It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Former President Carter: Guantanamo Should Shut Down

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Former U.S President Jimmy Carter has called on President Bush to close down the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Speaking at a 2 day Human Rights conference in Atlanta he said that "The U.S. continues to suffer terrible embarrassment and a blow to our reputation ... because of reports concerning abuses of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo,". Carter stopped short of backing the Amnesty International report which likened Gitmo to Russian gulags. Carter said that Guantanamo does not compare to Soviet Gulags.
 



news.yahoo.com
About 540 detainees are being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Some have been there more than three years without being charged with a crime. Most were captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 and were sent to Guantanamo Bay in hope of extracting useful intelligence about the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Carter said the United States needs to make sure no detainees are held incommunicado and that all are told the charges against them.

Despite his criticism of Guantanamo Bay, Carter said Amnesty International should not have called the prison "the gulag of our time" in a report last month. President Bush has termed the report by the human-rights group "absurd."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The choir of condemnation for Guantanamo is growing almost weekly nowadays. When will these detainees be released or formally charged? One would think 3 years internment with no charge would be incongruous with the United States democratic and free traditions.

[edit on 8/6/05 by subz]




posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Is it my imagination, or is Jimmy Carter virtually incapable of uttering any statements favorable to the United States? I cannot recall a foreign policy issue on which he has chosen to add commentary , with which he agreed.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
"One prisoner is asked to respond to an allegation he conscripted young men for the Taliban by grabbing them off the street. The man said after the Taliban lost 8,000 men in fighting in 1998, "they started forcing young men and boys into service."
"They would go to each village and request 100 recruits from the tribal elders," the prisoner said. "The tribal elders were forced to provide these young men, otherwise the village would be burned. All of the people in the village obeyed the tribal elders, and gave up their men as required to serve four months.""

news.yahoo.com...

this is how some managed to find themselves in gitmo.....
do they really deserve to be abused and tortured now?



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Sorry, but Carter has no authority on this issue for me. He's a washed-up liberal has-been hack, and carries no more weight with me than an anonymous guy off the street.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djohnsto77
Sorry, but Carter has no authority on this issue for me. He's a washed-up liberal has-been hack, and carries no more weight with me than an anonymous guy off the street.


Except he was the President of the United States and we are the anonymous guys off the street.

I guess it would be different if he was saying something about Gitmo that agreed with your perceptions, then you could smile and ride off on your rainbow colored unicorn.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I'm siding with djohnsto77........Carter's word carries no weight with me.......if Gautanamo does shut down, the torture will occur elsewhere, indeed, it probably already has. Today's military is acting with the benefit of years of research and if it was implemented, then it is most likely effective. As disgraceful as it is, the only lesson I'm betting they'll learn is to hide it better........



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I guess it would be different if he was saying something about Gitmo that agreed with your perceptions, then you could smile and ride off on your rainbow colored unicorn.


In the words of Dr. Evil. "Ohh, thank you. I haven't laughed like that since I was a little girl."



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Former U.S President Jimmy Carter has called on President Bush to close down the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Current American patriot says:
Carter should stick to peanut farming, that's all he was ever good at!



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Just because Carter's term as President ended doesnt mean he is not mentally equiped to comment on American policy. He is more skilled to comment than you, djohnsto77, or I and I think you should show him the same amount of respect you'd show the current President.

[edit on 8/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

He is more skilled to comment than you, djohnsto77, or I and I think you should show him the same amount of respect you'd show the current President.


His considerable amount of skill notwithstanding, The second I heard they were torturing people at Gitmo I thought to myself, "Hmmmm, I think they should close that place down and release those prisoners."

If you read what Carter said, you'd find that there isn't anything really said at all........



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Love this whole "we should release them all" thing.

These guys were captured in acts of combat against American troops, supporting what was essentially a religiously-themed Mafia that dominated, controlled and suppressed the Afghani people and any sort of legitimate government.

Conscripts who stayed holed up in these skirmishes and safehouses since 1998 or whenever could easily escape or abandon their posts, like Iraqi soldiers during Gulf War 1, if they didn't wish to keep fighting. They didn't. And hadn't tried to leave the Al Quaeda gang in all those years since. Probably, because they supported the goals. So they stayed and kept shooting. And in the end, were overwhelmed with force and "surrendered" to save their necks.

These prisoners are only still alive because it was thought there was an intelligence asset to be had. These weren't nice peaceful farmers or men about town who were scooped up, but snatched from a combat zone while inflicting violence upon American troops.

But, in the spirit of terrorism and psy ops throughout history-if you cannot beat a larger enemy with force of arms, lie out your ass and make him believe you are a bigger threat than you are, or make his people believe you have the moral high ground.

That is the definition and goal of terrorism- a small group trying to force national policy changes on a larger enemy by means of fear, disinformation and propaganda. Seems many people are easily ready to believe the current administration would do such thing, but cannot accept the enemy would possibly do the same?



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Phugedaboudet, then they are prisoners of war and the Geneva convention is quite clear about the treatment of those prisoners. The United States is a signatory of the Geneva convention and after the end of hostilities (I'd say a newly installed Afghani President to be an end to hostilities) then they should be released.

If they are not prisoners of war they should be charged.

The rule of law is not something you drag out and lecture other countries about when it suits your narrow national interests. These people, terrorist/murderer/rapist/drug dealer WHAT EVER have the right to know the charges against them, given a trial in which to attempt to clear their name or admit guilt and be sentenced accordingly!

There is no excuse you can dream up to excuse the treatment of these individuals. The United States actions are illegal which ever way you cut it. What makes the United States exempt from prosecution from the law and civility? They were attacked so all bets are off? Come on, it doesnt work that way.

Charge them or release them. Simple.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Exactly, they should never have been taken prisoner. It is/was a combat situation. Not the floor of a nice courthouse or Times Square at lunchtime.

The Geneva Convention (which I am pretty sure was *not* signed by Afghanistan) only applies to Uniformed Soldiers. If you wanna get huffy about only "trotting" out things that are convenient, I suggest going over the whole thing, not just the anti-Bush bits the media loves.

Note the Convention says nothing about making sure that your prisoner get all the lawyers and whatever "holy" books they claim to follow. The Geneva Convention does *not* prohibit the "abuse" of inanimate objects belonging to prisoners. Tearing a uniform, burning a flag, flushing a book-small potatoes compared to burning people alive in a flying bomb of Jet-A or sawing off the heads of a *non-military* contractor,

But, in the etherial ivy-tower world, such distinctions are meaningless. Everything is black and white. Black, if it comes from a nation or political party you disagree with, and White if it comes from "your side".



Originally posted by subz
Phugedaboudet, then they are prisoners of war and the Geneva convention is quite clear about the treatment of those prisoners. The United States is a signatory of the Geneva convention and after the end of hostilities (I'd say a newly installed Afghani President to be an end to hostilities) then they should be released.

If they are not prisoners of war they should be charged.

The rule of law is not something you drag out and lecture other countries about when it suits your narrow national interests. These people, terrorist/murderer/rapist/drug dealer WHAT EVER have the right to know the charges against them, given a trial in which to attempt to clear their name or admit guilt and be sentenced accordingly!

There is no excuse you can dream up to excuse the treatment of these individuals. The United States actions are illegal which ever way you cut it. What makes the United States exempt from prosecution from the law and civility? They were attacked so all bets are off? Come on, it doesnt work that way.

Charge them or release them. Simpl

e.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
You speaking of Ivory Towers is so ironic as to be laughable.


Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
The Geneva Convention (which I am pretty sure was *not* signed by Afghanistan) only applies to Uniformed Soldiers. If you wanna get huffy about only "trotting" out things that are convenient, I suggest going over the whole thing, not just the anti-Bush bits the media loves.


Did you even care to educate yourself on the fact that Afghanistan signed the Geneva convention on the 26th September 1956? The Taliban did not withdraw from the convention and as such any persons civilian/soldier captured during hostilities in Afghanistan by the United States are afforded the conventions protections.

Protections from such things as, amongst other things:


Article 3

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


Theres 3 confirmed breeches of the Geneva conventions by the United States in Guantanamo alone. Torture, personal outrages including Koranic abuse and sexual degradation, and the absence of "judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples".

The protections are afforded to enemy combatants and there is no reference to "uniformed soldiers" as the sole requisite whatsoever. A prisoner of war is defined as:


1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:


Explain to me, again, why these Taliban/al qaeda "suspects" are not covered under the Geneva convention?


Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Exactly, they should never have been taken prisoner. It is/was a combat situation


They were captured for intelligence gathering purposes. The fact that they shouldnt of been captured in the first place is irrelevant.


Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Note the Convention says nothing about making sure that your prisoner get all the lawyers and whatever "holy" books they claim to follow. The Geneva Convention does *not* prohibit the "abuse" of inanimate objects belonging to prisoners. Tearing a uniform, burning a flag, flushing a book-small potatoes compared to burning people alive in a flying bomb of Jet-A or sawing off the heads of a *non-military* contractor,


Oh I beg to differ. Lets read it again shall we:


(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


Where are these detainees charges yet alone access to a "regularly constituted court" which are "recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"?

Also with regards to the Koranic abuse:


(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;


And your feeble attempt to explain it all way as justifiable any way because the terrorists are acting worse. The al qaeda terrorist group IM PRETTY DAMN SURE did not sign the Geneva Convention, the United States of America did. Even if they had signed the Geneva Convention there is no "get out of jail free" card that says: if your enemy treats your side badly you are allowed to as well. Grow up for christ sake! Thats the kind of rationale I'd expect from a grade schooler.


Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
But, in the etherial ivy-tower world, such distinctions are meaningless. Everything is black and white. Black, if it comes from a nation or political party you disagree with, and White if it comes from "your side".


The Geneva conventions are there for a reason. Do you think the gross injustices committed by the Japanese in WW2 against American soliders need to be repeated?

Just admit it, your government is breaking the Geneva convention. It matters not that they did not declare war. The absence of a declaration of war is specifically noted as to still bind the conflicting countries to their requirements under the Geneva Convention.

3rd Geneva Convention

And just for your future information, I actually have read all four Geneva conventions a few years back. Your insinuations are as wrong as your belligerence to basic human rights.

[edit on 8/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by periwinkle blue
Is it my imagination, or is Jimmy Carter virtually incapable of uttering any statements favorable to the United States? I cannot recall a foreign policy issue on which he has chosen to add commentary , with which he agreed.


When you rebuke a problem you don't call it a beautiful mistake, do you? You do not trumpet praise while favoring such policies while cascading rose petals at the leader and country for it do you? I think Jimmy Carter's work in a positive manner speaks wonders, person to person. When you are talking about correcting a bad policy, one that flaunts departation from over 200 years of human rights values, you obviously become critical and even demand a cease and desist order.

Well I demand Bush cease and desist such things, everywhere and anywhere that the United States, and the individual States operate in such a contradictory manner. The reason is clear enough that it invites similar abuse into the future of Americans, even were it the only reason. But there is more, it is about the right thing to do, and to apologize deeply for such transgressions. That is the high road and the moral path.

We are looking at torture, no matter how many Orwellian excuses this current government makes. Such things deserve the ash heap of history, plain and simple.

[edit on 8-6-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Just to add to your post a little Skipshipman if I may.

Jimmy Carter actually helped President Clinton negotiate an end to North Korea gaining nuclear weapons back in 1994. He single handedly obtained the groundwork for the Agreed Framework.

Was President Carter not acting on behalf of the United States when he prevented North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons back in 1994? His criticisms are not baseless and I for one commend him on it.

A true patriot does not believe everything their government says and does. Thats a zealot, not a patriot.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Thank you subz and skipshipman for shedding the light of truth on the disinformation posted by the far-right-leaning-zealot "the-USA-can-do-wrong" contributors to this thread! How they and their idols can condone the atrocities committed in the name of the USA is impossibile to comprehend. Good writing! Keep it coming.




top topics



 
0

log in

join