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.

 

Children In Guantanamo

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Ngydan:

The people at gitmo are accused officially, they are not detained arbitrarily.


Ok, I will call you a liar until you come up with a link to prove that lie, liar.

Oh yeah, well your pants are on fire, nanny nanny poo poo.


The people at gitmo aren't seized in randomized snatch and grabs and there is an ongoing process of administrative reivew. Indeed, many have been let go, because their cases have been reviewed.


Is the warning from Ngdyan, who was the Mod who gave me a warning abiout this, a way for Ngydan to dodge the question.

Actually, dick, no, it wasn't. You see, warns are given out for reasons, like breaking the rules. And when some jerk responds to another poster, merely for disagreeing with him with "Practice your Sieg Hiels, sheep. ", they get a warning.


it was in the Amnesty International report that set most of this off, I guess you didn't read it.

The amnesty report not sufficient to demonstrate that its arbitrary. And, as we can see, the process is not arbitrary. Its not the same as the US civilian court procedure, but thats pretty darned irrelevant.


vis mega
There are AMERICANS.. sitting around.. talking about the detention and possible torture of childern

These are 'chilredn' who've taken up machine guns and fired them at other people. They've been arrested, detained, captured on the battlefield, and yes, turned in for bounties. They've been taken to a holding facility, where the closest anyone has gotten to 'torture' is making people stand up for a long time, or depriving them of sleep, or asking questions while yelling. These kids should've thought about what the consequences would be when they joined the international jihad. The united states is being extremely kind in holding them, as opposed to flat out executing them, and if they spend then next 70 years of their lives in jumpsuits in cuba, great.


Also, have we not established that there are no kids at gitmo, that they were there, and that they have been processed and released?

And haven't we already shown that the US is not bound by the convention invovled, that it hasn't ratified it, and that even so it is in fact operating in the guidlines of the convention? The kids were captured or turned in. They were processed. Now they've been let go. Thats what the convention requires. If they were abused while in gitmo, or anywhere else, then thats clearly wrong and clearly illegal according to the laws and practices of the US, neverminding this convention that the US isn't even a party to.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Nygdan

Are we reading the same board / links? There's clearly an obligation on signatories to protect and ensure the rights of all children including combatants, reading the convention and protocol together.

US is clearly in breach of the convention. It arrested and detained children, one lad captured at 14 is now 17 1/2 and still there! (as Jakomo showed). These children have not been protected, they've been placed in solitary and subjected to mental torture - as we've established.

Their arrest, without warrant and visible due process was, by any definition, arbitrary. The lack of access to lawyers and failure to define charges makes Guantanamo worse than the Gulags - closer in fact to Chinese prison factories.

The US signed the protocol to the treaty on 5 Jul 2000 and ratified it on 23 Dec 2002

You've signed the convention but not ratified it - you and Somalia, is that the kind of company you're happy to keep nowadays?

www.unicef.org...


A sad episode in a tragic chapter for the world's fading beacon




BTW - Jakomo - Top Work Fella! Made me larf!



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
here's clearly an obligation on signatories to protect and ensure the rights of all children including combatants, reading the convention and protocol together.

No. There is no obligation. A country has to ratify the convention, the united states did not ratify that convention, its not a party to it.


one lad captured at 14 is now 17 1/2 and still there! (as Jakomo showed).

Ah, check then. Thought we were saying that they were all out.


subjected to mental torture - as we've established.

I must've missed that.


Their arrest, without warrant and visible due process was, by any definition, arbitrary.

? No it isn't. There is no authority to issue warrants under that jurisdiction anyway. And it doesn't require that the whole process be public in order to be non-arbitrary at all. The entire thing even could be conducted in secrecy. There is no authority named to verify the proceedings, thus there is no one that the proceedings have ot be revealed to.


The lack of access to lawyers

Everyone has representation, and the detainees at gitmo even have access to the SCOTUS.


and failure to define charges makes Guantanamo worse than the Gulags - closer in fact to Chinese prison factories.

I'll take gitmo over a soviet gulag anyday. Not saying its 'easy living', but gulag? No way.

And defining charges? The people at gitmo often keep the charges secret, that would be permissible under this convetion, which the US isn't party to anyway.

The US signed the protocol to the treaty on 5 Jul 2000 and ratified it on 23 Dec 2002


You've signed the convention but not ratified it - you and Somalia, is that the kind of company you're happy to keep nowadays?

I don't care what kind of 'company' the United States keeps. If the convetion prevents the permanent detainment of youngsters, merely because they are young, then no nation should've signed it.


A sad episode in a tragic chapter for the world's fading beacon

Whats sad is that the whole world wants gitmo closed, but says nothing about the detention of political activists in cuban cells, the rule of sharic courts in the middle east and africa, or those 'chinese jail factories' you mention. All are far worse than gitmo.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I think the World does say something about those prisoners - Amnesty works around the World for prisoners' rights. Presumably Amnesty's 'right' on those but 'wrong' on G'mo??


Key difference is those other countries don't go around invading other countries while spouting on about 'freedom' & 'democracy'.

To detain & abuse children on the one hand and claim moral ascendency on the other shows how convoluted US logic has become and how far their moral standards have slipped.

My country right or wrong? - That's what the Nazis said!



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
I think the World does say something about those prisoners - Amnesty works around the World for prisoners' rights. Presumably Amnesty's 'right' on those but 'wrong' on G'mo??

Amnesty is a great group, but obviously they don't get everything right, and there's obviously a politization here, if they are calling gitmo a gulag but aren't doing anything about the actual gulags out there.



Key difference is those other countries don't go around invading other countries while spouting on about 'freedom' & 'democracy'.

Irrelevant.

My country right or wrong? - That's what the Nazis said!

Actually, you are saying what the nazis say. You are a nazis. You damned nazi.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Ngydan:

Actually, dick, no, it wasn't. You see, warns are given out for reasons, like breaking the rules. And when some jerk responds to another poster, merely for disagreeing with him with "Practice your Sieg Hiels, sheep. ", they get a warning.


So, um, it's okay for a Mod to call someone a "dick"[ and a "jerk" without getting a warning? Wow, where do I sign up?


The amnesty report not sufficient to demonstrate that its arbitrary. And, as we can see, the process is not arbitrary.


Then we're reading two different docs. The document I am reading says :

"The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law," said Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary-general.

Arbitrary and indefinite detention is exactly what is happening. These people were NOT all picked up on the battlefield, some were rounded up because of informants who just wanted cash, and some were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Prove to me there is any kind of rhyme or reason to the detention of the people at Gitmo and I'll back off.


These are 'chilredn' who've taken up machine guns and fired them at other people.


Very dramatic, but YOU HAVE NO PROOF!

These kids were "carrying machine guns"? Never mind the physical demands of such a thing, but you're spewing false propaganda all over the place, and, frankly, it's sad. You have ZERO proof of your assertion. ZERO. So when you have no proof of something, next time just don't say it, ok?


They've been taken to a holding facility, where the closest anyone has gotten to 'torture' is making people stand up for a long time, or depriving them of sleep, or asking questions while yelling.


Again, either false info that you've gotten, or a bald-faced lie. Take your pick.


These kids should've thought about what the consequences would be when they joined the international jihad.


Any proof of this? THEY WERE LET GO! That pretty much says to me that they were NOT a member of any international jihad. Try to stay focused on your own claims.


Also, have we not established that there are no kids at gitmo, that they were there, and that they have been processed and released?


Released because they were NOT terrorists, hmm? I wonder why they were picked up in the first place if they ended up not being terrorists, huh? Clerical errors?


If they were abused while in gitmo, or anywhere else, then thats clearly wrong and clearly illegal according to the laws and practices of the US, neverminding this convention that the US isn't even a party to.


Clearly you;ve read none of the links provided, or even paid attention to what people are saying, so this argument is useless, since your narrow mind is already made up. Made up based on lies and propaganda, but hey, you work with what your intellect can handle, right?

Thanks for trying.



Actually, you are saying what the nazis say. You are a nazis. You damned nazi.


Can I get a Mod to warn a Mod on this or what's the story?

And then we may as well close the thread, I think it's clear to everyone Ngdyan is in the death throes of a losing argument here. It's kind of getting painful to watch his thrashing.


jako



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Amnesty is a great group, but obviously they don't get everything right, and there's obviously a politization here, if they are calling gitmo a gulag but aren't doing anything about the actual gulags out there.




My country right or wrong? - That's what the Nazis said!

Actually, you are saying what the nazis say. You are a nazis. You damned nazi.


Jakomo

It's also (seemingly) OK for a mod to call someone a nazi. Nygdan is this your first language? Your use of words is very inconsistent. Either that or you're a moderator abusing their position to force their POV and abuse members.

Either way it stinks and as you've called me a nazi I'm complaining. One on here and also via the complaint thingie - hopefully I won't get Nygdan reviewing my complaint about Nygdan!!

Time for Regime Change?

[edit on 23-6-2005 by CTID56092]

[edit on 24-6-2005 by CTID56092]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Allow me to say a couple things in regard to this topic.

It is very much common knowledge that children are used by the opposing side as combatants. They do not see 14 year olds as mere kids who are allowed to play as we in the West do. They are even used as homicide bombers, we know this. You should know this.
One more thing, Jak, you call me a liar and you will find yourslef knucklepounding the keyboard at another site for a while. You go that? I'll deal with the mod who allowed your crudeness drive him to your side of the sty, and at the same time, I will deal with you in a most direct manner if you attempt to drag me there. I hope you have no questions about that.

In regard to "arrests" and "warrants", these people were not captured robbing the local 7-11. Have you people already forgotten what wars are all about?
How long will people be held? Who knows? The POWS on both sides during WWI had no idea how long they'd be held and the captors had no idea how long they'd have to hold them. War isn't civil court, folks. Get over it.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
BUt Thomas, this isn't a war against a defined enemy. There was an idea when the POWs of any war are going to be released - at the end of the war. The ending of a war had very defined terms, either the other nation is destroyed or one side asks for peace.

In a war that is fundimentally against an ideology, there is no defined enemy, therefore no defined end to the war.

That is why it is important, I think, to allow some thrid party international inspections. Maybe releasing them back to Iraq is stupid, but doing what is going on now only leads to resentment, doubt and really just makes them hate you all the more - not to mention you are in effect proving the terrorists right.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
The war isn't against a defined nation, not enemy.

Are you willing to watch your children, your wife or husband, die at the hands of the next attacker, simply becuae they aren't acting on behalf of a nation (officially, anyway)?

It is very apparent that war has mutated since the days of the Geneva convention.
Regardless, children have been EPW's before. If you recall, Hitler pressed children into service, too. Their age did not prevent their deaths or their being held EPW. War is not pleasant. Never will be, and never should be.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The war isn't against a defined nation, not enemy.


SO who are you fighting then? Specifically?


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Are you willing to watch your children, your wife or husband, die at the hands of the next attacker, simply becuae they aren't acting on behalf of a nation (officially, anyway)?


- I think there is a touch of hesteria there isn't there Thomas? Who is to say there will be another attack, and mroe so, isn't detaining children and acting in a view that is countrary to general advanced human morals really only unsuring another attack? I understand the notion that sometimes you have to out evil an evil to win a battle or war, but only when that enemy is defined. Here without a real definition all that is happening is trying to out evil and evil concept.



Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
It is very apparent that war has mutated since the days of the Geneva convention.
Regardless, children have been EPW's before. If you recall, Hitler pressed children into service, too. Their age did not prevent their deaths or their being held EPW. War is not pleasant. Never will be, and never should be.


Agreed war has changed, and that is why fighting this war as you always have - with weapons - is a losing proposition. You have only managed to increase their numbers, if that could be confirmed, but because there is no way to tell whether the guy is just coming home from grocery shoipping or he is coming to blow you up, any stats are impossible, which only underlines the impossiblity of winning an unconvential war, with conventional idea's.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The war isn't against a defined nation, not enemy.


SO who are you fighting then? Specifically?


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Are you willing to watch your children, your wife or husband, die at the hands of the next attacker, simply becuae they aren't acting on behalf of a nation (officially, anyway)?


- I think there is a touch of hesteria there isn't there Thomas? Who is to say there will be another attack, and mroe so, isn't detaining children and acting in a view that is countrary to general advanced human morals really only unsuring another attack? I understand the notion that sometimes you have to out evil an evil to win a battle or war, but only when that enemy is defined. Here without a real definition all that is happening is trying to out evil and evil concept.



Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
It is very apparent that war has mutated since the days of the Geneva convention.
Regardless, children have been EPW's before. If you recall, Hitler pressed children into service, too. Their age did not prevent their deaths or their being held EPW. War is not pleasant. Never will be, and never should be.


Agreed war has changed, and that is why fighting this war as you always have - with weapons - is a losing proposition. You have only managed to increase their numbers, if that could be confirmed, but because there is no way to tell whether the guy is just coming home from grocery shoipping or he is coming to blow you up, any stats are impossible, which only underlines the impossiblity of winning an unconvential war, with conventional idea's.



I'm sorry, have you not followed this war since the beginning back in 2001, around September time frame? The war actually started long before then, but we arrogantly ignored the enemy. You tell me, who would you say we are fighting, huh? You know who they are. As a matter of fact, you claim we have "increased their numbers".

If we had never been attacked, and someone were to suggest that it was a possibility, one could possibly say that their might be a touch of hysteria, right? Of course, had that been alleged on Sept 10, 2001, the next day would have proven you wrong, right? Right. It is obvious that husbands, wives, and children died in the attack, and you claim that we have enlarged their numbers by fighting back, which would increase their potential for hitting us here again, right? Or, are you asserting that their numbers have increased only to the end that the annual Terrorist Convention will require more seating?

As far as winning a war, there is un sure-fire way of losing your country, and that is to roll over and wrt on yourself when you are attacked. We are not France, and we don't have someone to pull our arses out of the fire if we are conquored. Your words are meaningless as you offer no alternative, not even an unviable one.

Have a good night. I'm off to bed.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
This war was against two defined nations and two defined enemies. The war was/is against Afghanistan and the Taliban and Iraq and the Saddam regime. You can't get much more defined than that. The problem is that both of these governments have citizens picking up arms and fighting against the invaders. This is much like what would happen if the U.S. was invaded by China. You would have U.S. citizens doing everything they could to inflict casualties on the invaders. That is what you do to defend your homeland. The attacker isn't going to like it and frankly it doesn't matter what the attacker thinks. They are the enemy. And when your homeland has been invaded you do absolutely everything in your power to force them back out. Many of the nations in the Middle East are like states. They are small in size, have common religions, common interests. So when one state gets invaded the people in the neighboring states view the attack as a threat to the region as a whole. If you invade a country and you don't like the way they fight then leave. You are the outsider, not them.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
THOMAS - You are obvious either very cranky or tired. EIther way I will just point out the rest of the sentence I wrote about them increasing in numbers "If that could be confirmed". There are people on both sides that will say the US is almost winning and that the insurgency is on it's death bed as it were - Dicky Cheney. Others will say it is increasing - The military leader there aparently - thread here on ATS. Either way nothing can be confirmed because there is no way of defining who is there to hurt you, and who is just there. In the end, terrorism is a concept, a tatic maybe even an ideology - but it isn't concrete and that is the falacy IMO.

We will never beat an idea with the same level of thinking that caused the problem.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Dick, jerk, Nazi = 3 warnings for Nygand I feel!

Or are there double standards at work on ATS?

Not off thread as this guy (moderator!) started this on here with the name-calling. Think this issue should be seen to be resolved here.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Indy, the war in Afghanistan was against the Taliban. The War in Iraq was against Hussein. That one might have been a diversion from the real war; I, like you, don't have all the facts. After that, the war is continuing in other places. It is against organizations, not nations. That is the war on terror. You are thinking that Afghanistan and Iraq is the war, but they are only pieces of it.

Passer, again, not fighting when attacked gets you a lost nation. It doesn't get any simpler than that. If the enemy is still fighting, it's because they aren't feeling enough pain. What other way would you suggest? Don't tell me appeasement, as The administration before this one did the "Everyone love me!" routine, and it gave the enemies plenty of time to prepare.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Thomas Crowne:

One more thing, Jak, you call me a liar and you will find yourslef knucklepounding the keyboard at another site for a while. You go that? I'll deal with the mod who allowed your crudeness drive him to your side of the sty


Lol! First off, nice try blaming me for Ngydan's attack. I provoked him to my side of the sty, huh? Good one! Deserves a warning nonetheless, though, so that's good.

Secondly, try flexing your "power" (? is that what it is ?) on someone who will take it seriously.

If you tell a lie, expect me to call you out on it, despite any of your threats to ban me.


Are you willing to watch your children, your wife or husband, die at the hands of the next attacker, simply becuae they aren't acting on behalf of a nation (officially, anyway)?


Totally. Putting 14 year old kids in Guantanomo will protect you and your family. Because these kids want to go to your house and kill you and your family, they are crazy Arab killbots programmed by the evil Yasser Arafat to destroy all things Western and then dance in your blood and praise Allah and all because they hate your freedoms.

I mean, this is a world where EVERYONE wants to kill you, right? It's us vs them and they are insane murdering lunatics who only think of death and murder all day in between their prayers.

Propaganda appears to work on some people better than others, is all I can say.


After that, the war is continuing in other places. It is against organizations, not nations. That is the war on terror. You are thinking that Afghanistan and Iraq is the war, but they are only pieces of it.


It is not a war on terror. Terror is an emotion. It is not a war on terrorism. It is a war on those Islamic terror groups which target AMERICANS and AMERICAN interests. I don't see Colombian terrorists who attack Colombians getting taken care of, do you? Taiwanese terrorists attacking China? Indian terrorists operating in Kashmir?

And who starts a war without having any idea on how to win it, anyway? How do you win a war on Islamic terror? Kill all Muslims? Incarcerate them all? Sterilize them? Cut off their legs?

It's a War of Futility more than a war on terror.


not fighting when attacked gets you a lost nation. It doesn't get any simpler than that. If the enemy is still fighting, it's because they aren't feeling enough pain. What other way would you suggest?


EXCELLENT point. So how does this transmit to the Iraqi insurgents who are NOT terrorists but who were simply defending their own country. People who, as you put it, refused to "roll over". People who think the way you do.

Not fighting when attacked gets you a lost nation

Explain how this translates to the invasion of Iraq, and how those who defended themselves in Iraq get treated as Illegal Combatants and shipped of to a prison camp for an indefinite amount of time.

I am NOT talking about people who strap TNT to them and blow up themselves and anyone else they can, I am talking about Mahmood the cobbler who picks up a weapon to defend his home and ends up either dead or captured and sent off to Gitmo because one of his neighbors says (for 1000$ US) that he saw Mahmood talking to an Al Qaeda boogeyman.










posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
I am NOT talking about people who strap TNT to them and blow up themselves and anyone else they can, I am talking about Mahmood the cobbler who picks up a weapon to defend his home and ends up either dead or captured and sent off to Gitmo because one of his neighbors says (for 1000$ US) that he saw Mahmood talking to an Al Qaeda boogeyman.


And you know these type of people are in Gitmo because you saw their case files? You talked to their neighbors? You were briefed by the CIA? No, it's just more speculation.

All of these accusations that the media loves to make are unfounded speculations in an attempt to beat channel 5's coverage of the event. Drama sells news. And that's what most of this Gitmo bit is. Networks trying to get higher ratings so they can make more profit for their share-holders. You know all these major networks are publicly traded companies on the NYSE.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
dbates:

No, it's just more speculation.


Haven't they let a bunch of people go (after 2+ years in Gitmo)?

Would they let these people go if they were terrorists?

Nope. Then they are innocent. Innocents held illegally in a military prison.

So it's not speculation. There ARE innocent people in Gitmo, that people have been released is proof of it.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
This is rapidly getting out of hand.

I, and I'm sure many others are getting tired of seeing 10 posts in EVERY thread here containing members either calling each other nazis or calling anyone who's politics they dont like nazis.

Cut it out. It contributes nothing to the thread, contributes nothing to your point, and only sidetracks and intentionally disrupts the flow of conversation. Intentionally being disruptive is a direct violation of Terms and Conditions each of you agreed to when signing up here.

The T&C will be enforced here, which means:

Pathetic childish Nazi-dropping will be warned and immediately Edited out of posts. Drop it if you must, but after a few moments no one will see it anyways. I'm tired of allowing snerts and trolls to disrupt conversations.

That's not referring to legitimate uses of it. But calling other members that word or using it to refer to politicians simply because YOU believe differently is over and done with.

That's all.

[edit on 6-24-2005 by Djarums]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join