Camp X-ray.
Melatonin
Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">non religious topic</div> dont think theres been a topic on this yet.
ill just put it out there for now, ill wade in properly later...
so, to get the ball rolling...
camp x-ray sucks, its a blatant assault on human rights, what is the US administration playing at?!
ill just put it out there for now, ill wade in properly later...
so, to get the ball rolling...
camp x-ray sucks, its a blatant assault on human rights, what is the US administration playing at?!
Comments
Anyway, the US doesn't really have a choice.
Fanatics want to kill you. You don't have any evidence beyond circumstantial (they were with a group caught with weapons, fighting us troops, etc) to hold them on. In regular court, they'd be freed, either by lack of evidence or by sympathetic Islamic courts from their home countries. We know they're bad guys who want to harm the US. It would be a crime to release them, its a crime to hold them.
The US is in between a rock and a hard place. American Lives > Terrorist's Rights.
Theres not a really a better solution.
First off its the US armed forces is really in charge of X-ray, don't try and put this on Bush, he does not controll everything that happens within the military. We take prisonors, they need to be held some where.
I belive Red Cross has inspected the compund and it was passed as satisfactory.
Not to mention that the captives(terrorists) at X-ray are liveing better then many of the Cubans who live in the area. Why don't you make a topic criticizing Castro.
Now, why hasn't the US got the courage of its convictions? If it thinks this is the right thing to do, why not make it legal and above board? You should change the laws of the US such that trials and access to lawyers are no longer required, and then you won't need to hold these prisoners "off-shore" to avoid legal problems. You'll also be able to massively streamline domestic criminal cases.
Human rights?
Many will now come up with stuff like "destroying anything that goes against his beliefs" or "attacking anything our nation stands for". Yeah, well, even if we assume these broadly generalized remarks to be correct, <i>how</i> does a terrorist hope to accomplish them? He has no army that could indeed be a large-scale threat to a foreign culture - otherwise, he wouldn't be a terrorist, but a soldier -, he lacks truly broad support that could lead him to otherwise organizing large-scale strikes for he's not a revolutionary; so what do terrorist strikes aim to accomplish?
The maybe clearest answer to this question comes from the RAF - Red Army Faction -, a German left-extremist terrorist group that was the most active during the 70s and had strong ties to Muslim terrorist networks. The RAF attempted to hit the state at points so critical that it'd have to react, and react in a manner that would force it to leave the democratic ground it was based upon, thus making the state deprive itself from its justification. This would eventually lead to a destruction of the state not by the terrorist, but <i>by the state itself.</i>
Only then, they saw a chance of reaching their further leading goals.
This concept worked to some extent: Germanys government saw itself forced to institute special ops with powers that were bound to violate personal rights, it had to start big search actions that cut at times thousands of citizens (although only briefly) from their right of free travel - Germany was forced to become a little more authoritarian. Had the RAF not crumbled into itself due to a lack of organization and some cases of outright stupidity, it might've reached its aim in so far that the Federal Republic would've been devoid of a justification for its existence.
Now, to end the history lesson, the United States are - by the definition their leaders put up time after time - supposed to be leader of the free world, home of democracy (or republicanism, if you feel like going partisan on my backside) and hope of all suffering under injustice. This is the very justification the <i>whole</i> of the American foreign policy and a whole lot of its domestic policy is based upon.
And now, executives of this nation create camps that even a conservative like Jammer doesn't doubt to violate civil rights. They break the most basic constitutional rights of the country - such as the right for a fair trial -, they spy on the citizens they believe to defend and kidnap possibly innocents in foreign countries - all in an effort of fighting terrorism.
To defend the paradise, they destroy it.
And the terrorists are winning.
Human rights? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They have food, shelter, water, and prayer service. That's all I can think of now, and they most likely have MORE. What the hell do you want them to have? A frickin' king sized bed, air conditioning, HBO, and a pool? They're POWs, not resort guests. It's certainly more then they ever had in Afghanistan.
Now Nem, compare Neuremburg to Guantanamo. These are POWs. They have no crime to be tried for besides being an enemy of the state. Unless you'd like waiting 30 years for every single one to have a court date, a trial, etc, all on your tax dollar.
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now Nem, compare Neuremburg to Guantanamo. These are POWs. They have no crime to be tried for besides being an enemy of the state. Unless you'd like waiting 30 years for every single one to have a court date, a trial, etc, all on your tax dollar. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, I should point out that by 'Nürmberg', you're most certainly referring to the trials against German WW2 war criminals, which took place in the 1940s and 50s and bear at best passing significance to the incident I cited.
Second, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Camp X-Ray are <i>no</i> prisoners of war, as the US' administration went to great lengths to state. Prisoners of War have rights - many of which the inmates at those two camps are rejected. Also, if it takes 30 years and some tax dollars to achieve some sort of constitutional justice, then I don't see a reason not to invest them.[/edit]
In the second of the introduction of the term 'Irregular Combatants'.
A somewhat biased but rather complete elaboration can be found <a href='http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/news-iraq4.html' target='_blank'>here</a>. The text centers around Iraqi combatants (of whom many are in the camps as well), but can be extended to most cases of captitives in the 'War on Terrorism'. Note the last paragraph, where it is said " During the 1992 Gulf War and the Vietnam conflict the US convened such tribunals to verify the status of detainees, something that the US did not do – and for which it was justifiably criticized both at home and abroad – in denying POW status to all Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in the Afghan conflict." The tribunals promised for the end of the fights in Iraq have not been institutionalized.[/edit]
OK, let's go through this step by step. Guantanamo Bay and X-Ray violate the Declaration of Human Rights, which has been nothing less than the most basic fundament of international intercourse for the last 60 years, in the following points:
<li><b>Article 2.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The great majority of prisoners in the camps are Arab men of Islamic faith. In many cases, this, and their country of origin is the <i>only</i> grounds on which they are held captitive.
<li><b>Article 3.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seeing that the inmates are - I'll have to repeat it again - not considered prisoners of war in the sense of the Geneva Convention, they're held captive as simple civilians, thus depriving them from their right to liberty and security of person.
<li><b>Article 6.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The inmates in the camp are not allowed a lawyer, nor are they put in front of a public trial. They are refused the recognition in front of American law.
<li><b>Article 7.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Article 7 is an elaboration of Article 2 and 6 - it is broken for the reasons already stated.
<li><b>Article 8.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lawyers tried this in a number of cases of American inmates and won in front of several public trials - the administration refuses to recognize these incidents.
<li><b>Article 9.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The conditions of the camps is a prime example for arbitrary arrest.
<li><b>Article 10.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The government of the United States refuses to recognize any ruling by any public trial - regardless of which country - on the subject of the inmates.
And the most important one:
<li><b>Article 11.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>No inmate of Guantanamo Bay nor X-Ray has been found guilty in front of an orderly trial as of yet.</b>
I could go on, but I guess you get the idea.
And the only reason that the Military/Administration let's have the prisoners of X-Ray/Guantanamo Bay have basic needs like food, water and religious services is so the Red Cross does not force the hand of gov't and release the prisoners for inhumane treatment. It is one thing for us to violate the UN Declaration of Human Rights, because we've pretty much withdrawn from the UN, but when the US violates the basic law of Inhumane treatment, the Red Cross will tell the world. And the World will be angry.
<a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-13.html' target='_blank'>whitehouse.gov</a>
here are the administrations own reasons why non of the detainees qualify under POW
"Al-Qaida is not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW status. Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the Convention. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, however, the Taliban detainees do not qualify as POWs. Therefore, neither the Taliban nor al-Qaida detainees are entitled to POW status."
However, since no trial have as yet been held, I imagine it is not yet proven [legally] that all detainees are in fact members of the Taliban or al-Qaida.
[edit] typos.
"What do you say about a country that protects those who try to destroy it?"
"God Bless America"
Just thought I'd add that in there.
By the way, good job Nem on basically explaining the arguments against the camps in a way that makes sense - certainly a lot better than the incoherent ramblings that I would produce.
If we let everyone go at that camp that "maybe" isn't a terrorist and one of them was responsible for the deaths of any Americans or any other persons, it would be very sad indeed. Their rights are and always will be non void, over public safety. This isn't some game, democracy works great for the drunk guy that hit a kid, or that black guy who murderd his wife, but I don't think these terrorists deserve those rights. Everyone whos there is there for a reason.
Oh yeah, the brother's paid their taxes, were part of the community, had legal greencards/visa's, were upstanding citizens but they were arrested because...They were practicing muslims.
At least the right to talk to a Lawyer?
The right to provide evidence that they aren't the people the gov't assumes?
You seem absolutly convinced that these guys in camp X-Ray are guilty of some crime. So put them on trial. Let the US place them in a court and try them. Give them access to the basic legal rights that apprently every person on the planet has access to. And if they are indeed guilty, then you will have every right to lock them up. But until then, innocent until proven guilty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You still can't top that fact that the POW's at X-ray have more then they had in Afganistan, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, excuse me? Here's a question I'm sure every American would love to answer: which would you prefer? A chain wire cage open to the elemants with a bedroll and a bucket, or freedom? Give any of those inmates a choice and they would be back in Afghanistan in a flash.
Theres the problem right there! They are not "open to the elements" they are not "chained down" they do not go to the bathroom in "buckets". They would go back to Afganistan, only because they hate America so much, that they would continue fighting. There maybe a few inocent people in camp X-ray, A FEW. But the thousands of people that died on 9/11 were ALL inocent. I'm sorry but anyone in that camp, was or is now, a threat.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The prisoners are being housed in cells measuring 1.8 by 2.4 metres (six feet by eight feet) with open, chain-link walls, a concrete floor and wooden roof.
The cells had concrete floors, wooden roofs and wire mesh walls. Prisoners had a foam mat to sleep on, two towels - one for washing, the other to use as a prayer mat - and some form of chamber pot, he said.
"It was a far more bares bones facility than frankly I expected to see. They say they will be holding the detainees in cells, but really they are cages...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1752863.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asi...sia/1752863.stm</a>
So yes, they ARE open to the elements, they ARE in chain-link cages, and they DO go to the bathroom in buckets.
And you still havn't given a reason why these men should not be entitled to a fair trial before the law. If they are indeed, as you so vehemently claim, a threat, then they shall be found guilty and sentanced accordingly.
And if X-Ray and Guantanamo Bay were five-star residences with six-partdinners and seven virgins per inmate, as long as you ground your notions on the United States' heritage, you can not cite those materialistic arguments against the unjust deprivation of liberty.
Aside from this, it boils down to the question Ryo already posed: If the United States' administration can be sure of <i>every</i> inmate being a dangerous terrorist, why does it not dare to prove them guilty?
Personnel are held all over the world in conditions less humane than x-ray. Granted x-ray is the center of discussion at this point in time, especially since we supposidly hold ourselves to a higher standard, but just keep in mind they're crapping in buckets is better than most get. Even soldiers don't get buckets to crap in <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> And if anyones seen that video about what the afganis did to a captured russian.... I'd say that was pretty inhumane. But at least they don't have to worry about people complaining about their prisons.... just don't take prisoners! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
I've heard an account or two about people "dissappearing" here in america and being held indefinately without a trial, a charge, or a chance to speak with anyone.
You're right, they haven't charged or found them guilty of anything.
And I'm not afraid to say I wouldn't want to let them go either.
However we've done similar things the past; because of our system, murderers have gotten off on technicalities
The basic idea of our system (republic/democracy style thing) is good in my opinion, but these guys are doing a pretty good job of shaking it up (like Nem said). So what's the answer? Hold them? Just let them go free knowing they may be the next bomber? Charge them with something that will never hold in court? Give in and change our system to something else (Communist with a gun might like that one <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The basic idea of our system (republic/democracy style thing) is good in my opinion, but these guys are doing a pretty good job of shaking it up (like Nem said). So what's the answer?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To me, the answer is easy: Let them go unless you can prove them guilty.
Yes, this <i>could</i> set a SoB on free foot again, but the matter of fact is that nobody knows, and if I've got to choose between a <i>probability</i> (which is - given the arrest policy that led people into X-Ray and Guantanamo Bay - not even that high) of giving someone the <i>chance</i> of <i>attempting</i> a strike that will in no case lead to more casualties than the traffic in New York claims each month, and the <i>sincerety</i> of betraying my most sacred principles, I know which to pick. Besides, if you got so far as to arrest people and put them into a prison camp, do you think it'd be so difficult for a special service to keep tabs on them if there's truly a justified suspicion?
US government/military is the one who should give the evidence. Not the defendants. They might as well pick you from the street and say: 'we are keeping you because you play violent computer games and you might at some point snap and kill dozens of people. It has happened before so it's safe to assume that you will do it too. Have a nice day'
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The people that you are talking about are willing participants in the murder of thousands if not millions of people, and yet we still give them food, water, medical and shelter. Why are we so nice to mass murders? I whish I could answer that, but I can’t maybe you guys could tell me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe because of all the conventions, treaties and laws you have made(and broken allready).
Edit: Basically you are saying it's ok to throw an Arab in to jail only because he is an arab and other arabs have committed horrible deeds.
Edit2: <!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hate to be like Dread here...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell is that supposed to mean? <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo--> *wets finger and pokes it in Burncycles ear* <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->