in reverse (albeit less effectively.) That's not the point. If another country were to try to take us over, it would probably be to get at you guys. Or it would be you guys. We're not exactly running amok pissing people off.
The ignorance of so many Americans when it comes to the relationship between our two countries is positively astounding.
You make a good case study for why public education should be abolished in the US.
