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: Classified Guantanamo Log Reveals Interrogation Techniques

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Like I said, Subz, this war is a war against an ideal, not against a nation or alliance of nations. Since there is no single, definitive enemy, hostilities will never end until the nations pursuing that war declare it to have ended, and thus by this diabolical, Orwellian twist of language, they are termed as enemy combatants - and can be termed such in perpetuity.

From the link you provided:

www.cnn.com
Victory and Geneva Conventions

Bush did not formally declare the war in Iraq to be over.

There are several reasons, highlighted by aides and scholars. For one, although major combat is over, skirmishes in Iraq continue as exemplified by deadly exchanges in the city of Fallujah between protesters and U.S. soldiers. Also, although Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, the former Iraqi president and members of his inner circle, including his two sons, remain unaccounted for.

Scholars familiar with laws governing war say that a formal declaration of victory would complicate efforts by coalition forces to track down the former members of Saddam's regime.

"If we say the war is over, it makes it more difficult to pursue these individuals," said Anthony Clark Arend, professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University. He has written a book on international law and the use of force.

The Geneva Conventions also call for the release and repatriation "without delay" of prisoners of war at the close of hostilities.

"Generally, that means you repatriate them to the existing government," Arend said. "Well, there's no place to repatriate them to."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Gotta love the spin...




posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
dude subz, this is not cruel... you want to know cruel you should go to a nazi camp... man where have you been... and how does standing is torture? more like excrise to me...



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Like I said, Subz, this war is a war against an ideal, not against a nation or alliance of nations. Since there is no single, definitive enemy, hostilities will never end until the nations pursuing that war declare it to have ended, and thus by this diabolical, Orwellian twist of language, they are termed as enemy combatants - and can be termed such in perpetuity.

Gotta love the spin...

I do not see the 'War on Terror' to be a "war" in the legal sense, it cant be, we have a single country declaring a war against an abstraction. Much like there was no enemy combatants held captive in perpetuity during the 'War on Drugs'. The term "war" in those cases are mere publicity tool to show that they are actively fighting a problem. Much like the "war on poverty" or "war on AIDS" are mere terminology to describe the efforts taken to stop a problem.

The 'War on Terror' is not a legal War. It therefore should not be used to justify war time practices. (e.g. Prisoners of War)


War

1.
1a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
1b. The period of such conflict.
1c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
2a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.


The legality of a War that we are all familiar with surrounds the 1st definition. A war between two nations/states. These are the times when you can legally detain enemy combatants with no charge other than they are fighting against you.

The 2nd definition pertains to the 'War on Terror'. It is a "A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious". As in the example "the war against acid rain" would the fact that its a War actually mean you could hold corporate executives as enemy combatants because they are polluting our skies? Dont be ridiculous!

Which brings us to the second part of my argument: if they are not legally enemy combatants (due to absence of legal war) they should be charged with terrorism offences and given a criminal trial.

However, the conflicts between the United States and Iraq/Afghanistan were legally "wars" between 2 nations as described in the 1st definition. As such there legally was enemy combatants to detain. But when those two specific hostilities ended (which they did with the installation of new governments) they should of been released or charged with terrorism.

Get me?

Whats next? A "War on Crime" whereby any "criminal" can be locked up for life with no trial as a PoW? They would be enemy combatants after all. Is this really the kind of legal nightmare we wish to foist upon ourselves?

The Bush administration does recognise the illegality of holding PoW's pertaining to the War on Terror. They have circumvented discussion and muddied the waters by using the detention of suspected terrorists under the auspices of 2 legally recognised wars between two or more nations. Since the United States is currently not at War between any nation we now can fully see that these people are being detained illegally.

[edit on 15/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

I do not see the 'War on Terror' to be a "war" in the legal sense, it cant be, we have a single country declaring a war against an abstraction.
.....................


A single country declaring war against terrorism subz?... tsk, tsk, tsk....you should know better than to try to sell that in here subz...

While some nations have been against the war on terrorism in Iraq, they have been waging war against terrorism and according to AI, they have suppressed the rights of people.

I posted this in another thread but here it goes again.

Let's see what Amnesty international is saying on who is fighting the war on terrorism.


Europe and Central Asia Regional Overview
Covering events from January to December 2003

Governments across Europe and Central Asia continued to use the so-called "war on terror" to undermine human rights in the name of security. Among the steps taken by governments were regressive moves on "anti-terrorist" legislation, attacks on refugee protection, and restrictions on freedom of association and expression. Simplistic rhetoric about security, immigration and asylum, together with an upsurge in populism, bolstered racism and discriminatory practices towards minorities across the region. The lack of political will shown by the European Union (EU) to confront human rights violations within its own borders was increasingly disturbing, particularly in light of the planned accession of 10 new member states in 2004. Those responsible for violations, including torture or ill-treatment, continued to enjoy impunity.


Excerpted from.
t2web.amnesty.r3h.net...

Some of the countries described to be using the war on terror as an excuse are in no particular order: United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Russian Federation, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Georgia, Albania, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Macedonia, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Belarus, Turkmenistan, Turkey and Azerbaijan. I might have left a few out.

What happened in Uzbekistan was mostly the fault of the government, but since AI put the country in it's list, i did not leave it out. I did not see North Korea and China in the list.


[edit on 15-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
OK more than one country has declared a War on Terrorism. I know that. We are talking about Guantanamo so I didnt really feel the need to go off topic and bring in the rest of the World's "Wars on Terror". It doesnt change the legality of the "war on terror" though.

These countries have not declared war on ANOTHER country so they are not at a state of war as the law recognizes.

It doesnt change what I have said in the slightest


Quite frankly, if that is the only thing you can contest from my post im elated


[edit on 15/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
.......................
These countries have not declared war on ANOTHER country so they are not at a state of war as the law recognizes.

It doesnt change what I have said in the slightest


Quite frankly, if that is the only thing you can contest from my post im elated


[edit on 15/6/05 by subz]


Oh, so none of those countries declared war against Afghanistan in the war against terrorism?......

BTW, i have not read the thread from the begining, i wish i could but i don't have as much time as i used to.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh, so none of those countries declared war against Afghanistan in the war against terrorism?......

Some did but that war is over. There is now a U.S friendly government of Afghanistan. There is no more Afghanistan war.

Regardless, would it change the legality of these Guantanamo detentions now if every other country in the World had been in the War?



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
ulshadow:

you should be happy that the US bring down the fall of the soviet union.


Yes, I WOULD be happy if the US had anything to do with bringing down the Soviet Union. The USSR collapsed due to internal corruption and economic factors unrelated to the good ole USA. Read something and stop listening to Rah Rah USA Propaganda.


like someone said, if we carpetbombed baghdad, there will be no baghdad to go into... ever heard of smart bombs?


How many civilians were killed in Baghdad in the initial days of the war? Quite interestingly, the US does not count civilian casualties unless they hit the news wires. Ever heard of smart questions?


Germany could never defeated the US... why? they got a big ocean to cross, and mexico and canada is not letting germany to have troops there... And why would americans be speaking germany?


Who said anything about defeating Germany? You were happily watching from the sidelines as the German war machine worked across Europe, you would have been just as happy dealing with them as trading partners, which coincidentally you WERE right up until Pearl Harbor. READ READ READ and learn.


If they do love life(the terrorist)... they wouldn't blow themselves up now would they?


If the USA loved life, why would they militarily invade a country and kill upwards of 15,000 civilians in a war based on a lie?


Anyway, back to the thread, it's obvious to everyone else that Gitmo is an illegal detention camp and is breeding anti-Americanism around the world.

If you agree with putting people behind bars for indefinite periods of time because they hate Americans, then you are, quite simply, a coward. Are you so afraid of these people that you should lock them up because they MIGHT want to kill your fellow Americans?

You know, you have people IN YOUR COUNTRY who are desperate to kill Americans too. They're your neighbours.

What happens to them?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Speaking of cowards, I happend to walk past the US embassy here in London. The whole road infront of it is now a no-go zone for cars and the entire building is ringed with barriers and temp fencing. There are British police officers all around it with automatic weapons (I hope the US is footing the bill for these officers).

If the United States is so powerful why the need to go to extreme lengths to protect your embassy?

If the United States is such a good force in the World why the need to protect itself so tightly? Does it fear an uprising from angry British citizens? I would if I were them.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Did you need to use the word "cowards"?

On second thought, what did you post have to do with the topic?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Jakomo and subz, you are two of those people who continuosly exagerate and lie to try to sell your own agenda.

Jakomo.... the sanctions which were put in place in Iraq were done under the supersivion of the UN the US did ask for the sanctions to be put in place when president Bush SR was in power, but at the end it was the UN who approved and allowed the sanctions to be kept in Iraq...it wasn't only the US.... so, yes, do wake up Jakomo....

subz... in order for those who are detained in Guantanamo to being given full rights as per the geneva conventions, they should have been wearing a uniform when they were detained, and followed the rules of war. If not, then they would be considered guerrillas... but then, according to the geneva conventions, guerrillas are those people who always show themselves to be different from civilians. Always have their weapons in plain sight, and they must also follow the rules of war. Even then, they only have some of the same rights as members of the regular combat forces.

We all know exactly how well these prisoners have followed the rules of war.... under the geneva conventions, these prisoners have no status, because they are not following the rules of war.

Here is a guide and an excerpt to the part of the geneva conventions that involves prisoners of war. Do note the bold parts.... and read them several times, so you know the difference...


Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

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:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Excerpted from.
www.unhchr.ch...


BTW subz, you do know that the conflict hasn't ended....right subz?... and subz...are insurgents following the rules of war?....or even making themselves distinctive from civilians?....


[edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
.............
If the United States is such a good force in the World why the need to protect itself so tightly? Does it fear an uprising from angry British citizens? I would if I were them.


Actually, if you stop, and think for a second you might actually realize that if they are doing that is because Islamic extremists can be found even in your own country, and they could carry suicide attacks against the US embassy in your country....

Nice try subz...


[edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Did you need to use the word "cowards"?

On second thought, what did you post have to do with the topic?



Originally posted by Jakmo
If you agree with putting people behind bars for indefinite periods of time because they hate Americans, then you are, quite simply, a coward. Are you so afraid of these people that you should lock them up because they MIGHT want to kill your fellow Americans?


What does it have to do with the topic? Not much probably. The discussion had been a wide one including America's international behaviour. I felt the way the American Embassy is overly protected in its closest Allies capital to be of some relevance. If the supporters of President Bush think everything is as it should be with the United States then why is there so much security overkill at its Embassy?

People dont do things for no reason. People wouldnt want to destroy the United States embassy here in London if they did not feel strongly against what they are doing. This is their closest Ally and they dont even feel safe here, seemed pertinent to the wider discussion to me.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
............
People dont do things for no reason. People wouldnt want to destroy the United States embassy here in London if they did not feel strongly against what they are doing. This is their closest Ally and they dont even feel safe here, seemed pertinent to the wider discussion to me.

how old are you subz? were you born yesterday by some mysterious force that you do not know that islamic extremists exist even in your own country, and that is probably the reason for the heightened security of the US embassy in your country?.....

BTW...exactly what do you know to claim what you said above, and I quote.


People wouldnt want to destroy the United States embassy here in London if they did not feel strongly against what they are doing.


How exactly do you know why or who would want to do such thing?....

What exactly makes you think that you know what people want to do?....

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Damn guys, have some respect for the forum and take this crap outside.

Disclaimer: In all things, please play nice.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
how old are you subz? were you born yesterday by some mysterious force that you do not know that islamic extremists exist even in your own country, and that is probably the reason for the heightened security of the US embassy in your country?.....

*Sigh* Your back to your name calling and insults again. When we were suffering terrorist attacks from the IRA (which quite a few Americans openly supported) we didnt feel the need to make our embassies around the World fortresses.


Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW...exactly what do you know to claim what you said above, and I quote.


People wouldnt want to destroy the United States embassy here in London if they did not feel strongly against what they are doing.


How exactly do you know why or who would want to do such thing?....

On a fishing expedition? Want me to say im a terrorist
You must of been born yesterday if you think im a terrorist and one that would openly admit it as well.

If I had my way I would expel the American diplomat from London and impose economic sanctions on it. But dont feel too bad, I'd do the same thing to a whole host of other serial human rights abusing nations



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
*Sigh* Your back to your name calling and insults again. When we were suffering terrorist attacks from the IRA (which quite a few Americans openly supported) we didnt feel the need to make our embassies around the World fortresses.


Not insulting, i am asking because you don't seem to be thinking that there are other reasons why the US embassy would be heavily armed at this point in time in your country. BTW, the IRA did not attack you in such a way as the 9/11 attacks...and the IRA members do not commit suicide bombings...different enemy, different tactics.


Originally posted by subz
On a fishing expedition? Want me to say im a terrorist
You must of been born yesterday if you think im a terrorist and one that would openly admit it as well.


You see, you are once again assuming. My question was simple, and it was a question...I did not make a statement, perhaps you should learn the difference.... Let me put it in another way so you may understand...

How in the world do you know why the US embassy in your country would be attacked by regular people?..... Can you read minds?.... That i know of extremists, and wakos, would be the only ones even wanting to do such a thing, but i was asking you because you seemed to be so sure of your statement....
(do note the sarcastic tone and emote in that last sentence...)



Originally posted by subz
If I had my way I would expel the American diplomat from London and impose economic sanctions on it. But dont feel too bad, I'd do the same thing to a whole host of other serial human rights abusing nations


Well, if i had my say i would be sending you with a bunch of roses to talk to islamic extremists, and see if you can convince them to make peace with the world...



[edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I'm NOT going to say this again, take this off of here.


Damn, you made me use that emoticon.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Muaddib:

Jakomo.... the sanctions which were put in place in Iraq were done under the supersivion of the UN the US did ask for the sanctions to be put in place when president Bush SR was in power, but at the end it was the UN who approved and allowed the sanctions to be kept in Iraq...it wasn't only the US.... so, yes, do wake up Jakomo....


Russia, France, and Germany all tried to end the sanctions when they realized what the effects were. As well as various NGO's and even US Congress members.

www.globalpolicy.org...

It was called critically flawed by many

www.globalpolicy.org...


The US and the UK did everything they could to block any loosening of the sanctions. Educate yourself.



Well, if i had my say i would be sending you with a bunch of roses to talk to islamic extremists, and see if you can convince them to make peace with the world...


A good idea, actually. And very Christian.

Makes more sense than trying to KILL them. You kill 1 and 3 more jump into his place. Seems to be a solid plan, too bad it hasn't worked one little bit in Iraq OR Afghanistan....

It has only cost, what, 1200 US soldiers; lives so far, right? How many more US soldiers will die before the War On Terror is not WON, but BEING WON. Because right now, you are losing badly.


j




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join