Guantanamo bay

[st_swithin]

Have I mentioned recently how much I love you guys?

Dubya's that old geezer from Texas, right?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by oedo

http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6733441%255E401,00.html

100$ for an innocent man being captured in an hell-like place for 10 long months. the US govt hopefully won´t get away with this.

most of the Guantanamo inmates are innocents being tortured for nothing. they don´t even know, why they have been brought there. and don´t tell me anything as long as you don´t know better. some people here just claim they would be terrorists and all this ****, while these claims don´t have any substance at all.
if Sanghir will get the compensation - and I hope he will - this will becomne a very expensive mess for the US goverment, since hundreds of most likely innocent prisoneers are still captured in Guantanamo spending even more than ´only´ 10 months there.

I fear a solution of the US-Government could be,
to refrain from releasing any more Guantamo-Prisoners from now on, even if they are innocent (just tell the Public, that their Innocence isn´t proven yet and they might still be Terrorists ).

But of course, I hope that Sangir has success with sueing the US-Government. Being innocent and undergoing 10 months of such a torture which could probably result in psychological damage should be properly reimbursed (and AFAIK if you sue someone before an american court, you can get high remunerations for even less injuries (although most of the money will go to your Lawyers ))

[Panag]

Originally posted by Dissident
I just had a thought.

Why doesn't Cuba invade Gitmo and set these prisoners free?

Sure it would draw them into a war with the U.S.

But it is the right thing to do.

hi ,

them usmc's stationed there shall keep them at bay , .....

no to mention the tough of a nuke above someones head , .....

the cuban regime aint stable like it was twenty years ago , ......

it would be the end of the regime and it would mean freedom for the cubans


hasta siempre

[Whaleboy]

Your level of understanding of modern Islamic fundamentalism and the Salafist viewpoints espoused by Sayyed al Qutb and Sayyed al Maududi are at that level of sophistication, yes

I spent months researching it, and am finishing a book on the topic. I would postulate that my knowledge of Islamic fundamentalism is greater than yours . Just because one doesnt agree doesnt somehow make them less educated. You seem to be misunderstanding my arguments, perhaps you should actually read my posts before you assume that I am supporting Al Qaeda because I understand them in a relativist manner.

It is becoming increasingly clear the Guantanamo bay is an exploitation of a legal loophole... hence they do it on Cuban soil, not US soil, so apparently the constitution doesn't apply. They declare these people "unlawful combatants", even though they give no evidence of that, except reports of the general manner of capture that cannot be corroborated. They justify incarceration and conditions that are easily classified as torture for the sake of international/homeland security. They exploit legal loopholes to do this, but they cannot get away from the fact that these men are human beings first and thus deserving of all human rights affordable to them, until they are found guilty of a crime... yet thus far they havent been charged. When they are, they will face an unfair trial and a high possibility of the death penalty. They are presumed guilty before innocent, and that is unnacceptable. These men represent little or no tactical threat, and cannot be deemed otherwise without evidence. No-one is deserving of this treatment. If America cannot keep prisoners in a reasonable condition, or keep and try them fairly without compromising national security, then they shouldnt keep them. These men, assuming they are terrorists, represent a tiny fraction of all the people who would blow themselves up, they are merely minnows compared to the big fish the US should be after. It is looking increasingly like these men are sacrificial lambs to satisfy a national blood lust. Millions of dollars are being spent, yet no increase in national security has been achieved, in fact the opposite (way to piss people off), however, though it, and the wars fought are counter-productive in any war on terror, they are good for a war against the democrats.

These mens humanity should be held in the highest regard like all other prisoners in modern Western societies, they should be assumed innocent before guilty, and kept in conditions no worse than prisoners in a comparable conditions. No legal status is no excuse. A convention like Geneva regarding the treatment of prisoners shouldn't be followed only by the letter, but by the spirit, one presumably signs such a thing because one believes in the concept, not the legal structure of such a document.

In the meantime, I think the men there should be repatriated to their homes and families, and America should get over its obsession with terrorists and the flawed notions of how they deal with them. Military action will simply fail in this respect. Fishing is a completely different sport to hammering in a nail. The US militarism is best at hammering in nails, if you want to fish, you use a rod and net (intelligence). A degree more moral and cultural relativism wouldn't hurt, and, in general, more respect for the rights of prisoners would be nice (i.e. no death penalty). Rant over.

What's indefensible? How would you detain and secure a bunch of *******s who think dying while attempting to kill you is a ticket to paradise and 72 virgins?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by elijah
I would postulate that my knowledge of Islamic fundamentalism is greater than yours .

If it's anything akin to your legal knowledge of this matter, I doubt it.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by elijah

I call humanism!

Me too!!! I want humanist Arab fundamentalists!

[Whaleboy]

If it's anything akin to your legal knowledge of this matter, I doubt it

It isn't

Me too!!! I want humanist Arab fundamentalists

I dont like the connotations of that, but they are human, and it serves no useful purpose to demonise them, except to further entrench our position, and support fallacies of post-post modernist Western "reasoning", used in our governments to justify our behaviour. Sure we dont like what they do, but lets keep things rational, not emotional BS like revenge, pride and patriotism.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by elijah

I dont like the connotations of that, but they are human, and it serves no useful purpose to demonise them, except to further entrench our position, and support fallacies of post-post modernist Western "reasoning", used in our governments to justify our behaviour. Sure we dont like what they do, but lets keep things rational, not emotional BS like revenge, pride and patriotism.

Where do you read something of "revenge, pride and patriotism" in my post?

Humanism is for me the one of the most important ideas - why is it wrong to demand that others follow this idea? Especially when I get the impression that a certain group of fundamentalists behave towards their enemies (as well as, btw, towards a lot of their own people) without the humanism you call for? Don´t they demonize "the west" in general? Don´t they call for revenge (for whatever)?

I only demand that they act within certain limits, nonone says they cannot have their own religion, culture, or whatever.

[Whaleboy]

Where do you read something of "revenge, pride and patriotism" in my post?

Sorry I thought you were taking the piss!

I'd like the fundamentalists to follow that too, but I accept that they dont, and like other beliefs of mine, I wouldnt impose them on others no matter how strongly I believe in them. However, I will be humanist, and ask that they are, whilst understanding if/that they dont.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by elijah


Sorry I thought you were taking the piss!

I'd like the fundamentalists to follow that too, but I accept that they dont, and like other beliefs of mine, I wouldnt impose them on others no matter how strongly I believe in them. However, I will be humanist, and ask that they are, whilst understanding if/that they dont.

That looks like double standarts too me, esp. when you demand a certain behaviour from the western side.

I can perhaps understand why they act in certain ways, but I do not accept it as long they take the right to kill anyone they arbitrarily define as enemy or infidel.

[Whaleboy]

That looks like double standarts too me, esp. when you demand a certain behaviour from the western side.

Not at all, its called cultural relativism. Put simply, its about accepting the limits of ones own views, and the illogical nature of imposing them on others. It means that I can be libertarian, despising dictatorships, yet against us forcefully overthrowing them. It allows me to hold a view, and to support that view, but not support the imposition of that view on others.

I demand a certain behaviour from us because we like to think we are more civilised, more developed etc, and in any case, sociologically speaking, we are in a better position to do that, being more libertarian and all.

I do not accept their right to kill anyone of course, and in a position I would DEFEND myself (in terms of national security, use intelligence etc), but I do not think it is right to impose our cultural and moral views on them in order to make them change, even if such an endeavor were to work (which it hasnt and wont), it would be illogical.

Their view of people as infidels is no different to Bush's view of the people at Guantanamo as "bad people", in terms of validity for each person.

I'm not saying we should agree with them, far from it, I'm saying that (intellectually speaking) they have a different view that is as valid as ours. Ideally we leave each other alone, but just because elements of their society decide to attack us does not deny their right to that view, from either us, or any kind of "objective" context.

[BeBMan]

Which leads to another debate about cultural relativism - a concept I do not support, at least not in your sense But I have to drop into real life soon, maybe I check back later or tomorrow....

[Whaleboy]

For me, cultural relativism and logic forms a very important part of how I think societies should deal with each other, which is pretty relevant here.

But I have to drop into real life soon, maybe I check back later or tomorrow

NOOOOOOO!!! The real world sucks!!!

[Arrian]

Do the prisoners warrant sufficient tactical threat to be placed in those conditions that are 8/10 if Auschwitz is 10/10

This pretty much sums you up for me, Elijah. Not that I took you seriously before, but I don't think I had such a perfect illustration of your silliness.

Heil Bush!

-Arrian

[Arrian]

What I find particularly disgusting is when a moral relativist goes off on a rant against the US [or anything, really] on MORAL GROUNDS. Which is precisely what you're doing, Elijah.

Personally, I am suspect of the value of the camp down in Quitmo, but it doesn't upset me on a moral level.

I also happen to agree that the WoT should be intelligence/law enforcement first, military second. For practical reasons.

-Arrian