Guantánamo Bay

[HershOstropoler]

"To deal with that various states have adopted techniques that go beyong what they use with ordinary criminals."

And there is no problem with that as long as they stay within the limits of fundamental rights. That's always a tricky problem.

Also, Germany stayed within those limits and broke the RAF. The UK did not and arbitrary arrests did crap against the IRA. So while the situations were different of course, it's not like ****ing fundamental rights is a sure fire way to fight terrorism.

[oedo]

MrBaggins, if you think that up to 600 innocents tortured in Gitmo is not a significant number, note there are two more US controlled torture camps. one is in Bagram, Afghanistan. the other one is in Diego Garcia, India. compared to these, Gitmo would probably be a paradise for the inmates. estimated 3.000 prisoneers are held in these camps.
and if you think that up to 3.000 innocents kept in torture camps is still no significant number, I´m starting to wonder why you condemn terrorist attacks like 911.

[MrBaggins]

Don't even start to try to compare these specifically targetted unlawful combatants, with the indescriminately KILLED 9-11 victims. There is no moral equivalence.

[oedo]

[sarcasm]

how is that? from my knowledge, the WTC victims didn´t prove their innocence, yet.

[/sarcasm]


an innocent is an innocent. period.

[MrBaggins]

Well, thats not a common sentiment, or, for that matter not one held by anyone of import.

[MrBaggins]

Honestly.

I really could care less about the freedom of those in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Bagram, Afghanistan or Diego Garcia, India.

There is obviously selection taking place. If the selection process were indescriminate there would be millions/billions of detainees.

I don't care about their rights to a regular trial. They haven't been killed, as those who died on 9-11

[oedo]

I really could care less about the freedom of those in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Bagram, Afghanistan or Diego Garcia, India.

can you name ten inmates, who are most likely guilty of being a terrorist or murderer? and if so, what did they do that would justify this kind of treatment? find out the names of only ten real terrorists out of 3.000. you got the whole internet. a fair chance.
link: OBL or Saddam is not inside these camps.

There is obviously selection taking place. If the selection process were indescriminate there would be millions/billions of detainees.

probably. many have been handed out to terror regimes like pakistan. it´s also a matter of the camp´s capacities. a million would take more time than Bush (hopefully) has.

I don't care about their rights to a regular trial. They haven't been killed, as those who died on 9-11

now, that´s a point. I could come up with civilians being killed in the recent anti terror wars. but this is another issue.

[MrBaggins]

Luckily... I don't know the identity of the people in the camps. If I had that information readily available... I'd consider that a problem

I have some guaranteed innocents:

The unborn children of pregnant mothers who died during 9-11.

Prove their guilt.


Can you prove the innocence of ANY of the detainees?

[oedo]

nice dodge

I don´t need to prove anyone´s innocence, since my whole point is everyone has to be considered innocent as long as his guilt hasn´t been proven. of course this also counts for unborn childs.

I posted a link above, though. his name is Mohammed Saghir and he is no terrorist, but a taxi driver. he was held in Gitmo for ten months until November 2002.

[MrBaggins]

The contention is that any system dealing with these terrorists REQUIRES a lesser standard for the detention, than normal criminal trials, and freer discretion on length of detention. The fact that anyone has been released from detention... alive... proves that the system works. *smiles*

Of course... if you could provide a GUARANTEED method of effective terrorist hunting, that protected their civil rights, that would be OK...

But, can you?

[oedo]

the best method would a fair trial.
see, I have no problem with people being captured as long as they are suspicious and their issue is SERIOUSLY investigated. I can´t see that in Gitmo.

the only 100% guaranteed method of effective terrorist hunting would be nuking the whole world. I promise you after that no terrorist will be alive anymore.

Gitmo, Bagram and Diego Garcia are obviously not 100% effective. OBL is still free. so is the rest of the al Qaeda elite.

[MrBaggins]

A "fair trial" isn't viable: a fair trial allows the terrorist to communicate to other terrorists in his organization. His right to that speech is overridden by (the many) others rights to live.

Anyway, since the innocent are being released, there is no problem anyway... you yourself provided an example of an innocent being released.

As for its effectiveness... I'd say OBL isn't caught. YET. (But a number of high ranking al Qaeda ARE)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"To deal with that various states have adopted techniques that go beyong what they use with ordinary criminals."

And there is no problem with that as long as they stay within the limits of fundamental rights. That's always a tricky problem.

Also, Germany stayed within those limits and broke the RAF. The UK did not and arbitrary arrests did crap against the IRA. So while the situations were different of course, it's not like ****ing fundamental rights is a sure fire way to fight terrorism.

I know of no surefire way to fight terrorism. The right approach will vary even within the WOT. What makes sense in afghanistan may not make sense in Baghdad. What makes sense in Buffalo, NY may not work in Karachi. We can only weigh risks, and monitor the situation as best we can.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by oedo
MrBaggins, if you think that up to 600 innocents tortured in Gitmo is not a significant number, note there are two more US controlled torture camps. one is in Bagram, Afghanistan. the other one is in Diego Garcia, India. compared to these, Gitmo would probably be a paradise for the inmates. estimated 3.000 prisoneers are held in these camps.
and if you think that up to 3.000 innocents kept in torture camps is still no significant number, I´m starting to wonder why you condemn terrorist attacks like 911.

torture camps - if those are torture camps, then what the hell are we "rending" prisoners to the Syrians and Jordanians for?

Not to make light of the situation - a serious discussion of the "rendition" program I'd like to see. But saying absurd things about Gitmo and Bagram wont get you there.

[Pekka]

I'm not going to argue with the legality of this whole thing. I don't have a problem with this.

But I do think, we need to be very careful.. Because someone else might come up with this idea too, and they might not be so sincere about it, maybe 10 years later. So we need to be careful.

The other thing, I think the prosecutions needs to speed up. Indefinite time without legal help or pretty much anything doesn't sound good, even if we are talking about the trash of the human. For example: If we had one of our nationalities there in the camp right now, I'd demand some kind of evidence that justifies further detention without actual prosecuting. After all, we need to have control our citizens over anyone else. That includes the US too. If they commit crimes against the US, like this, then they are to be captured and tried there for sure, but .. their status can't be held as question mark forever. I don't know, what kind of co-operation there is between the countries that has their nationalities in there, but I'd suppose they are giving some kind of proof, at least the something to show that they have some bad element that they captured. Right?