Prison camp photos spark protests
January 20, 2002 9:15 AM Subscribe
Prison camp photos spark protests Protests about conditions valid? Overdone? Or: who cares.
Yes, our beloved government is capable of the unspeakable evils we fight against.
posted by fleener at 10:09 AM on January 20, 2002
posted by fleener at 10:09 AM on January 20, 2002
This is unspeakable evil, Fleener? You need to get out more.
posted by dhartung at 10:15 AM on January 20, 2002
posted by dhartung at 10:15 AM on January 20, 2002
From the article... Washington has refused to give the detainees prisoner-of-war status...
huh? I thought this was a war. Now it's not? Boy am I confused. Maybe G.W. just spelled war wrong so many times that they decided to drop the term and take the pressure off the poor guy.
Dick is it w-o-r-r? How does that go again? Mah ciphering isn't no good with all this excitement going on...
posted by holycola at 10:15 AM on January 20, 2002
huh? I thought this was a war. Now it's not? Boy am I confused. Maybe G.W. just spelled war wrong so many times that they decided to drop the term and take the pressure off the poor guy.
Dick is it w-o-r-r? How does that go again? Mah ciphering isn't no good with all this excitement going on...
posted by holycola at 10:15 AM on January 20, 2002
You can't trust this bbc stuff, I'm waiting to see what the LA Times and CNN tell me what to think about it.
posted by victors at 10:29 AM on January 20, 2002
posted by victors at 10:29 AM on January 20, 2002
Yeah, fleener, a prison where the Red Cross is allowed to freely wander the grounds and publicly analyze conditions really, really sounds like unspeakable evil to me. Maybe Fidel will see such unspeakable evil in his back yard and penalize his own prisoners in the same way. Or maybe he'll just keep shooting them in their beds in the night, like good humane countries do.
posted by louie at 10:33 AM on January 20, 2002
posted by louie at 10:33 AM on January 20, 2002
make em dig through the rubble of the wtc's with their bare hands. oh, and anything they find in the way of food, then they get to eat.
posted by billybob at 10:39 AM on January 20, 2002
posted by billybob at 10:39 AM on January 20, 2002
fleener's a troll, people.
those cages are better than my first studio apartment in Chicago. That place still gives me nightmares!
posted by David Dark at 10:54 AM on January 20, 2002
those cages are better than my first studio apartment in Chicago. That place still gives me nightmares!
posted by David Dark at 10:54 AM on January 20, 2002
make em dig through the rubble of the wtc's with their bare hands. oh, and anything they find in the way of food, then they get to eat.
Wow, that's an ignorant comment. What ever happened to treating people, regardless of race or religion, like fucking human beings? Everyone seems to have this "eye for an eye" mentality, that they believe is somehow going to solve the problem's were having.
It's not. Torturing the enemy is only going to serve to bring more like-minded, young, radical Muslims to their cause. It's insane.
posted by SweetJesus at 10:59 AM on January 20, 2002
Wow, that's an ignorant comment. What ever happened to treating people, regardless of race or religion, like fucking human beings? Everyone seems to have this "eye for an eye" mentality, that they believe is somehow going to solve the problem's were having.
It's not. Torturing the enemy is only going to serve to bring more like-minded, young, radical Muslims to their cause. It's insane.
posted by SweetJesus at 10:59 AM on January 20, 2002
victors, you haven't noticed? us media hasn't shown any up-close pictures of the prison. and the government has asked them not to.
at the news.yahoo.com photo archive there were one or two, of prisoners getting off planes and such. they were quickly retracted by the associated press after the defense department asked them to stop.
i also believe cnn had some video of the same thing, and it was only shown once.
the pictures in this article are the most up-close and personal i've seen. (if anyone has better ones, or simply more, please share)
actually, upon further research, it seems that the bbc isn't all that far ahead. these pictures were cleared by the u.s. navy and released to the ap. and the big uproar over them? well, kind of makes you think what photos they can't release.
posted by complex at 11:01 AM on January 20, 2002
at the news.yahoo.com photo archive there were one or two, of prisoners getting off planes and such. they were quickly retracted by the associated press after the defense department asked them to stop.
i also believe cnn had some video of the same thing, and it was only shown once.
the pictures in this article are the most up-close and personal i've seen. (if anyone has better ones, or simply more, please share)
actually, upon further research, it seems that the bbc isn't all that far ahead. these pictures were cleared by the u.s. navy and released to the ap. and the big uproar over them? well, kind of makes you think what photos they can't release.
posted by complex at 11:01 AM on January 20, 2002
I find it laughably ironic that the British government is lecturing us on the proper way to treat these prisoners after the utter debacle they created by granting captured IRA guerrillas "special category" status back in the 1970s, effectively turning them from common murderers into political prisoners which allowed them free run of the prison systems that they were incarcerated in. If we want to turn Guantanamo into the Maze, then by all means, lets declare them POWs and then sit back, wait for them to go on hunger strikes, and inflame world opinion even more.
For Amnesty International to start bandying about accusations of torture at this point is irresponsible and inflammatory based on the scant evidence provided by a handful of photos. It reeks of grandstanding.
posted by MrBaliHai at 11:08 AM on January 20, 2002
For Amnesty International to start bandying about accusations of torture at this point is irresponsible and inflammatory based on the scant evidence provided by a handful of photos. It reeks of grandstanding.
posted by MrBaliHai at 11:08 AM on January 20, 2002
Instead of shouting, it would be useful to debate the conditions under which a person is entitled to protest conditions in a jail. Some people seem to think that not only is sensory deprivation OK, but everything else, and that no protest would ever be valid.
posted by rschram at 11:15 AM on January 20, 2002
posted by rschram at 11:15 AM on January 20, 2002
complex, duck! it's a black helicopter!
I count 114 photos at Yahoo News (though many of them are repeats). Though some of the new close-ups are by US Navy photog, others are by wire-service pool photographers -- who don't have free run of the base, of course, but seem able to observe prisoner movement activities among other things (it is, afterall, open-air, as we are constantly reminded). There's even a shot of NBC setting up a satellite dish. Yep, this is certainly the way the government keeps a lid on a story.
Now, what was that conspiracy theory again?
"what photos they can't release"
Gawd. What the hell country do you think we're in, Argentina in the 1970s?
posted by dhartung at 11:20 AM on January 20, 2002
I count 114 photos at Yahoo News (though many of them are repeats). Though some of the new close-ups are by US Navy photog, others are by wire-service pool photographers -- who don't have free run of the base, of course, but seem able to observe prisoner movement activities among other things (it is, afterall, open-air, as we are constantly reminded). There's even a shot of NBC setting up a satellite dish. Yep, this is certainly the way the government keeps a lid on a story.
Now, what was that conspiracy theory again?
"what photos they can't release"
Gawd. What the hell country do you think we're in, Argentina in the 1970s?
posted by dhartung at 11:20 AM on January 20, 2002
So let me get this straight. People are speculating about the conditions based on some pictures of some dejected looking men wearing hoods and a diagram of a cell? It's torture to wear earmuffs to protect against airplane noise and not have them taken off immediately? This is armchair evidence gathering. As a caring human being, I am in support of decent and respectful treatment to any prisoner -- no vindictiveness required from this American. However, I think I'll wait until the Red Cross speaks up before I get my panties in a bunch.
posted by dness2 at 11:28 AM on January 20, 2002
posted by dness2 at 11:28 AM on January 20, 2002
Well, folks! The problem is that they released the pictures, and told the world about the conditions the A Q:s are hold.
In every army, in every democratic contry, there is special forces who works with collecting intelligence from prisoners.
The Geneva convention is an old document from an old world. The point is, that these prisoners knows about structure, planning, names ..... potential new terror....
So, every man who has served as a soldier knows that there is under these conditions you will be held by the enemy. At least we in Sweden are trained for it.
posted by Ulwen at 11:29 AM on January 20, 2002
In every army, in every democratic contry, there is special forces who works with collecting intelligence from prisoners.
The Geneva convention is an old document from an old world. The point is, that these prisoners knows about structure, planning, names ..... potential new terror....
So, every man who has served as a soldier knows that there is under these conditions you will be held by the enemy. At least we in Sweden are trained for it.
posted by Ulwen at 11:29 AM on January 20, 2002
Building a dog kennel...Obviously, the size of your kennel depends on your dog. An 8x16 foot enclosure is a typical size. Large dogs may need a 16x16 foot kennel, while small dogs might rest easy in a 10x10 or even an 8x8 foot kennel.
posted by Mack Twain at 11:30 AM on January 20, 2002
posted by Mack Twain at 11:30 AM on January 20, 2002
Just as a data point, Britain is taking some flak of its own for detainees in its terror-suspect round-up. Without a trace of irony, adjectives such as "barbaric" are being tossed about.
Apparently, they're being kept in cells that don't see sunlight all that often. Shudder. Plus, they don't get to pick and choose who strip-searches them! And when they pray (5 times a day, remember), there's no imam!
And when the Independent slammed Camp X-Ray, one of the most damning specifics they could come up with was the beard-shaving.
Folks, there is no beard requirement in Islam, as the many unbearded Muslims you can see just about anywhere prove. And you don't need an imam for every prayer, it's simply preferred practice. (What did the Saudi shuttle astronaut do?) The Geneva Conventions do not require bending over backwards for every prisoner's religiously-justified whim, only treating all prisoners equally.
Nonsense criticisms such as this have the air of the boy who cried wolf. Organizations that raise such bogus objections have to know that they will be taken much less seriously in the future.
posted by dhartung at 11:38 AM on January 20, 2002
Apparently, they're being kept in cells that don't see sunlight all that often. Shudder. Plus, they don't get to pick and choose who strip-searches them! And when they pray (5 times a day, remember), there's no imam!
And when the Independent slammed Camp X-Ray, one of the most damning specifics they could come up with was the beard-shaving.
Folks, there is no beard requirement in Islam, as the many unbearded Muslims you can see just about anywhere prove. And you don't need an imam for every prayer, it's simply preferred practice. (What did the Saudi shuttle astronaut do?) The Geneva Conventions do not require bending over backwards for every prisoner's religiously-justified whim, only treating all prisoners equally.
Nonsense criticisms such as this have the air of the boy who cried wolf. Organizations that raise such bogus objections have to know that they will be taken much less seriously in the future.
posted by dhartung at 11:38 AM on January 20, 2002
"They will probably have panic attacks, mood changes and terrible nightmares..."
You bastards!!! Have you no shame or decency!!! Has your horror no boundaries!!! When will your trail or terror stop?!?!?! Oh, the nightmares, oh!!!
Seriously people, weather the government wants to admit it or not, these people are in fact prisoners of war. I don't like it any more than you do, but it comes with the territory. If it should ever happen that an American, British, French, German or Canadian was held as a P.O.W in Afganistan, I seriously doubt that hallucinations and nightmares would be the worst fate that he would suffer.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go caress my inner child now. Ahhhh...
posted by tiger yang at 11:51 AM on January 20, 2002
You bastards!!! Have you no shame or decency!!! Has your horror no boundaries!!! When will your trail or terror stop?!?!?! Oh, the nightmares, oh!!!
Seriously people, weather the government wants to admit it or not, these people are in fact prisoners of war. I don't like it any more than you do, but it comes with the territory. If it should ever happen that an American, British, French, German or Canadian was held as a P.O.W in Afganistan, I seriously doubt that hallucinations and nightmares would be the worst fate that he would suffer.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go caress my inner child now. Ahhhh...
posted by tiger yang at 11:51 AM on January 20, 2002
dam dhartung -- do you suppose it helps your arguments to be so fucking McCarthyistically arrogant? I looked at every one of those 114 pictures and I counted SEVEN unique shots of prisoners, SIX of which came from the US gov't. all of which are on "walks," none of which are illustrative of life in that prison. What was that about 'nonesense critisism'?
Some of don't trust the us gov't, some of us don't trust the press, some of don't feel like being told to shut up because you have figured it all out.
Some of us are confused by the bullshit of 9/11 and are trying to weed through the bullshit despite what we are told by talking heads and columnists selling soap and underwear on tv and in pulp. Some of us are looking to find a way to rationalize our previous understanding of what it "right" and "justified" in light of our surivial instinct being kicked into high gear.
Some of us actually understand in ways (prepare for the shock) that you might not the conflicts and complexities between the need for securing a bunch of suicidal sick fucks and the questioning of why we even bother making a show capture/trial of these assholes in the first place when humiliating them in these ways will only trigger more hatred in the world.
complex: I was being sarcastic.
posted by victors at 12:03 PM on January 20, 2002
Some of don't trust the us gov't, some of us don't trust the press, some of don't feel like being told to shut up because you have figured it all out.
Some of us are confused by the bullshit of 9/11 and are trying to weed through the bullshit despite what we are told by talking heads and columnists selling soap and underwear on tv and in pulp. Some of us are looking to find a way to rationalize our previous understanding of what it "right" and "justified" in light of our surivial instinct being kicked into high gear.
Some of us actually understand in ways (prepare for the shock) that you might not the conflicts and complexities between the need for securing a bunch of suicidal sick fucks and the questioning of why we even bother making a show capture/trial of these assholes in the first place when humiliating them in these ways will only trigger more hatred in the world.
complex: I was being sarcastic.
posted by victors at 12:03 PM on January 20, 2002
Torturing the enemy is only going to serve to bring more like-minded, young, radical Muslims to their cause.
Everyone that hates us is already going to anyways. In case you noticed, the people who support Bin Laden aren't exactly big fans of what we like to call "facts". Those folks already live inside a big ole reality distortion field. Don't know why bothered bringing these noodniks all the way over to Cuba instead of an Afghan dirt nap.
posted by owillis at 12:06 PM on January 20, 2002
Everyone that hates us is already going to anyways. In case you noticed, the people who support Bin Laden aren't exactly big fans of what we like to call "facts". Those folks already live inside a big ole reality distortion field. Don't know why bothered bringing these noodniks all the way over to Cuba instead of an Afghan dirt nap.
posted by owillis at 12:06 PM on January 20, 2002
Don't know why [we] bothered bringing these noodniks all the way over to Cuba instead of an Afghan dirt nap
'cause dubya promised "justice" and this is best they could come up with. don't you sleep better now? I know I do.
posted by victors at 12:19 PM on January 20, 2002
'cause dubya promised "justice" and this is best they could come up with. don't you sleep better now? I know I do.
posted by victors at 12:19 PM on January 20, 2002
From the article... Washington has refused to give the detainees prisoner-of-war status...
huh? I thought this was a war. Now it's not? Boy am I confused.
It's not the "war" part that's the issue; rather, it's their status as "prisoners." Seems that once you use the term "prisoner" to describe someone, the Geneva Convention rules apply -- which includes the promise of trial in an independent court of law, as opposed to a military tribunal.
By calling them "detainees," US authorities give themselves a work-around.
posted by verdezza at 12:21 PM on January 20, 2002
huh? I thought this was a war. Now it's not? Boy am I confused.
It's not the "war" part that's the issue; rather, it's their status as "prisoners." Seems that once you use the term "prisoner" to describe someone, the Geneva Convention rules apply -- which includes the promise of trial in an independent court of law, as opposed to a military tribunal.
By calling them "detainees," US authorities give themselves a work-around.
posted by verdezza at 12:21 PM on January 20, 2002
owillis: Everyone that hates us is already going to anyways
and everyone in this thread has already decided what they think.
owillis: there's no reason to give people who hate us more reasons to do so.
much more importantly, the United States is supposed to stand for good and truth and right. for honor and fair play. our leaders say so, and I think that most of the people who live here want to believe its true.
what a lot of people on the right describe as "hatred of the US" is not that at all: it's love of US ideals coming up against US actions. it's a hatred for the hypocrisy that our government exhibits all too often.
if you're going to spout ideals, live by them, or expect to get called out. if you speak and decide for people who actually hold those ideals, expect some flak when you blatantly disregard them.
in my opinion we should treat those prisoners according to Geneva conventions, and not choose verbage that we claim lets us off the hook. we should do that because, if we want the world to see us as good guys, we need to be good guys.
there's a more important reason: we should do it because it's right.
for example, shaving off those men's beards was an unnecessary act designed to humiliate them. it is exactly the reason that nazi prison camps shaved the heads of their prisoners, male and female alike. it is an act of aggression, though its not one that will ever cause anyone any physical harm.
it is beneath us. I am deeply ashamed of my government for it.
posted by rebeccablood at 12:28 PM on January 20, 2002
and everyone in this thread has already decided what they think.
owillis: there's no reason to give people who hate us more reasons to do so.
much more importantly, the United States is supposed to stand for good and truth and right. for honor and fair play. our leaders say so, and I think that most of the people who live here want to believe its true.
what a lot of people on the right describe as "hatred of the US" is not that at all: it's love of US ideals coming up against US actions. it's a hatred for the hypocrisy that our government exhibits all too often.
if you're going to spout ideals, live by them, or expect to get called out. if you speak and decide for people who actually hold those ideals, expect some flak when you blatantly disregard them.
in my opinion we should treat those prisoners according to Geneva conventions, and not choose verbage that we claim lets us off the hook. we should do that because, if we want the world to see us as good guys, we need to be good guys.
there's a more important reason: we should do it because it's right.
for example, shaving off those men's beards was an unnecessary act designed to humiliate them. it is exactly the reason that nazi prison camps shaved the heads of their prisoners, male and female alike. it is an act of aggression, though its not one that will ever cause anyone any physical harm.
it is beneath us. I am deeply ashamed of my government for it.
posted by rebeccablood at 12:28 PM on January 20, 2002
Here's the link I meant to include in my "prisoner" vs. "detainee" comments above, but couldn't find until now (NY Times, registration req'd.; use ID "metafi"/password "metafi").
posted by verdezza at 12:28 PM on January 20, 2002
posted by verdezza at 12:28 PM on January 20, 2002
rebeccablood, how nutty that you'd suggest we do the right thing. amen.
In yesterdays NYT (yes, reg required, see above), William Schultze, the head of Amnesty International USA made an excellent and pragmatic argument for, well, adhering to the Geneva Convention, following international law, and recognizing these captives as POWs.
Haven't we been told endless we're waging a "WAR on terrorism"?? It's just not credible to suggest these prisoners are anything but POWs.
posted by donovan at 1:13 PM on January 20, 2002
In yesterdays NYT (yes, reg required, see above), William Schultze, the head of Amnesty International USA made an excellent and pragmatic argument for, well, adhering to the Geneva Convention, following international law, and recognizing these captives as POWs.
Haven't we been told endless we're waging a "WAR on terrorism"?? It's just not credible to suggest these prisoners are anything but POWs.
posted by donovan at 1:13 PM on January 20, 2002
Rebeccablood, I thought that shaving beards was a security precaution--so prisoners don't hide sharp objects in them.
Many US prisons have similar grooming regulations. At some point, the line must be drawn between the safety and security of the prison, and respecting the religious beliefs of the inmates.
Comparing the US treatment of prisoners to a Nazi death camp seems a strong to me. I think the situation is a bit more nuanced than that.
Furthermore, I think certain intimidation tactics are completely justified. How effective would any crime fighting, law enforcing organization be if it didn't instill fear in criminals? But on the other hand, we shouldn’t be inhumane, e.g. torture them. For me, whatever psychological damage was done to these prisoners because their beards were shaved doesn’t seem grossly inhumane or cruel to me.
The US govt is justified in conveying to these prisoners that they are in a world of shit, and that the prisoners need to confess any private information about bin Laden or future terrorist acts.
posted by ktheory at 1:16 PM on January 20, 2002
Many US prisons have similar grooming regulations. At some point, the line must be drawn between the safety and security of the prison, and respecting the religious beliefs of the inmates.
Comparing the US treatment of prisoners to a Nazi death camp seems a strong to me. I think the situation is a bit more nuanced than that.
Furthermore, I think certain intimidation tactics are completely justified. How effective would any crime fighting, law enforcing organization be if it didn't instill fear in criminals? But on the other hand, we shouldn’t be inhumane, e.g. torture them. For me, whatever psychological damage was done to these prisoners because their beards were shaved doesn’t seem grossly inhumane or cruel to me.
The US govt is justified in conveying to these prisoners that they are in a world of shit, and that the prisoners need to confess any private information about bin Laden or future terrorist acts.
posted by ktheory at 1:16 PM on January 20, 2002
rebeccablood - One of the aspects of the Geneva conventions is that prisoners are not to be subjected to public humiliation. This could easily be why there are few pictures of the people there, despite the presence of independent observers.
Are far as shaving beards, that may have been a hygiene concern, but I don't know.
I do know that you're edging toward a Godwin with the Nazi comment, though.
posted by NortonDC at 1:27 PM on January 20, 2002
Are far as shaving beards, that may have been a hygiene concern, but I don't know.
I do know that you're edging toward a Godwin with the Nazi comment, though.
posted by NortonDC at 1:27 PM on January 20, 2002
ktheory: I wasn't comparing US treatment of prisoner to nazi death camps. I was comparing motivations for similar actions. I couldn't think of another example of shaving hair for intimidation purposes.
if they were concerned about hiding weapons in beards (and I have to question whether that *could* be true...do they think these guys are just regularly issued box cutters?), they could have *trimmed* the beards to a length that would satisfy security concerns and honored the prisoners chosen expression of their religious beliefs.
NortonDC: I do know that you're edging toward a Godwin with the Nazi comment, though.
since no one here is going to ever agree on this, I was thinking I would do everyone a favor if I could just shut this thread down. :)
posted by rebeccablood at 1:31 PM on January 20, 2002
if they were concerned about hiding weapons in beards (and I have to question whether that *could* be true...do they think these guys are just regularly issued box cutters?), they could have *trimmed* the beards to a length that would satisfy security concerns and honored the prisoners chosen expression of their religious beliefs.
NortonDC: I do know that you're edging toward a Godwin with the Nazi comment, though.
since no one here is going to ever agree on this, I was thinking I would do everyone a favor if I could just shut this thread down. :)
posted by rebeccablood at 1:31 PM on January 20, 2002
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War or Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War? The standards for care and internment of people under each vary in a number of ways. It appears that both have requirements that may not be met by the present conditions at the base in Cuba. But, it does look as though the treatment of these people is being modeled after the convention relative to civilians rather than prisoners of war.
Under the first, there is a requirement that the prisoners be given quarters equivalent to that of the people holding them prisoners. The convention regarding civilians has different language, which addresses temporary internment and requires removal "to a more suitable place of internment as rapidly as circumstances permit."
I'm certain that arguments can be made for treatment of these people under either status. But it appears that a Geneva Convention should apply one way or another. If it can be shown that the permanent prison facility is being built (and built quickly) to conform to the requirements of the Convention on the treatment of civilians, it will go a long way towards appeasing those arguing that human rights are being violated. The BBC article does mention a permanent facility. I think that the access given to the ICRC speaks in favor of the US.
posted by bragadocchio at 2:05 PM on January 20, 2002
Under the first, there is a requirement that the prisoners be given quarters equivalent to that of the people holding them prisoners. The convention regarding civilians has different language, which addresses temporary internment and requires removal "to a more suitable place of internment as rapidly as circumstances permit."
I'm certain that arguments can be made for treatment of these people under either status. But it appears that a Geneva Convention should apply one way or another. If it can be shown that the permanent prison facility is being built (and built quickly) to conform to the requirements of the Convention on the treatment of civilians, it will go a long way towards appeasing those arguing that human rights are being violated. The BBC article does mention a permanent facility. I think that the access given to the ICRC speaks in favor of the US.
posted by bragadocchio at 2:05 PM on January 20, 2002
...just shut this thread down. :) Amen. Or perhaps people could share their thoughts on how these prisoners should be treated. (Har).
Assume everything is true that we've been told by DoD about these prisoners: 1) Dangerous, threatening, 2) Are Al-Qaida and/or Taleban, 3) May try to escape.
dhartung (earlier, less venomous, thread): But aeschenkarnos is engaging in creative reading of the [Geneva] conventions, as do many people who want the "law of war" to be a means of "outlawing war". (*)
Fine, but no one I've heard thinks that Geneva is in effect. If the US is justified in detaining members of organizations against whom we were fighting, and Geneva doesn't confront US action, shouldn't those rules apply here? The fact that US detention of Al-Qaida/Taleban is justified is certainly not a case for avoiding the application of Geneva, which is what is happening. The DoD hasn't addressed neither the issue of the appropriateness of Geneva, nor its compliance.
Rumsfeld: We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Conventions, to the extent they are appropriate, and that is exactly what we have been doing. (1/11)
Has it been explained if an when the US will deviate, and in what way?
Beyond "rights," what's the outcome - in or out of Geneva -hoped for here? Will these prisoners be shuttled back to Afghanistan to sit in the jails of the new government, when such are available (90 have gone to PK as of Friday)? Shouldn't that be the goal what the US and the Karzai administration?
posted by rschram at 2:13 PM on January 20, 2002
Assume everything is true that we've been told by DoD about these prisoners: 1) Dangerous, threatening, 2) Are Al-Qaida and/or Taleban, 3) May try to escape.
dhartung (earlier, less venomous, thread): But aeschenkarnos is engaging in creative reading of the [Geneva] conventions, as do many people who want the "law of war" to be a means of "outlawing war". (*)
Fine, but no one I've heard thinks that Geneva is in effect. If the US is justified in detaining members of organizations against whom we were fighting, and Geneva doesn't confront US action, shouldn't those rules apply here? The fact that US detention of Al-Qaida/Taleban is justified is certainly not a case for avoiding the application of Geneva, which is what is happening. The DoD hasn't addressed neither the issue of the appropriateness of Geneva, nor its compliance.
Rumsfeld: We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Conventions, to the extent they are appropriate, and that is exactly what we have been doing. (1/11)
Has it been explained if an when the US will deviate, and in what way?
Beyond "rights," what's the outcome - in or out of Geneva -hoped for here? Will these prisoners be shuttled back to Afghanistan to sit in the jails of the new government, when such are available (90 have gone to PK as of Friday)? Shouldn't that be the goal what the US and the Karzai administration?
posted by rschram at 2:13 PM on January 20, 2002
I'm willing to bet that relatively few of you have ever spent time in jail outside western europe and selected parts of north america (not including major US cities like Chicago, LA or New York).
...if you had, you'd be jealous of the prisoners in Cuba. I would have traded places with any of them in an instant, were I given the chance.
posted by aramaic at 2:27 PM on January 20, 2002
...if you had, you'd be jealous of the prisoners in Cuba. I would have traded places with any of them in an instant, were I given the chance.
posted by aramaic at 2:27 PM on January 20, 2002
Each prisoner has been given (info via BBC):
US army standard-issue 2cm-thick foam sleeping mat, one blanket, two buckets, a one quart canteen
Two orange boiler suits, one pair flip-flops
Two bath towels, one for washing, one for use as a prayer mat
A washcloth, toothpaste, soap, shampoo
A copy of the Koran
Prisoners are served three meals a day - all "culturally appropriate":
Breakfast - typically bread, cream cheese, an orange, a pastry, a roll, a bottle of water
Lunch - typically a box of cereal, two cereal bars, a packet of peanuts, one packet crisps, one packet raisins, a bottle of water
Evening meal - typically white rice, red beans, a banana, bread, a bottle of water.
Those poor, oppressed prisoners. They are probably being better fed there (than in any country ending in stan), and so what if the cages are mesh, it's warm, tropical weather. They have their copies of the Qu'ran and their prayer blankets, three squares a day, plus the company of their best buddies. What more could a prisoner ask for?
posted by insomnyuk at 2:36 PM on January 20, 2002
US army standard-issue 2cm-thick foam sleeping mat, one blanket, two buckets, a one quart canteen
Two orange boiler suits, one pair flip-flops
Two bath towels, one for washing, one for use as a prayer mat
A washcloth, toothpaste, soap, shampoo
A copy of the Koran
Prisoners are served three meals a day - all "culturally appropriate":
Breakfast - typically bread, cream cheese, an orange, a pastry, a roll, a bottle of water
Lunch - typically a box of cereal, two cereal bars, a packet of peanuts, one packet crisps, one packet raisins, a bottle of water
Evening meal - typically white rice, red beans, a banana, bread, a bottle of water.
Those poor, oppressed prisoners. They are probably being better fed there (than in any country ending in stan), and so what if the cages are mesh, it's warm, tropical weather. They have their copies of the Qu'ran and their prayer blankets, three squares a day, plus the company of their best buddies. What more could a prisoner ask for?
posted by insomnyuk at 2:36 PM on January 20, 2002
On the POW or not argument - the Geneva convention is multifaceted. In order to attain status under the GC, you must be part of a GC operation, that has GC sanction. Just because one side is a member does not automatically grant it to the other side. That would be utter lunacy - to hamstring oneself in the face of ones enemies.
If, on the other hand, we were fighting an enemy like the Germans, or even Iraq, which has an identifiable command structure, and is not composed _purely_ of guerrilla's using guerrilla tactics, well then yes, the world would be clamoring for POW status for these prisoners, because they would then be POW's. At this stage, they are not. There is no war. There is a military action against an NGO whose charter purpose is anarchy and world discord. Sounds like something out of James Bond, but isn't.
The GC's multifaceted structure serves a dual purpose, and the second one, protection of fighting men and "honorable combat" so to speak, is utterly avoided by sneak attacks on civilian targets without a formal declaration of war or a formal state sponsor.
The reason for the GC is so that when the conflict ends, there can _be_ an ending - you round up the people above a certain level in the command structure, execute them, deal with all the others, and move on. As it stands, there is no way to do that with an organization like Al Quaeda b/c they don't adhere to the rules of engagement. To constrain ourselves to "the rules" when the other side has taken the rulebook to see how quickly it could break every single one of them is pure and utter folly.
posted by swerdloff at 2:42 PM on January 20, 2002
If, on the other hand, we were fighting an enemy like the Germans, or even Iraq, which has an identifiable command structure, and is not composed _purely_ of guerrilla's using guerrilla tactics, well then yes, the world would be clamoring for POW status for these prisoners, because they would then be POW's. At this stage, they are not. There is no war. There is a military action against an NGO whose charter purpose is anarchy and world discord. Sounds like something out of James Bond, but isn't.
The GC's multifaceted structure serves a dual purpose, and the second one, protection of fighting men and "honorable combat" so to speak, is utterly avoided by sneak attacks on civilian targets without a formal declaration of war or a formal state sponsor.
The reason for the GC is so that when the conflict ends, there can _be_ an ending - you round up the people above a certain level in the command structure, execute them, deal with all the others, and move on. As it stands, there is no way to do that with an organization like Al Quaeda b/c they don't adhere to the rules of engagement. To constrain ourselves to "the rules" when the other side has taken the rulebook to see how quickly it could break every single one of them is pure and utter folly.
posted by swerdloff at 2:42 PM on January 20, 2002
Are you more upset about our government violating the prisoners rights by shaving off their beards, or about the government eliminating your right to bitch and moan about a lack of governmental 'foresight' when a prisoner uses a weapon concealed in a beard to kill a solider?
posted by John Galt at 4:03 PM on January 20, 2002
posted by John Galt at 4:03 PM on January 20, 2002
I read statements in this thread like the following:
"relatively few of you have ever spent time in jail outside western europe and selected parts of north america"
"They are probably being better fed"
"To constrain ourselves to "the rules" when the other side has taken the rulebook to see how quickly it could break every single one of them is pure and utter folly."
"make em dig through the rubble of the wtc's with their bare hands. oh, and anything they find in the way of food, then they get to eat."
I wonder what the hell they are thinking. That we should be just as inhumane as they are. That we should adopt their rules. That we should do everything we can to become like them. The statements above simply beg the question. What utter bullshit.
posted by onegoodmove at 4:56 PM on January 20, 2002
"relatively few of you have ever spent time in jail outside western europe and selected parts of north america"
"They are probably being better fed"
"To constrain ourselves to "the rules" when the other side has taken the rulebook to see how quickly it could break every single one of them is pure and utter folly."
"make em dig through the rubble of the wtc's with their bare hands. oh, and anything they find in the way of food, then they get to eat."
I wonder what the hell they are thinking. That we should be just as inhumane as they are. That we should adopt their rules. That we should do everything we can to become like them. The statements above simply beg the question. What utter bullshit.
posted by onegoodmove at 4:56 PM on January 20, 2002
just a reminder before many of u fall over yourseves being so US-centric -- "we" is not the US citizenry for those of us not living in the US.
The whole point about this is that this very weblog shows that we all live together here and - somehow we have to learn to respect each other and if we want the sort of freedoms those of us in "free" countries espouse - such as rule of law (eg innocent till proven guilty) and if there is an expectation that our prisoners be treated a certain way - then .....
from Australia - we have fighters over there too
posted by dodialog at 6:03 PM on January 20, 2002
The whole point about this is that this very weblog shows that we all live together here and - somehow we have to learn to respect each other and if we want the sort of freedoms those of us in "free" countries espouse - such as rule of law (eg innocent till proven guilty) and if there is an expectation that our prisoners be treated a certain way - then .....
from Australia - we have fighters over there too
posted by dodialog at 6:03 PM on January 20, 2002
As I understand it, their hair and beards were shaved because they were lousy with lice. (Which is what "lousy" really means.) It was a matter of hygiene, plain and simple. They were wearing masks because many of them have tuberculosis, which could have infected other prisoners or the guards themselves.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:08 PM on January 20, 2002
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:08 PM on January 20, 2002
rcb, thanks for deciding what's right and wrong for us, we were having difficulty with that. Also, thanks for trying to shut this thread down. It is obviously the work of evildoers and should not be allowed to thrive under any circumstances. Praise be to rcb.
As I understand it, their hair and beards were shaved because they were lousy with lice.
What?! How dare you insinuate that shaving off those men's beards was not an unnecessary act designed to humiliate them! Now I am confused and afraid! rcb, what will we be deeply ashamed of our government for, now?
onegoodmove, your last sentence describes your entire post. Thanks for clarifying, that was very helpful. Next time, try getting in onegoodthought.
How about we wait for some real evidence of wrongdoing before assuming that a lack of information automatically means the detainees are being tortured and degraded. If we were as bad as they, we'd beat them until they told us everything we wanted to know, then we'd kill them and drag their fucking bodies through the streets and use their heads as soccer balls. And we'd make sure that CNN broadcast it all over the world so everyone would know how tough we are. This hasn't happened, yet, and if it does, I will definitely be in here saying that I'm against that type of treatment for detainees. Definitely against that. But it hasn't happened, and it's not going to.
Unless I missed it, of course, and I admit I haven't watched the news today.
posted by David Dark at 7:20 PM on January 20, 2002
As I understand it, their hair and beards were shaved because they were lousy with lice.
What?! How dare you insinuate that shaving off those men's beards was not an unnecessary act designed to humiliate them! Now I am confused and afraid! rcb, what will we be deeply ashamed of our government for, now?
onegoodmove, your last sentence describes your entire post. Thanks for clarifying, that was very helpful. Next time, try getting in onegoodthought.
How about we wait for some real evidence of wrongdoing before assuming that a lack of information automatically means the detainees are being tortured and degraded. If we were as bad as they, we'd beat them until they told us everything we wanted to know, then we'd kill them and drag their fucking bodies through the streets and use their heads as soccer balls. And we'd make sure that CNN broadcast it all over the world so everyone would know how tough we are. This hasn't happened, yet, and if it does, I will definitely be in here saying that I'm against that type of treatment for detainees. Definitely against that. But it hasn't happened, and it's not going to.
Unless I missed it, of course, and I admit I haven't watched the news today.
posted by David Dark at 7:20 PM on January 20, 2002
To the best of my knowlege, the humn rights complainants re: Al Quaida detainees have never, ever, ever lifted hand or voice to help US captives fo the Serbs, Iraqis or N,. Vietnamese. So I'm not going to listen to them now.
Never-the-less, conditions for detainees merits watching. I can tell you that they are superior to county jails in Madson, IL., and Jeff City MO. where I have been held, in the fact that there apears to be no 'general population' which is where/how most abuses occur.
But there is an independent standard - body weight. Detainees who are abused invariably lose weight over the course of their confinement. Those who are not gain weight.
So lets get some scales ...
posted by Jos Bleau at 7:22 PM on January 20, 2002
Never-the-less, conditions for detainees merits watching. I can tell you that they are superior to county jails in Madson, IL., and Jeff City MO. where I have been held, in the fact that there apears to be no 'general population' which is where/how most abuses occur.
But there is an independent standard - body weight. Detainees who are abused invariably lose weight over the course of their confinement. Those who are not gain weight.
So lets get some scales ...
posted by Jos Bleau at 7:22 PM on January 20, 2002
"onegoodmove, your last sentence describes your entire post. Thanks for clarifying, that was very helpful. Next time, try getting in onegoodthought.
How about we wait for some real evidence of wrongdoing before assuming that a lack of information automatically means the detainees are being tortured and degraded."
posted by David Dark at 7:20 PM PST on January 20
Or perhaps we could wait for some real evidence of right doing before assuming the detainees are being treated well and not degraded. The posts I quoted would seem to be saying that torture and degradation would be fine. Perhaps those who posted would be kind enough to clarify. Now there's a thought.
posted by onegoodmove at 8:01 PM on January 20, 2002
How about we wait for some real evidence of wrongdoing before assuming that a lack of information automatically means the detainees are being tortured and degraded."
posted by David Dark at 7:20 PM PST on January 20
Or perhaps we could wait for some real evidence of right doing before assuming the detainees are being treated well and not degraded. The posts I quoted would seem to be saying that torture and degradation would be fine. Perhaps those who posted would be kind enough to clarify. Now there's a thought.
posted by onegoodmove at 8:01 PM on January 20, 2002
Sarcasm and many words of which the authors know not the meanings (on both sides)—very helpful.
Amnesty International is not complaining about the status of prisoners because the US may have crossed some imagnary line of human rights abuse.
They want to offer a concrete example of what will become more widespread and worse going forward, that is, the US's attempt to deal with terrorists within an sphere of jurisdiction outside the Constitution and international-legal conventions.
9/11 demonstrated that terrorists and terror groups could potentially overwhelm conventional legal procedures. I'm not qualified to assess this opinion, but it is widely held, so I'll accept it. The answer has not been to work to fix the justice systems here and abroad to deal with terrorists, it's been to carve out a second legal status into which certain captured criminals can be put. We've discussed this time and again as the "military tribunal." It's not a novel institution per se that matters; there is a great diversity in means of achieving justice, and military courts already exist, so one new form of court shouldn't matter. It's that this court could be used within a new approach of short-circuiting generally held procedures. The new approach is what is dangerous.
You could make a persuasive argument for the use of the military tribunal for non-citizen suspects captured outside the US in countries with whom we have secured the right to assert jurisdiction. You'd be arguing that the US should selectively apply due-process when convenient, even though such shakes the legitimacy of every other tax-payer funded institution, but whatever, you could do it. The use of military tribunals and any other mechanisms for filtering of terrorists out of the categories of POW and criminal suspect leads unavoidably to a state in which the US military can operate freely in a capacity for which it is wholly inappropriate.
The point to objecting to the treatment of Cuban detainees is merely to highlight what Amnetsy Int. suspects comes next. That is, the marginal segments of other countries will be stripped of basic rights by the US and placed in the special legal category of terrorist for expediancy's sake.
If you think that sounds severe or unlikely. Look at the next round of targets for US action: 1) rural Filipino separatists (they are holding several hostages and have beheaded captives in the past - even I support bombing them.), 2) Yemeni desert nomads "with links to Al-Qaida", 3) Somalia, 4) Moluccas, Indonesia. Are there criminal, potentially terrorist, elements in these areas? Yes there are. Could the decreasing ability of their goverments to control them allow for a new Al-Qaida to set up shop? Sure could. Are the people living here really worthy targets of the might of the American military-judical branch of government? The list consists of what must be some of the most marginalized peoples of the world, both in the eyes of their governments, and globally too. Look at the next targets—who are we fighting?
If the US wants to chase off criticism of human rights abuses, it should state clearly the legal status of those held, and their rights while in US custody. It would have to, of course, declare that it will follow the requirements of its own Constitution, even if the suspects are never brought into an American court. That's the high road. Debating with Amnesty Int and everyone else is the low road. Dwelling on the presumed details of treatment of prisoners only distracts from the real issue.
posted by rschram at 8:40 PM on January 20, 2002
Amnesty International is not complaining about the status of prisoners because the US may have crossed some imagnary line of human rights abuse.
They want to offer a concrete example of what will become more widespread and worse going forward, that is, the US's attempt to deal with terrorists within an sphere of jurisdiction outside the Constitution and international-legal conventions.
9/11 demonstrated that terrorists and terror groups could potentially overwhelm conventional legal procedures. I'm not qualified to assess this opinion, but it is widely held, so I'll accept it. The answer has not been to work to fix the justice systems here and abroad to deal with terrorists, it's been to carve out a second legal status into which certain captured criminals can be put. We've discussed this time and again as the "military tribunal." It's not a novel institution per se that matters; there is a great diversity in means of achieving justice, and military courts already exist, so one new form of court shouldn't matter. It's that this court could be used within a new approach of short-circuiting generally held procedures. The new approach is what is dangerous.
You could make a persuasive argument for the use of the military tribunal for non-citizen suspects captured outside the US in countries with whom we have secured the right to assert jurisdiction. You'd be arguing that the US should selectively apply due-process when convenient, even though such shakes the legitimacy of every other tax-payer funded institution, but whatever, you could do it. The use of military tribunals and any other mechanisms for filtering of terrorists out of the categories of POW and criminal suspect leads unavoidably to a state in which the US military can operate freely in a capacity for which it is wholly inappropriate.
The point to objecting to the treatment of Cuban detainees is merely to highlight what Amnetsy Int. suspects comes next. That is, the marginal segments of other countries will be stripped of basic rights by the US and placed in the special legal category of terrorist for expediancy's sake.
If you think that sounds severe or unlikely. Look at the next round of targets for US action: 1) rural Filipino separatists (they are holding several hostages and have beheaded captives in the past - even I support bombing them.), 2) Yemeni desert nomads "with links to Al-Qaida", 3) Somalia, 4) Moluccas, Indonesia. Are there criminal, potentially terrorist, elements in these areas? Yes there are. Could the decreasing ability of their goverments to control them allow for a new Al-Qaida to set up shop? Sure could. Are the people living here really worthy targets of the might of the American military-judical branch of government? The list consists of what must be some of the most marginalized peoples of the world, both in the eyes of their governments, and globally too. Look at the next targets—who are we fighting?
If the US wants to chase off criticism of human rights abuses, it should state clearly the legal status of those held, and their rights while in US custody. It would have to, of course, declare that it will follow the requirements of its own Constitution, even if the suspects are never brought into an American court. That's the high road. Debating with Amnesty Int and everyone else is the low road. Dwelling on the presumed details of treatment of prisoners only distracts from the real issue.
posted by rschram at 8:40 PM on January 20, 2002
Or perhaps we could wait for some real evidence of right doing before assuming the detainees are being treated well and not degraded.
Right. We wouldn't want to apply that pesky "innocent until proven guilty" clause to our own government, now would we? But since you insist, here's some. (if it was any closer it would've bitten ya)
The posts I quoted would seem to be saying that torture and degradation would be fine.
Ummmm, no they weren't.
Perhaps those who posted would be kind enough to clarify.
I'll do it for them:
Have you ever spent time in jail outside western europe and selected parts of north america? Well, it seems that aramaic has, and he's simply saying that based on the information available, being detained in Camp X-Ray is superior than being in jail where he was.
They are being better fed, forget "probably," that's a fact, Jack. Right now thousands of starving Afghanis are asking how they can get a one-way ticket to Cuba.
To constrain ourselves to "the rules" when the other side has taken the rulebook to see how quickly it could break every single one of them is pure and utter folly. Morally questionable, but logically sound. And the GC says the same thing, which is what all this hoopla is about in the first place.
The last one I'll give ya, though obviously a sarcastic statement not meant to be taken literally.
So you're batting .250, and that's being generous... pretty good in baseball but god awful on mefi. Let's see, what's left of your post? Oh yeah.
Now there's a thought.
But still not a good one, which is what I asked for.
posted by David Dark at 8:56 PM on January 20, 2002
Right. We wouldn't want to apply that pesky "innocent until proven guilty" clause to our own government, now would we? But since you insist, here's some. (if it was any closer it would've bitten ya)
The posts I quoted would seem to be saying that torture and degradation would be fine.
Ummmm, no they weren't.
Perhaps those who posted would be kind enough to clarify.
I'll do it for them:
Have you ever spent time in jail outside western europe and selected parts of north america? Well, it seems that aramaic has, and he's simply saying that based on the information available, being detained in Camp X-Ray is superior than being in jail where he was.
They are being better fed, forget "probably," that's a fact, Jack. Right now thousands of starving Afghanis are asking how they can get a one-way ticket to Cuba.
To constrain ourselves to "the rules" when the other side has taken the rulebook to see how quickly it could break every single one of them is pure and utter folly. Morally questionable, but logically sound. And the GC says the same thing, which is what all this hoopla is about in the first place.
The last one I'll give ya, though obviously a sarcastic statement not meant to be taken literally.
So you're batting .250, and that's being generous... pretty good in baseball but god awful on mefi. Let's see, what's left of your post? Oh yeah.
Now there's a thought.
But still not a good one, which is what I asked for.
posted by David Dark at 8:56 PM on January 20, 2002
Right, that 'pesky' innocent until proven guilty' law was never meant to be taken seriously anyway, it's not important. Maybe should think about adapting that 'awkward' constitution as well, could get in the a way a bit. Oh, and a new strapline for America: "Do as I say, not as I do" that should get the world rallying around.
posted by niceness at 1:19 AM on January 21, 2002
posted by niceness at 1:19 AM on January 21, 2002
Yeah, you're the first one on Mefi to trot that one out. The self-loathing continues...
posted by owillis at 2:13 AM on January 21, 2002
posted by owillis at 2:13 AM on January 21, 2002
Self-loathing? Ha, Hypocrisy, arrogance and wishful-thinking on your part.
Ever heard the phrase "Cutting off your nose to spite your face"? Even your closest allies (allies, remember them?) are uncomfortable:
"America's high-handed behaviour is alarming senior Whitehall officials who believe that the treatment of the inmates is undermining the efforts of the security and intelligence services to seek information from the Muslim community about suspect terrorists."
A senior well-placed official said: "That is a genuine belief across Whitehall from the moral point of view, and because it is counter-productive to humiliate people".
'Counter-productive to humiliate' - he could have been speaking directly to you owillies.
posted by niceness at 5:03 AM on January 21, 2002
Ever heard the phrase "Cutting off your nose to spite your face"? Even your closest allies (allies, remember them?) are uncomfortable:
"America's high-handed behaviour is alarming senior Whitehall officials who believe that the treatment of the inmates is undermining the efforts of the security and intelligence services to seek information from the Muslim community about suspect terrorists."
A senior well-placed official said: "That is a genuine belief across Whitehall from the moral point of view, and because it is counter-productive to humiliate people".
'Counter-productive to humiliate' - he could have been speaking directly to you owillies.
posted by niceness at 5:03 AM on January 21, 2002
News report:
The British team confirmed that the three British prisoners "had no complaints about their treatment," Blair's official spokesman said Monday.
"They are in good physical health and there was no sign of any mistreatment. They have also had contact with the Red Cross," said the spokesman, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.
"There were no gags, no goggles, no ear muffs, no shackles while the detainees are in their cells. They only wear shackles and only shackles - when they are outside their cells," Blair's spokesman said.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:13 AM on January 21, 2002
The British team confirmed that the three British prisoners "had no complaints about their treatment," Blair's official spokesman said Monday.
"They are in good physical health and there was no sign of any mistreatment. They have also had contact with the Red Cross," said the spokesman, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.
"There were no gags, no goggles, no ear muffs, no shackles while the detainees are in their cells. They only wear shackles and only shackles - when they are outside their cells," Blair's spokesman said.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:13 AM on January 21, 2002
Even your closest allies (allies, remember them?) are uncomfortable
Oh, you mean the thumb-twiddlers in England? Please. If we listened to them we'd all be in our fallout shelters quaking in fear for the military might of Al Qaeda and Mullah Omar. Thankfully they've got Blair in charge, one of the world leaders who has his head screwed on correctly.
posted by owillis at 9:15 AM on January 21, 2002
Oh, you mean the thumb-twiddlers in England? Please. If we listened to them we'd all be in our fallout shelters quaking in fear for the military might of Al Qaeda and Mullah Omar. Thankfully they've got Blair in charge, one of the world leaders who has his head screwed on correctly.
posted by owillis at 9:15 AM on January 21, 2002
The thumb-twiddlers have more than a few months of terrorist experience to draw on but then who needs advice: George has sorted it all out now, hasn't he?
Incidentally, I'd be surprised if even Tony Blair is willing to sacrifice his (few) scruples for the good of internal US party politics.
posted by niceness at 9:30 AM on January 21, 2002
Incidentally, I'd be surprised if even Tony Blair is willing to sacrifice his (few) scruples for the good of internal US party politics.
posted by niceness at 9:30 AM on January 21, 2002
niceness, what exactly are you screaming about over there? The prisoners themselves have no complaints about their treatment. What complaint could you possibly have? What do you claim to know that the prisoners themselves do not?
Oh, it must be that the U.S. is eeee-vil...
posted by David Dark at 10:42 AM on January 21, 2002
Oh, it must be that the U.S. is eeee-vil...
posted by David Dark at 10:42 AM on January 21, 2002
Detailed description of the conditions in which they're being held.
(Sorry, Norton, I'm a pragmatist. I like to operate in the real world.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:48 AM on January 21, 2002
(Sorry, Norton, I'm a pragmatist. I like to operate in the real world.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:48 AM on January 21, 2002
What's hilarious is hearing Straw say stuff like "How well is this going over in Cairo?" Frankly, I couldn't find much in the (English-language) Arab press doing much more than touch on the issue, while the British media seem to be amid a paroxsym of whingeing. The Arabs, meanwhile, seem to be mainly concerned with the Palestinian situation.
posted by dhartung at 11:49 AM on January 21, 2002
posted by dhartung at 11:49 AM on January 21, 2002
what exactly are you screaming about over there?
You're a bit aggressive David, it was typed in my most considerate voice.
Oh, it must be that the U.S. is eeee-vil...
Paranoid too?
posted by niceness at 12:17 PM on January 21, 2002
You're a bit aggressive David, it was typed in my most considerate voice.
Oh, it must be that the U.S. is eeee-vil...
Paranoid too?
posted by niceness at 12:17 PM on January 21, 2002
come on, niceness, you can do better than that.
How about addressing the real question and stating your complaints coherently instead of these vague shit posts about violating our own constitution.
You know, the complaints that the prisoners should have, but don't?
(this and all previous posts were typed in my most passive voice, fyi. "what are you screaming/yelling about" is an uncommon expression aimed at someone who keeps talking and talking and talking but doesn't actually say anything)
posted by David Dark at 1:06 PM on January 21, 2002
How about addressing the real question and stating your complaints coherently instead of these vague shit posts about violating our own constitution.
You know, the complaints that the prisoners should have, but don't?
(this and all previous posts were typed in my most passive voice, fyi. "what are you screaming/yelling about" is an uncommon expression aimed at someone who keeps talking and talking and talking but doesn't actually say anything)
posted by David Dark at 1:06 PM on January 21, 2002
How about addressing the real question and stating your complaints coherently instead of these vague shit posts about violating our own constitution.
As I said, Bush's mantra: "Do as I say not as I do." Are they POWs, are they not? - I don't know but there are courts to decide, so Presidents can't dictate (and divert US law at the same time). The whole thing stinks and it will stink just the same the next time US soldiers are trussed up in front of some kangaroo court and you get all hypocritical.
and as for my 'vague', 'shit' posts: Don't judge if you can't understand.
posted by niceness at 1:34 PM on January 21, 2002
As I said, Bush's mantra: "Do as I say not as I do." Are they POWs, are they not? - I don't know but there are courts to decide, so Presidents can't dictate (and divert US law at the same time). The whole thing stinks and it will stink just the same the next time US soldiers are trussed up in front of some kangaroo court and you get all hypocritical.
and as for my 'vague', 'shit' posts: Don't judge if you can't understand.
posted by niceness at 1:34 PM on January 21, 2002
niceness, forgive me, I thought we were debating facts, not imagined scenarios. What you are complaining about, if I've divined correctly your intended meaning from another vague shit post, is the possibility that some of these detainees may be tried by a military tribunal.
Put away the crystal ball for a second and take a time-out, because it is not clear yet whether trials of any kind are envisaged. It might be that the detainees will be held for interrogation only, or held on a preventive detention - or similar - basis.
The detainees do not qualify for prisoner-of-war treatment under the Geneva conventions, because they are not members of the regular Afghan armed force - nor do they meet the criteria for prisoner of war status for voluntary forces. These criteria include wearing a uniform and carrying arms openly, and qualification depends on the particular situation of each individual detainee.
If the detainees are not legally prisoners-of-war, then they are not entitled to various protections provided by the Geneva conventions. In particular, they are not entitled to visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (which they are receiving anyway). In any case, the detainees are protected by the general international law of human rights, which is binding on the US. This requires humane conditions of detention and fair trials in the event of prosecutions.
There goes the kangaroo court theory. So I ask again, niceness, what the hell are you yelling about over there?
The whole thing stinks!
I suddenly have the feeling I'm debating a thirteen year old girl.
disclaimer: This is in no way intended to offend thirteen year old girls, it's just that they have schools available to them if they want to get taught a lesson, and frankly I have better things to do.
posted by David Dark at 3:20 PM on January 21, 2002
Put away the crystal ball for a second and take a time-out, because it is not clear yet whether trials of any kind are envisaged. It might be that the detainees will be held for interrogation only, or held on a preventive detention - or similar - basis.
The detainees do not qualify for prisoner-of-war treatment under the Geneva conventions, because they are not members of the regular Afghan armed force - nor do they meet the criteria for prisoner of war status for voluntary forces. These criteria include wearing a uniform and carrying arms openly, and qualification depends on the particular situation of each individual detainee.
If the detainees are not legally prisoners-of-war, then they are not entitled to various protections provided by the Geneva conventions. In particular, they are not entitled to visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (which they are receiving anyway). In any case, the detainees are protected by the general international law of human rights, which is binding on the US. This requires humane conditions of detention and fair trials in the event of prosecutions.
There goes the kangaroo court theory. So I ask again, niceness, what the hell are you yelling about over there?
The whole thing stinks!
I suddenly have the feeling I'm debating a thirteen year old girl.
disclaimer: This is in no way intended to offend thirteen year old girls, it's just that they have schools available to them if they want to get taught a lesson, and frankly I have better things to do.
posted by David Dark at 3:20 PM on January 21, 2002
Firstly, nobody has been found guilty.
The current status of the 'detainees' defines how they are treated, at the moment that status is entirely down to the US Government. They say that they're not prisoners-of-war (it wasn't a war we were fighting apparently) and don't qualify for POW status as voluntary forces.
also (from your previous link):
"The detainees are being taken to a place outside of United States territory to minimise the application of legal constraints that might otherwise apply."
so that's no US democratic process but as you said/linked:
"it is not clear yet whether trials of any kind are envisaged. It might be that the detainees will be held for interrogation only, or held on a preventive detention - or similar - basis"
So they don't qualify for any legal or agreed process (partly because they are in Cuba) and may never do so. George Bush is judge and jury.
And you're really funny.
posted by niceness at 4:20 PM on January 21, 2002
The current status of the 'detainees' defines how they are treated, at the moment that status is entirely down to the US Government. They say that they're not prisoners-of-war (it wasn't a war we were fighting apparently) and don't qualify for POW status as voluntary forces.
also (from your previous link):
"The detainees are being taken to a place outside of United States territory to minimise the application of legal constraints that might otherwise apply."
so that's no US democratic process but as you said/linked:
"it is not clear yet whether trials of any kind are envisaged. It might be that the detainees will be held for interrogation only, or held on a preventive detention - or similar - basis"
So they don't qualify for any legal or agreed process (partly because they are in Cuba) and may never do so. George Bush is judge and jury.
And you're really funny.
posted by niceness at 4:20 PM on January 21, 2002
vague shit posts®
The latest MeFi tagline suggestion. (Is anybody keeping track of these?)
posted by verdezza at 4:23 PM on January 21, 2002
The latest MeFi tagline suggestion. (Is anybody keeping track of these?)
posted by verdezza at 4:23 PM on January 21, 2002
David Dark - you have a point about niceness, maybe s/he should be renamed nasty-ness, especially regarding Bush issues. But that's getting too close to my name which I cherish. However, instead of putting in the disclaimer you really shouldn't have said that in the first place. If you suspect you're playing with kids, walk out of the playground.
posted by dness2 at 4:25 PM on January 21, 2002
posted by dness2 at 4:25 PM on January 21, 2002
as glenda jackson said in the british parliament (paraphrase);
whether the prisoners are being fed 'typically bread, cream cheese, an orange, a pastry, a roll, a bottle of water' (insomniyuk) for breakfast or a bowl of rice, is not the issue.
the issue is how does the west justify continuing to treat brown-skinned muslims as if the basic human rights that apply to europeans and americans do not apply?
what signals does this send out to the world? the message seems to be (again) that the us can do what it likes with impunity.
abducted and detained without trial, regardless of the conditions, how would you feel?
to suggest that the security of the world is improved by imprisoning these few men in cuba is a debatable point.
posted by asok at 7:06 AM on January 23, 2002
whether the prisoners are being fed 'typically bread, cream cheese, an orange, a pastry, a roll, a bottle of water' (insomniyuk) for breakfast or a bowl of rice, is not the issue.
the issue is how does the west justify continuing to treat brown-skinned muslims as if the basic human rights that apply to europeans and americans do not apply?
what signals does this send out to the world? the message seems to be (again) that the us can do what it likes with impunity.
abducted and detained without trial, regardless of the conditions, how would you feel?
to suggest that the security of the world is improved by imprisoning these few men in cuba is a debatable point.
posted by asok at 7:06 AM on January 23, 2002
*suggests that the security of the world is improved by imprisoning these few men in cuba*
Since these are some of the few men who are threatening the security of the world, I'd say that B follows A quite nicely.
posted by David Dark at 11:35 AM on January 23, 2002
Since these are some of the few men who are threatening the security of the world, I'd say that B follows A quite nicely.
posted by David Dark at 11:35 AM on January 23, 2002
Jos Bleau - But there is an independent standard - body weight. Detainees who are abused invariably lose weight over the course of their confinement. Those who are not gain weight.
They've gained 10 pounds each, though I guess they're kinda small, as 2700 calories is a maintenance level for me.
posted by NortonDC at 11:47 AM on March 20, 2002
They've gained 10 pounds each, though I guess they're kinda small, as 2700 calories is a maintenance level for me.
posted by NortonDC at 11:47 AM on March 20, 2002
« Older | Another way to quit smoking, Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by techgnollogic at 9:49 AM on January 20, 2002