Guantanamo Hilarity

[Daemon Spawn]

Bad: It is immoral to hold a person without due process, access to an attorney, or without any reason at all. These people are effectively kidnapped, and their relatives have to make do without them, and in some cases, borrow money to make a search for them. I can't think of anything else.

....
Immoral eh?
....

who's to say what's moral?
unfair perhaps, immoral: certainly not.

Guantanamo is outside the US law, so it's not unlawful to do it, it's not immoral, it is unfair.
IMHO they had a good reason to do it too.

That is a very good point. What is absolutely necessary and moral to one person can be utterly vulgar and immoral to the next. I gave the example of morality as the argument that people use to criticize Guantanamo Bay, because that is basically the only argument that exists to counter it. "Unfainess" doesn't sound as strong, or make as good a case for it as "morality" does.

IMO, it is not immoral, and the processes are conducted in good faith, for a worthy cause, however unfair it may be.

 

[victor]

I think this was spelled out in the Patriot Act. So, it doesn't matter where they are held...they have no rights recognized by the US government.

Am I the only one who thinks this is very Enclave-ish? Replace the Afghans with Supermutants, and there you have it. This "patriot act" is very sick too, IMO.

Also, you never know who might have heard or seen something important.

Just ask them. you don't have to put them in concentration camps.

I have to agree with CC, having a couple 767s bringing down two skyscapers killing thousands of people and another crashing into the Pentagon will change a country. I'd just be afraid to see what would've happened if the other plane had hit the White House.

And having dozens of B-52 bombers over a country bombing the living crap out of thousands of people will change a country.


You people make me sick for saying this. But sometimes I like having you around, at least I know I'm better than some people.

 

[quietfanatic]

Also, you never know who might have heard or seen something important.

.................
You people make me sick for saying this. But sometimes I like having you around, at least I know I'm better than some people.

I agree with Baboon, a fanatic with useful information will not tell you anything unless you torture them. I happen to have a problem with torture and intimidation. This virtual abolition of liberty and rights will only tarnish America's international reputation and cause another batch of freedom fighters to spring up from the depths of poverty and ignorance.

Intelligence should be gathered legally, and could be done better if the US shared more information with other countries (that includes non-Western countries) instead of isolating its self as an all powerful and evil nation only concerned with its own people and not the well being of subhuman foreigners.

Lets be more considerate shall we.

 

[Sander]

We incarcerate them for moderatly short periods of time. You read the article-the boy was in for a while, they gave him back, and acted politely and nicely all the way. Frankly, this is as important as anything to help stop terrorists attacks- we need areas where we can safely interrogate people, free from places they could reveal information in any kind of way. If you dont understand it....tell me that when a 767 is rammed into downtown Amsterdam. It's diffirent now, and I am not going to call it a bad thing; we dont beat them, if anything they are treated with better food and a better, safer enviorment then home, and we need thier information.

Actually, what you saw is that two boys(out of hundreds of prisoners) were released, and that those bys were treated well.
Now, for all you know, they were exceptions, they were simply there for propaganda. I don't know, though, so I won't say that that is what happened.

What I do know, and what you all seem to be forgetting, is that IF you allow something like this, a place outside of the law, to exist, and condone, then you are opening up ways for the government to do a lot more things than just that.
There really is no point in having Guantanmo bay.
You want a place where you can interrogate people without them talking to others to reveal that they are being held captive? Then go live on another world. Those human rights, and the basics of human equality you undoubtedly value so high cannot just be ignored on a whim. If they are ignored for certain cases, then they lose their value.

Enemy terrorists (aka enemy combatants) deemed as such by (I think) military commanders are not recognized as prisoners of war and therefore, have no rights accorded to POWs. I think this was spelled out in the Patriot Act. So, it doesn't matter where they are held...they have no rights recognized by the US government.

Which is exactly why the PATRIOT Act should not exist in the modern Western world. YOu can't just decide that human rights don't apply to those people, because we think they may have had something to do with the killing of a lot of people.

EDIT:

You people make me sick for saying this. But sometimes I like having you around, at least I know I'm better than some people.

Do NOT come into a debate and say things like this. It does no good, and only makes you look bad.

 

[Brother None]

....
Immoral eh?
....

who's to say what's moral?
unfair perhaps, immoral: certainly not.

Guantanamo is outside the US law, so it's not unlawful to do it, it's not immoral, it is unfair.
IMHO they had a good reason to do it too.

mo·ral·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Ah!

So the US has the law of morality on its side, no matter what happens?

This is so wrong.

Holding people without trial is as wrong and immoral as attacking countries without due cause.

You seem to hold to the belief that two wrongs make a right. They don't. Because someone wronged you doesn't mean it makes it right for you to do something about it without upholding the laws of morality. How could any wrong justify the existence of another wrong? Someone stealing doesn't right someone killing, no matter what.

This seems to be another case of European ethics against American ethics, though I don't hold to this as absolute.

 

[John Uskglass]

Now, for all you know, they were exceptions, they were simply there for propaganda. I don't know, though, so I won't say that that is what happened.

For all I know, dutch golden pygmies hold the keys to hell in the Hauge between the thick walls, waiting for the day that Jean Cluade Van Damne's carrer is revived to open the gates of hell. Or perhaps the Left Behind series will become true to the last word.

But that does not make it true. Nothing is proveable. However, this is from a very liberal biased newspaper, in a very liberal biased nation on a very, very hot topic for liberals. And it treats guantanamo like Cancun. Your reasioning here is somewhat beyond bullshit.

What I do know, and what you all seem to be forgetting, is that IF you allow something like this, a place outside of the law, to exist, and condone, then you are opening up ways for the government to do a lot more things than just that.

Well ,they have not. America does have a tendanciy to flirt with extremes (say, for instance, Reagen's scary dooms day plans, or the Japanese interment camps), but it has never gone off of the edge.

Now, compare similar reactions to terrorist attacks and economic hardships across the world-
In 1936, a bomb goes off in a German parliment building (set by a crazy Dutch communist, none the less). The Nazis win the next general election.
In the early 15th Century, in response to Jewish support for the Emirate of Granada, the Spanish launch the Inquisition, and give the keys to the realm to Torquemada.
In response to the rise of communisim and decline of already non exsistant Italian prestige, Mousillini gains power in Italy.
In 2001, four airplanes are simultaneously hijacked, two of them destroy two of the most important symbols of modern American inginuity, another slamed into the most important military intstitution in the world, another is taken down by a heroic effeort on the part of the passangers.

Now, compare these. The Nazis, the Inquisition, Fascism.....and guantanamo.

I think that western Europe is completely blowing this out of proportion. Now, under normal situations, let us say Osama bin Laden would have to be reported as a prisoner immideatly. That fucks EVERYTHING up, as we could not get any information out of him. Hence it is compltely moral to seperate him from the rest of the world to save lives.

And the Patriot act. There is a clause in there that states that people from the DoHS can check library records. Howmany times has it been used? 0. But under normal circumstances, no situation would likely arise. However, when you gain credible info that, say, Ibrahim al-Turkmani is planning something against an important American asset, and you see that he has recently rented the Anarcihst's Cookbook.....well, it could save dozens, or perhaps hundreds of lives.

To be perfectly honest, what major terrorsit attack has ever happened on Dutch soil? The 9/11 attacks where the biggest terrorist attacks in history, and as has already been pointed out elections have gone to the Nazis for much less important ones. I think it is, if anything, an interesting anecdote on American nature that we have responded in a fairly moderate fashion when compared to other historical incedents. Have we attempted to wipe out the Afghani like the French did the Algerians? No. Have we even done anything in retaliation against a group of people even resembeling the British, the least evil of the colonial powers? Nope.

This seems to be another case of European ethics against American ethics, though I don't hold to this as absolute.

I dont think they are that diffirent. At all, to be honest. The major diffirince in say health care is that older people can get free heatlh care in Europe, as compared to America. I think the major problem with "you guys" is you still have a hard on for the days of socialism, which are over and dead. Besdies that, and a few issues of religion, America is little more then a slightly amplified version fo the continent.

 

[Sander]

But that does not make it true. Nothing is proveable. However, this is from a very liberal biased newspaper, in a very liberal biased nation on a very, very hot topic for liberals. And it treats guantanamo like Cancun. Your reasioning here is somewhat beyond bullshit.

Oh, come on, CCR. "somewhat beyond bullshit" is completely untrue. All you have is two accounts of a vast prison camp where hundreds of people are being held.
Moreover, they were kids, whichj makes it probable that they received better treatment.

Well ,they have not. America does have a tendanciy to flirt with extremes (say, for instance, Reagen's scary dooms day plans, or the Japanese interment camps), but it has never gone off of the edge.

So you're saying that because it hasn't gone over the edge before, it won't now. Does anyone else see a problem with that line of reasoning?

Now, compare similar reactions to terrorist attacks and economic hardships across the world-
In 1936, a bomb goes off in a German parliment building (set by a crazy Dutch communist, none the less). The Nazis win the next general election.

1) It wasn't 1936, but 1933(IIRC, could've been 1932...)
2) They did not win the next general election, they used it as an excuse to imprison a load of communists and get a two-thirds majority for their plans in parliament through the lack of communists(who were imprisoned) and the manipulation of the Christian party.
So it was NOT a reaction to

In the early 15th Century, in response to Jewish support for the Emirate of Granada, the Spanish launch the Inquisition, and give the keys to the realm to Torquemada.

Of course, you do realise that for all the thigns that went badly through terrorism, there have been a lot of cases where things did not go badly after terrorism or economic hardship.

In response to the rise of communisim and decline of already non exsistant Italian prestige, Mousillini gains power in Italy.

Ehmm...and this is terrorism or economic hardship, how exactly?

Of course, you're now saying that because it has gone way worse in other instances, what the USA does is good as long as it isn't that bad... Interesting...

In 2001, four airplanes are simultaneously hijacked, two of them destroy two of the most important symbols of modern American inginuity, another slamed into the most important military intstitution in the world, another is taken down by a heroic effeort on the part of the passangers.

And the USA invades two countries, installs the PATRIOT Act to violate the privacy of people, becomes more and more xenophobic and creates a place outside of the law so they can do things without being bothered by such pesky things as "regulations".

I think that western Europe is completely blowing this out of proportion. Now, under normal situations, let us say Osama bin Laden would have to be reported as a prisoner immideatly. That fucks EVERYTHING up, as we could not get any information out of him. Hence it is compltely moral to seperate him from the rest of the world to save lives.

Ehmm....riiight. You're saying that by not treating him in accordance with the law, you're going to save lives? How exactly? It's not as if the terrorists will not realise that he's gone and not adjust their plans them. And it's not like Bin Laden will divulge information through seperation. The only thing that I can think of that could be done then would be torture. And THAT goes against EVERY regulation of every modern institution.

And the Patriot act. There is a clause in there that states that people from the DoHS can check library records. Howmany times has it been used? 0. But under normal circumstances, no situation would likely arise. However, when you gain credible info that, say, Ibrahim al-Turkmani is planning something against an important American asset, and you see that he has recently rented the Anarcihst's Cookbook.....well, it could save dozens, or perhaps hundreds of lives.

Well, if I recall correctly, every single book that is on a certain list(Mein Kampf, Anarcist cookbook etc.) is kept track of to see who rents it.
And, of course, I could just mail you the Anarchist Cookbook now, since it's all over the INternet.
But, that aside, the PATRIOT Act might(MIGHT) save some lives, but is much more likely to cause a lot of invasion of privacy, and problems. Furthermore, I don't like it if the government can just incarcerate me by saying "We think he's a terrorist." It puts way too much power in the hands of the government.

To be perfectly honest, what major terrorsit attack has ever happened on Dutch soil

*smacks CCR* We've had war. We've been invaded by the Germans and hundreds of thousands lost their lives because of it. You've had one attack causing 3000 deaths. Compare.

The 9/11 attacks where the biggest terrorist attacks in history, and as has already been pointed out elections have gone to the Nazis for much less important ones.

And I refuted that.
Plus, this doesn't make what the USA is doing any better.

I think it is, if anything, an interesting anecdote on American nature that we have responded in a fairly moderate fashion when compared to other historical incedents.

it may be interesting, but I don't think it's because of American Nature, but because of modern society. And modern society would dictate an even more moderate response.

I dont think they are that diffirent. At all, to be honest. The major diffirince in say health care is that older people can get free heatlh care in Europe, as compared to America. I think the major problem with "you guys" is you still have a hard on for the days of socialism, which are over and dead. Besdies that, and a few issues of religion, America is little more then a slightly amplified version fo the continent.

A) Religion v. A-religion.
B) Social welfare v. Bad social welfare
C) Europe is more liberal.
D) European political systems are completely different.
E) European views on such matters as sex, drinking and whatnot are more liberal.
F) Class-action lawsuits.

I'd say there's a considerable difference between the USA and Europe...

 

[Brother None]

Now, compare similar reactions to terrorist attacks and economic hardships across the world-
In 1936, a bomb goes off in a German parliment building (set by a crazy Dutch communist, none the less). The Nazis win the next general election.
In the early 15th Century, in response to Jewish support for the Emirate of Granada, the Spanish launch the Inquisition, and give the keys to the realm to Torquemada.
In response to the rise of communisim and decline of already non exsistant Italian prestige, Mousillini gains power in Italy.
In 2001, four airplanes are simultaneously hijacked, two of them destroy two of the most important symbols of modern American inginuity, another slamed into the most important military intstitution in the world, another is taken down by a heroic effeort on the part of the passangers.

Now, compare these. The Nazis, the Inquisition, Fascism.....and guantanamo.

See, this is the biggest flaw I consistently see creeping through your arguments, CC. Total lack of historic perspective.

For one thing, halfway through the 20th century isn't now, and the early 15th century definitely isn't. In the stone age, people were free to bash each other's heads in for stealing food, does that mean it's "not so bad" if someone bashes someone's skull in now for stealing more food than they did in that time? Different periods in history call for different standards, to directly compare the now to the past is ludicrous at best.

Second, you're pretending a strange pattern of cause-and-effect here. A terrorist attack caused fascism? A terrorist attack caused America's unilateral way of dealing with their problems now?

That's just historically ignorant. There's rarely one cause for any event, and the complexity of events leading up to enormous historical shifts like fascism and nazism aren't one man running into a building with a bomb strapped to his back. I mean c'mon...

I think that western Europe is completely blowing this out of proportion. Now, under normal situations, let us say Osama bin Laden would have to be reported as a prisoner immideatly. That fucks EVERYTHING up, as we could not get any information out of him. Hence it is compltely moral to seperate him from the rest of the world to save lives.

The moment you give the USA the right to take prisoners and sound them out on their own with no right given, they have the right and ability to do this to anyone. Should I really name some other governments that did the same? Tzaric Russia? The colonial Western powers? Nazis? Fascists? Communists?

The problem is the same as with Iraq, but bigger. With Iraq you were at least trying to gather some proof, with these prisoners in Guantanomo the US can offer us no other consolation than "we think they know something"

What if they pluck me out of my house 'cause they think I'm a terrorist? Nobody can stop them, really, it's "legal" and "morally justified"

Or are you proposing we should just *trust* the government? The country that has a second amandement to check up on the government...The country that stood on the forefront of introducing democracy to check up on the government...That country would just let the country pick of people on random, because they *trust* them? Blindly?

Yeah, right on.

And no, 9/11 does not justify this.

To be perfectly honest, what major terrorsit attack has ever happened on Dutch soil? The 9/11 attacks where the biggest terrorist attacks in history, and as has already been pointed out elections have gone to the Nazis for much less important ones.

Yes, the power of nazis stems from just that

I would like to remind you of the fact that all this blowing out of proportions of terrorism is rather new. History has seen much more horrible events, nothing to do with terrorism.

I think it is, if anything, an interesting anecdote on American nature that we have responded in a fairly moderate fashion when compared to other historical incedents. Have we attempted to wipe out the Afghani like the French did the Algerians? No. Have we even done anything in retaliation against a group of people even resembeling the British, the least evil of the colonial powers? Nope.

I had this discussion with welsh before.

The USA has been doing better than other countries. That's not the question.

The question is *why*? Because the US is somehow holier than all other countries in history? Fuck no.

It's simply international pressure. International pressure to do what is "right" by Western definition, to uphold "morality" and "the basic rights of man" has never been higher. Is it really that surprising then that the US, a country pressured from the outside, by countries that can look on lazily and act high and mighty because they don't have to take the helm, as well as from the inside, by that portion of the populace who hold value to doing what is "right", will be forced to stay its hand more so than any other country in history?

No.

Lack of a real enemy is another factor that always kept America at bay. The terrorist attacks, while a very real threat, are of another order than a country, like the USSR, directly threatening to exterminate you with nuclear weapons.

I dont think they are that diffirent. At all, to be honest. The major diffirince in say health care is that older people can get free heatlh care in Europe, as compared to America. I think the major problem with "you guys" is you still have a hard on for the days of socialism, which are over and dead. Besdies that, and a few issues of religion, America is little more then a slightly amplified version fo the continent.

You immediately start thinking about "better" and "worse". You immediately have to start putting Europe down. Same with Sander, really. Can't you people understand that different is not necessarily better or worse.

America's systems work for America. Europe's systems for Europe. There are things that need changing, but this should be a matter of self-reflection. Europe should not, as it has been doing, trying to copy America, which has another build entirely.

Gun-laws, welfare, electoral system, and so on and so forth are all a matter of distinct, though slight, cultural differences. Europe is not the US, even though the US stems from Europe and Europe's ass was saved by the US. For those reasons, we are very similar, but we are NOT the same.

 

[victor]

Saying that the communist who bombed the Reichstag did it just for himself is ignorant. It was all a conspiracy, set up by the nazis, who needed that very trigger to seize power. That, along with saying it was the only thing that allowed the nazis to take over Germany, means that you might be a victim to propaganda of some kind, or that you don't know much about European history.

Another example is the British being the least evil colonial power (that's what you meant, right?). Saying that is again wrong. They mistreated the people they oppressed for over a century, both in Africa (Zulu, Boer wars) and India (Ghandi, and when the British abandoned the country just like that, it caused a civil war that resulted in the deaths of millions). This shows again that you have a lack of historical knowledge.


And I'm not sure 9/11 was the absolute worst terrorist attack in history ever. Last time I checked, the Crusades caused more deaths, and so did the nazis. And I see Hiroshima as terrorist attack, for it was an event that served no real strategic purpose other than testing a weapon that should never even have been thought of.

 

[Executioner]

Am I the only one who thinks this is very Enclave-ish? Replace the Afghans with Supermutants, and there you have it. This "patriot act" is very sick too, IMO.

Its not like I wrote the Patriot Act, I'm just saying what it details.

Just ask them. you don't have to put them in concentration camps.

Sometimes, people won't want to tell you what they know because they don't like you or are working for 'the other side'. That's why there are interrogations. Yes, there are many forms of interrogation take don't involve torture, but take a bit longer.

And having dozens of B-52 bombers over a country bombing the living crap out of thousands of people will change a country.

You people make me sick for saying this. But sometimes I like having you around, at least I know I'm better than some people.

Jeez, I'm just saying that those events would change the way a country operates in the world. Yes, B-52 bombers leveling most of a country will do the same. However, that was war...don't forget about the bombing of Britain. Weapons back then were inaccurate and created much collateral damage but as they say, "You do what you can with the weapons you have."

 

[Ugly John]

mo·ral·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Let'S not get into semantics, what i meant is what's moral for me (or my part of the world) doesn't mean that it's moral for you. Heck, i'm sure that if i ask my grandmother, she will tell me that sex outside the marriage is immoral.

Yes there were or are still kids in Guantanamo. why? i don't know, and i probably never will know. Is the US government acting in a fair manner on this... probably not. Are they acting morally? depends who you ask.
Al Quaida doesn'T seem to have a moral problem with teaching kids hate towards others ( especially americans) Do i think that teaching hate to kids is immoral? yes i do.
Now i say Al Q, i could have said KKK or even any racist family.
Back to the kids.... is it moral to emprison kids in a camp on an tropical island?
That is the big question. It's hard to fight fair when your oponent doesn't... ie i'm a boxer, i box about 20 rounds a week, i fight fair and so does my opponents, they don't expect me to kick them in the nuts, and i don't expect them to do so.
While fighting terrorists, you are expected to play by the rules, and they are not. It makes it hard to fight...so what do you do? you use the "laws" or warfare to your advantage and since the laws of warfare do not include terrorism as a "legal" war tactics, you kick their asses with supperior firepower and do not give their prisonners the warfare treatment reserved to POWs since they decided to ignore those laws in the first place.

in conclusion, i agree with Gantanamo and what they do to their prisonners, more so if as i heard they play Barney's "i love you" song 24/7

 

[quietfanatic]

The guy who bombed the Reichstag was a lefty and lone nut and the act was used to invoke article 48. Hitler is quoted to have said "I hope to God that this is the work of the communists. IT was more just being opurtunistic.

All people should be given equal rights and fair treatment. If the normal legal system cannot deal with suspected terrorists there is something wrong with it. We should try to go on the offensive against terrorism even though it would be a nigh on impossible task. I do not mean militarily.

We have to go to where they come from and make their countries understand us and leave them with a higher standard of living and education. If you had only religion and a patch of dirt while you percieved the US to be controlling your meagre economy and wrongly trying to interfere in your culture you may be a bit pissed off too.

I am always the cynical optimist.

 

[John Uskglass]

This is the kind of stuff Sander is used to.....you know, liberal lies.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/conte...-name_page.html


QUOTE
MY HELL IN CAMP X-RAY

Mar 12 2004


WORLD EXCLUSIVE

By Rosa Prince and Gary Jones


A BRITISH captive freed from Guantanamo Bay today tells the world of its full horror - and reveals how prostitutes were taken into the camp to degrade Muslim inmates.

Jamal al-Harith, 37, who arrived home three days ago after two years of confinement, is the first detainee to lift the lid on the US regime in Cuba's Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta.

The father-of-three, from Manchester, told how he was assaulted with fists, feet and batons after refusing a mystery injection.





FREEDOM: Jamal yesterday... but he will never forget camp horror

He said detainees were shackled for up to 15 hours at a time in hand and leg cuffs with metal links which cut into the skin.

Their "cells" were wire cages with concrete floors and open to the elements - giving no privacy or protection from the rats, snakes and scorpions loose around the American base.

He claims punishment beatings were handed out by guards known as the Extreme Reaction Force. They waded into inmates in full riot-gear, raining blows on them.

Prisoners faced psychological torture and mind-games in attempts to make them confess to acts they had never committed. Even petty breaches of rules brought severe punishment.

Medical treatment was sparse and brutal and amputations of limbs were more drastic than required, claimed Jamal.

A diet of foul water and food up to 10 years out-of-date left inmates malnourished.

But Jamal's most shocking disclosure centred on the use of vice girls to torment the most religiously devout detainees.

Prisoners who had never seen an "unveiled" woman before would be forced to watch as the hookers touched their own naked bodies.

The men would return distraught. One said an American girl had smeared menstrual blood across his face in an act of humiliation.

Jamal said: "I knew of this happening about 10 times. It always seemed to be those who were very young or known to be particularly religious who would be taken away.

"I would joke with the other British lads, 'Bring them to us - we'll have them'. It made us laugh. But the Americans obviously knew we wouldn't be shocked by seeing Western women, so they didn't bother.

"It was a profoundly disturbing experience for these men. They would refuse to speak about what had happened. It would take perhaps four weeks for them to tell a friend - and we would shout it out around the whole block."

Jamal added: "The whole point of Guantanamo was to get to you psychologically. The beatings were not as nearly as bad as the psychological torture - bruises heal after a week - but the other stuff stays with you."

HE was talking from a secret location after being reunited with his family. The website designer, a convert to Islam, had gone to Pakistan in October 2001, a few weeks after September 11, to study Muslim culture.

He accidentally strayed into Afghanistan - believing he was being driven to Turkey - and was arrested as a spy, perhaps because of his British passport. He was held in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and fell into US hands.

Now Jamal bears the scars of Guantanamo. He stoops into a hunch as he walks because the shackles that bound him were too short.

As a punishment, inmates would be confined so tightly they would be forced to lie in a ball for hours. During lengthy interrogation, they would be tethered to a metal ring on the floor.

Jamal said: "Sometimes you would be chained up on the floor with your hands and feet actually bound together. One of my friends told me he was kept like that for 15 hours once.

"Recreation meant your legs were untied and you walked up and down a strip of gravel. In Camp X-Ray you only got five minutes but in Delta you walked for around 15 minutes."

Jamal said victims of the Extreme Reaction Force were paraded in front of cells. "It was a horrible sight and it was a frequent sight."

He said one unit used force-feeding to end a hunger strike by 70 per cent of the 600 inmates. The strike started after a guard deliberately kicked a copy of the Koran.

Rice and beans was the usual diet and the water was "filthy". Jamal added: "In Camp X-Ray it was yellow and in Delta it was black - the colour of Coca-Cola.

"We had it piped through with a tap in each 'cage' but they would often turn the water off as punishment.

"They would shut off the water before prayers so we couldn't wash ourselves according to our religion.

"The food was terrible as well, up to 10 years out-of-date. They would open a hatch and shove it through a section at a time.

"We had porridge and something they called 'like-milk', which was disgusting and 'like-tea' and a piece of fruit. The fruit had been frozen and pounded with chemicals. An apple might look red but there was waxy white stuff all over it and inside it would be black and brown.

"They would play tricks on people by denying them things - you might be the only person on your block who didn't get any bread. I prided myself on never asking them for anything. I would not beg." Jamal said they were told they had no rights. "They actually said that - 'You have no rights here'. After a while, we stopped asking for human rights - we wanted animal rights. In Camp X-Ray my cage was right next to a kennel housing an Alsatian dog.

"He had a wooden house with air conditioning and green grass to exercise on. I said to the guards, 'I want his rights' and they replied, 'That dog is member of the US army'.

"You would be punished for anything - for having six packets of salt in your cell rather than five, for hanging your towel through the cage if it wasn't wet, even for having your spoon and things lined up in the wrong order."

Being forced to use a bucket as a toilet in view of other inmates and guards was particularly embarrassing. Jamal said: "I never got used to it - we would all put our towels and clothes around us.

"But the Military Police up in the tower would see us and would shout to each other.

"We were only allowed a shower once a week at the beginning and none at all in solitary confinement.

"This was very tough because you are supposed to be clean when you pray.

"Gradually the number of showers rose to three a week. They were always cold.

"You would be chained by two MPs while you were still in the cage before being taken off for what they called 'rec and shower'.

"You could sometimes see the guards tampering with the shower heads to make water squirt all over the inmate's clothes if he had put them up to protect his privacy."

Inmates were issued with "comfort items" - known as CIs - like shampoo, towels, a washcloth and boxer shorts. CIs would be removed as a punishment.

Jamal defiantly refused "treats", such as watching a James Bond film in a room dubbed The Love Shack by inmates.

He added: "Some people were given pizzas, ice-cream and McDonald's, but they didn't offer them to me. I guess they knew bribery would work with some and not with others."

To pass the time, inmates would chat to each other, pray, read the Koran and sing Islamic songs. In Camp X-Ray, they were given Mills and Boon-style romance novels in Arabic, which they refused to read.

Describing medical treatment, Jamal said he knew of 11 men who had legs amputated and two who lost toes and fingers. He was told that the Americans had removed far more tissue than was necessary.

HE added: "The man in the cell next to me had frostbite in two fingers and two toes. He also had it in his big toe, but they didn't treat that for a year by which time they had to cut off much more than was needed.

"All the men who had lost limbs complained they would chop them off high up and not bother to try to save as much as possible."

Jamal added that he didn't have close friends in Guantanamo, saying: "When I did meet the other Brits, we would reminisce about home - particularly the food.

"We were all obsessed with Scottish Highland Shortbread - we wanted some so much.

"One of the Brits told me he was asked why he was a Muslim, because he ought to be praying to the Queen."

Jamal, who is divorced with daughters aged three and eight and a son of five, is convinced his refusal to succumb to mind-games gave him the will to come through.

He said: "It was very, very hard at times, but I tried to think about nothing but survival.

"I kept my thoughts from home as much as possible because it would drive me crazy.

"About a year into my time, I had a dream. A voice said, 'You will here for two years'.

"In my dream I said, 'Two years! You're joking'. But when I woke up, I was calmer because at least that meant I would be getting out one day.

"I was sent to Guantanamo on February 11, 2002 and left on March 9, 2004, so I was there for just over two years, just like the voice in the dream said."

 

[John Uskglass]

Another example is the British being the least evil colonial power (that's what you meant, right?). Saying that is again wrong. They mistreated the people they oppressed for over a century, both in Africa (Zulu, Boer wars) and India (Ghandi, and when the British abandoned the country just like that, it caused a civil war that resulted in the deaths of millions). This shows again that you have a lack of historical knowledge.

So they are evil for being there and evil for getting out. Riiiight.

Well, let us look at the good, humane practices of the caring "darkies" of the areas the British controlled, and what they did to them
They outlawed
Slavery
Polygamy
The mutilition of female genetalia
misogyny.

They doubled literacy rates at least, they taught people English, which has lead to the economic boom in India, and in may places they set up stable, working democracies, like Australia, South Africa (where they tried to outlaw Aphartied, a Dutch practice), Rhodesia, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, hell even Nigeria is the best place in sub-saharan, pre South African Africa.

And first of all, Shaka Zulu was not a rebel, he was a bloodthirsty conquerer who was never under British dominion and was killed by his own tribe, second the Pakistanis did not like him for religious reasons, but if Pakistan is any better then Afghanistan it is because of the British. Hell, Musharriff is going back to old skool British practices to calm ethnic strife among the Pashtun and the Urdu speakers.

Ill answer the rest, I just found this post needlessly offensive and moronic.

 

[victor]

They had absolutely no right to be there, just like any other colonial power. Never, under any circumstances, does a country have the right to colonize another. It would seem these peoples were doing fine before the British came along, destroyed everything and IMPOSE their culture. You are practically promoting colonialism.

 

[EyeMaster7]

Another guy who doesn't think Guantanamo is Disneyland. He was a war prisoner in the Talibans hands and whe he thought he was finally going to be free to come back to Britain the US army kick his ass direct to Guantanamo. Not even british civilians are respected.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/12/britain.freed.ap/index.html

LONDON, England (AP) -- One of the British men released from Guantanamo Bay said through his lawyer Friday that American authorities beat him, interrogated him at gunpoint and subjected him to "inhuman conditions" during his detention.

Louise Christian, Tarek Dergoul's attorney, said his family believed his experiences had damaged him psychologically. He was among five Britons returned home from the U.S. Navy base in Cuba and released this week.

He is the second of the group to publicly describe conditions at the camp, where former fellow detainee Jamal al-Harith said earlier he had suffered beatings, humiliation and interrogation for up to 12 hours at a time. Families of all the freed men, who were not charged, have said they were innocents caught up in the American war on terrorism.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told a British television network it was "unlikely" abuses were taking place at Guantanamo. "Because we are Americans, we don't abuse people who are in our care," he said.

Christian said Dergoul had begun telling her and his family about "the horrific things which happened to him during detention at Bagram (U.S. air base in Afghanistan), Kandahar and Guantanamo Bay."

He alleged "gross breaches of human rights" and demanded that the 640 detainees still in Guantanamo be freed immediately, she said.

American authorities say prisoners at the camp are suspected of links to Afghanistan's fallen Taliban regime or the al-Qaida terror network. The U.S. military repeatedly has denied that Guantanamo prisoners have been mistreated.

Dergoul described "botched medical treatment, interrogation at gunpoint, beatings and inhuman conditions" and condemned the American and British governments, Christian said.

She declined to give any further details and said Dergoul, 26, of east London, would not be speaking to journalists any time soon because of health problems.

He reportedly flew to Pakistan in 2001 to learn Arabic after giving up his job caring for the elderly and was allegedly captured in Afghanistan. His family has insisted he has no links to terrorism and said he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

A nice guy who used to take care of old people decides to learn Arabic. Hmmm.... Good reason to torture him, inject drugs and keep him in a cell for two years without any contact with his family in Britain.


Another lost soul in Guantanamo hell.

Al-Harith told Britain's ITV network that interrogators at Guantanamo had applied intense psychological pressure, telling him that authorities in Britain would seize his family's home and all their money, turning them onto the street if he did not admit he was involved in terrorism.

Many detainees were given regular injections, after which "they would just sit there like in a daze and sometimes you would see them shaking," he said.

He said he was beaten and put in isolation because he refused injections and was sometimes forcibly given unidentified drugs.

Al-Harith said he had never had any ties to terrorism and would seek compensation from the U.S. government for his two years at Guantanamo.

The five detainees were flown back to Britain on Tuesday. Al-Harith was freed after several hours of questioning and the others were released on Wednesday.

Powell told ITV that charges of abuse were unwarranted and that it was "not in the American tradition to treat people in that manner."

He said the prisoners' long detentions were justified.

"They were picked up in very dangerous circumstances, and we had to protect ourselves by bringing these people to Guantanamo to see what they knew about terrorism and see if they were responsible for any of the kinds of things that have been happening in the world," he said.

Al-Harith also spoke to the Daily Mirror newspaper, which quoted him as saying guards at Guantanamo "waded into inmates in full riot gear, raining blows on them."

The water and food was foul, and sometimes as punishment, water taps in the cells would be turned off, he said in the interview published Friday.

The article said "vice girls" were used to torment the most religiously devout detainees, who had not seen "unveiled" women.

"The whole point of Guantanamo was to get to you psychologically. The beatings were not nearly as bad as the psychological torture," al-Harith was quoted as saying.

Britain and the United States are continuing discussions about the remaining four Britons at the camp. Britain has insisted its nationals either receive fair trials or be returned home.

"Vice girls" ?? OMG!!! They gangbanged the prisoners !!! I didn't know that was one of the strategies to combat terror. Pay sluts to convince the prisoner to abandon their faith. The army is really putting the taxpayers' money to good use.

 

[John Uskglass]

"Vice girls" ?? OMG!!! They gangbanged the prisoners !!! I didn't know that was one of the strategies to combat terror. Pay sluts to convince the prisoner to abandon their faith. The army is really putting the taxpayers' money to good use.

The guy is obviously so full of shit as to be funny. That is about as likely to be used as an interrogation method as lockin the guy up with a few Jehova's Witnesses. He is just trying to turn himself into a martyr, something he is not.

 

[megatron]

You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Since nobody seems to know what truly happens in guanatanamanamo, perhaps we should like ^-^ and o/\o ?

In 1936, a bomb goes off in a German parliment building (set by a crazy Dutch communist, none the less). The Nazis win the next general election.

It's already been said but;

Nobody knows who set the bomb off. It could have been some communist, but where's the proof? Why be so specific? It was also pretty convenient that a communist would bomb the Reichstag just before Hitler went into Parliament, banning communists from entering. Later on using the Nazi majority for total control. And it was 1933.

If you claim to be such a historian CCR, they're usually unbiased and just spew the facts. You on the other hand are pretty right-wing and use fragments of history to back up arguments. It would be clever if you just got some stuff right and didn't believe every source. Similair with the stuff on-topic. Why believe some left-wingers who have a reason to be against it?

Chéérs

 

[Brother None]

Wow, CC, you completely ignored my post

Now I know how Sander always feels

While fighting terrorists, you are expected to play by the rules, and they are not. It makes it hard to fight...so what do you do? you use the "laws" or warfare to your advantage and since the laws of warfare do not include terrorism as a "legal" war tactics, you kick their asses with supperior firepower and do not give their prisonners the warfare treatment reserved to POWs since they decided to ignore those laws in the first place.

There's a problem with this line of thought. Humans developed morality for a reason. The moment you say "the normal laws of morality don't apply, because we're fighting with someone who doesn't fight fair himself" you end up in trouble. Big trouble.

Morality developed the way it did to prevent flaws in human short-term thinking. At times it seems that to do what is morally right is not useful for anyone, but if you sit down and figure for a while, it's always useful on the long term (well, generally).

The problem when you say "it's a necessary evil, the opponent also does it" is that you're gradually lowering yourself to their level. Say you're a boxer and the opponent doesn't fight fair, so you use a few dirty tricks too. Finding these tricks useful and getting away with it, you yourself use them yourself against your next opponent, and so on and so forth until nobody fights fair, and the rules are useless

Now the US won't continue this way, because of international pressure and the way democracy operates (always waving back and forth), but if it did you'd end up in a 1984-society, with the government making up enemies to justify their opression of the people.

 

[Sander]

CCR:

This is the kind of stuff Sander is used to.....you know, liberal lies.

If you can do nothing than simply assume that the children were right, and the British citizen is just lying, then there is clearly no debating with you. Instead of just thinking that maybe, just maybe, this prisoner could be speaking the truth, you immediately think "Liberal lies!!"
If you can only see news that you see as decent or convenient as true, then you need to learn about reality. You can be critical, cynical or whatever, but you don't just wave the new out of the way.
And, AGAIN you're just ignoring my post, and Kharn's post. I'm bloody sick of this. Debating is great, and all, but only if your "opponent" actually listens and cares enough to reply to YOUR POST.

You immediately start thinking about "better" and "worse". You immediately have to start putting Europe down. Same with Sander, really. Can't you people understand that different is not necessarily better or worse.

Meh, I have but one thing to say:
You're right.
I do think in terms of better and worse, because I happen to like most of the system of the Netherlands.
I'll keep it in mind....