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.

 

UN Report: US Is Abusing Captives

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
IAF101: I said:

These “insurgents” weren’t there before the invasion, they appeared as resistance to the occupation. Without an occupation there are no insurgents.

You replied:

How do you know this ?There is no proof of this ? Just because there were fewer acts of terrorism doesnt mean that these insurgents were not there !


Sure the insurgents were there. Except they were cobblers, barbers, taxi drivers, IT professionals, cafe owners, etc.

There were no terrorist attacks wiping out hundreds of people a week under Saddam. As bad as it was there was security. People didn't have to worry about getting blown to pieces at the market.

Sure, maybe arrested and thrown in jail for doing something bad, but they KNEW what to expect and they KNEW the rules. Can you imagine for a second having to worry every day about everyone in your family and all your friends? To worry that they may get killed today by a suicide bomber at the corner store?

There is a total breakdown of security in Iraq, and has been since the start (evidenced by the looting right away). If you can sit here and say that all this is the fault of Iraqis, I have one thing to say: The United States of America brought about this civil disorder by pretty much unilaterally invading with minimum international support. Therefore the aftermath is their responsibility.

It's as if you willing unleashed 300 Hurricane Katrinas on Iraq, and then scrambled to fix things that it had smashed to bits. Even in the best countries, if you have breakdown of social structure, you have bad things happening. It happened in New Orleans, it happened in Los Angeles, it happens all over the place when there is nobody to help the poor or destitute, or when people feel particularly oppressed.

In this case, you did much to make them poor and destitute, and to make them feel oppressed (they were used to a different kind of in-your-face oppression) and those are the ranks from which the fanatics get their footsoldiers, in my opinion.

I'm always skeptical to hear the term "foreign fighter" bandied around when people discuss insurgents. I would think that it's probably a more than 90% Iraqi make-up.


How can the CIA recruit them to do field work ?? Some of the more wahabbi elements might support popular arab causes but that is not to say that they are under the CIA. Do you think that these people have no self identity ?


I was under the impression that most times people don't particularly know all the details when they are working for the CIA. They don't invite you to lunch at a restaurant, wearing their snazzy suits with the CIA emblazoned on the lapel and give you their business card before you sign a contract. It's clandestine. You know, the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, and all?


I have also posted many links from Bin Laden interviews and official documents that show that Bin Laden had never been contacted by the CIA.


Hmmm, it was only the one. Please repost three. Bearing in mind my above statement.


Apparently, commondreams dot com is what you consider as a credible source. It is nothing more than the name suggests, a Common "dream" not fact.


Again, it is full of links from reputable news agencies. It LINKS articles from other sources it doesn't write them.


US support in Afganistan was to only the indegenious resistence and not to the foreign elements that sort to make it an Islamic cause. Why cant you understand this simple logic ?


In the real world, if you arm a "resistance group" and you know that their ranks are being flooded with foreign soldiers, you are implicit in arming the foreign soldiers. It was probably their main intention in the first place. And of course they knew of the foreign soldiers. Ergo...






[edit on 28-2-2006 by Jakomo]




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
There were no terrorist attacks wiping out hundreds of people a week under Saddam. As bad as it was there was security. People didn't have to worry about getting blown to pieces at the market.

How could there be when the greatest terrorist in Iraq was ruling them?? If any such attacks did take place, the response would be gassing of entire villages and communiites without any fuss. These terrorists know that this is not going to happen now. If terrorism is really so reflective of the situation, then does it mean that they were okay with Saddam's tactics but things such as freedoms, right to vote etc are oppressive measures ? This is not about freedoms or the state of iraq.
The important thing to realize is that this war is about relgion to the muslims, not about protecting their dignity or freedoms. They feel that their religion has been subjugated. They care little about freedom and dignity of life.
Democracy is seen as 'anti-islamic'; the battle now is really about defeating the fundamentalist mindset and the idea of muslim oppression in democracy.
It is THIS mindset and attitude that is being combated in the War on Terror in Iraq.


Can you imagine for a second having to worry every day about everyone in your family and all your friends? To worry that they may get killed today by a suicide bomber at the corner store?

Yes I can. This is nothing new to the region. The Islamists have carried this sort of war out against the Jews for decades, now they carry it out on their fellow muslims. It is self defeating and is nothing more than the desperate methods of a fallen people.


There is a total breakdown of security in Iraq, and has been since the start (evidenced by the looting right away). If you can sit here and say that all this is the fault of Iraqis, I have one thing to say: The United States of America brought about this civil disorder by pretty much unilaterally invading with minimum international support. Therefore the aftermath is their responsibility.

The situation is Iraq at the beginning when Saddam was defeated was pretty stabele. The Looting and ritoting lasted only a month after which the general order had been established. The insurgent menace had emerged much latter. Even the insurgents now are on the back foot. The Problem is with the political parties that cannot agree over the results of an election. This is bound to happen as the nation is new and a period of uncertainity will be there.
The conditions in Iraq cannot be compared to the conditions in the West or in other parts of the world as the situation in the Middle east is very different. As
more Iraqis troops take cotrol the situation will stabilize and as political will is behind the Iraqi state these terrorists will have little room to operate. The present level of violence in Iraq is due to the lack of manpower. When Saddam was in power there were nealry half a million strong army and even then Saddam could not contain the dissent from the Kurds and the Shia's. Iraq has always been a violent place and with this new found liberty, this violence has just gotten more exuberant.
IMO it would take atleast a decade for the situation to stabilize and given Iraq's intrensic violence maybe more.


In this case, you did much to make them poor and destitute, and to make them feel oppressed (they were used to a different kind of in-your-face oppression) and those are the ranks from which the fanatics get their footsoldiers, in my opinion.

All this crap about being oppressed and breaking social structure is bunk. The had nothing under Saddam. The War against saddams forces was one of the shortest wars in mordern history and if so short war can turn princes to paupers then they dont deserve what they had in the first place!
Also what oppression are you talking about ? Free speach, elections, democracy ?

Its not like the Coalition forces went around looting Iraqi cities like Saddams republican gaurd in Kuwait is it ? The people had to face minimum inconvenience and minimum causualites given the nature of the opposition put
up. And as I have stated before, it isnt oppression but religious fanaticism that is the cause of suicude bombers. Moreover most of these fundamentalists are foreigners fighters that operate in Iraq. Foreign fighters, because, how would Iraqis get a steady supply of weapons and explosives without foreign assistence and direct support ? They cannot manufacuture these chemicals and neither can they afford to import them, the local Iraqis atleast. These also require expertise, which mostly would be available to only those who were formerly in the army. These people would most likely be known by the locals as ex-Iraqi army and thus would be easy for the Coalition troops to hunt out. Foreigners however would be much more difficult. Look at even Al-Zarqawi, he is from Jordan and he has declared war on the Shias in Iraq through Al-Qaeda. The overwhelming presence of foreign fighters in Iraq is undeniable.


I was under the impression that most times people don't particularly know all the details when they are working for the CIA.

These are princes, not pesants. Some of them have studied at harvard, cambridge, yale etc. They own multi-million corporations in the West and they wouldnt be foolish enought to get caught up with some vain struggle somewhere. Also those who do would most likely have better contacts in the areas they support than the CIA itself. They have the money too. The CIA would be of little use to them. Just as it was of no consequence to Osama.
During the Afgan war, the Arab-Isreal conflict was on, Vietnam was lost and the Cold war was in full swing. Do you think that the CIA had the time or the inclination to go research individual fighters ? I would think not.


Hmmm, it was only the one. Please repost three. Bearing in mind my above statement.

For you one, but I have posted many otherwise.
Again, I wont play any 'quid pro quo'.



Again, it is full of links from reputable news agencies. It LINKS articles from other sources it doesn't write them.

ITs full of "op/editorials" that represent its view points on subjects rather than any hard fact or news. Also it doenst show any other perspectives of the issues relying heavily on sensationalisma and demogogery. Typically meant for the naive and gullible audience of the un-initiated Western citizen.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Amnesty International does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights. Let's see what AI has to say on this topic:


stop torture
Human rights are under threat. The ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment – the most universally accepted of human rights – is being undermined. In the “war on terror”, governments are not only using torture and ill-treatment, they are making the case that this is justifiable and necessary.

Those who claim to set their human rights standards high are at the forefront of this assault. The USA is one such government. Their conduct influences governments everywhere, giving comfort to those who commit torture routinely and undermining the very values the “war on terror” is supposed to defend.

They speak of “coercive interrogation” but when the door to torture is opened, the pressure is always upward. If one slap doesn’t work, then a beating will follow. If a beating doesn’t work, what comes next? We see the photographs, hear the testimonies. It is cruel, inhuman; it degrades us all.

Join our campaign to stop torture and ill-treatment in the “war on terror”.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jgruh4e
Amnesty International does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.


Thats a nice one!

Despite Amnesty International's claims of being free from prejudice its actions over the past few years have clearly shown it as otherwise. Apparently, communist nations like North Korea, China and Cuba make only a passing mention in its bulletine while the welfare of terrorists is paramount to them. Their sickening hipocracy has destroyed Amnesty International's credibility in the world.
To the initiated this is not news.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Thats a nice one!

Despite Amnesty International's claims of being free from prejudice its actions over the past few years have clearly shown it as otherwise. Apparently, communist nations like North Korea, China and Cuba make only a passing mention in its bulletine while the welfare of terrorists is paramount to them. Their sickening hipocracy has destroyed Amnesty International's credibility in the world.
To the initiated this is not news.


Just shows the selectivness of your position. You claim that Amnesty is Prejudice - yet you are not. You deny them, because they have something to say against your goverment and your country, yet you know nothing about Amnesty. You certainly do now know, that they fight for Human Rights in China, Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Isreal, Turkey or United States - WHEREVER those Basic Human Rights are Broke and Raped. But for YOU, that is ofcourse "Not News".

You are doing Exactly the same thing with United Nations. You deny and Deny and DENY - yet they are quite suitable, when the Inspectors from UN are not allowed to access Nuclear compounds of Iran for example. Then the UN is GOOD and GREAT and "Is News".

I bet your Seniors at the PNAC do now allow you to even think about UN being Right and You being Wrong.

Yes - truly Independant your Opinions are...

[edit on 3/3/06 by Souljah]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban

Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.

In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."

Government lawyers have argued that another portion of that same law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. Therefore, they said, Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni national held since May 2002, cannot claim protection under the anti-torture provisions.

In Other Words:

Guantanamo Detainees ARE Being Tortured, since the US Goverment did not Say there were NOT - they claimed, that the Law that actually BANS cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in US custody Does Not apply to people held at the military prison!

Simply meaning - they have NO rights.

Simply meaning - they ARE being Tortured.

Simply meaning - they are NOT protected by the legislation drafted by Seneantor John McCain.

[edit on 3/3/06 by Souljah]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Thats rather vague logic to be using, just because they didnt say they arent torturing it means they are? I'm confused by that. Basically they are you are saying the US is guilty of torture until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on you to show they are torturing, not for the US to proove they arent. Thats how it works you see. Those making the allegations must proove them true, and so far you havent done that for me. I honestly dont think you can proove it. I also belive that they arent torturing them. I guess sensory and sleep deprivation, and making them stand in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time qualifies as torture for you. Kinda funny, considering our military personnel go through the same thing in their basic training. Probably worse for our special forces, kept wet and cold for long periods of time with no or little sleep. I know the military is voluteer, but most of these guys are captured on the battlefield in the act of fighting, some are snatched up in intelligence operations. I could understand your quarrell with the ones snatched up in sting type operations because intel isnt always right, but when they are caught fighting on the battlefield its fair game to take them to gitmo for imprisonment and interrogation.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
In Souljah's world,
If the US does not deny it is doing wrong..... Means that the US is actually doing the evil just not wanting to admit to it

If the US denies that they are doing anything wrong.... Means that the US is Lying.

If the US admitted that they were doing something wrong...... It must mean that they are hiding something(s) that are even worse and are only admitting to the lesser evils to cover up the darker events.

Have you not figured it out yet? That is Souljah's one and only perspective on anything that is even remotely connected with the US, the American citizen, the American military. Anything that has even a remote connection to the US.

I have asked that Souljah disprove this perception that he is Anti-US in both posts as well as in u2u's. All he can say is that he is not and then continues to blast all that is US. He will not even respond to the challenge of disproving that he is not Anti-US.



[edit on 3-3-2006 by kenshiro2012]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Thats rather vague logic to be using, just because they didnt say they arent torturing it means they are? I'm confused by that. Basically they are you are saying the US is guilty of torture until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on you to show they are torturing, not for the US to proove they arent. Thats how it works you see. Those making the allegations must proove them true, and so far you havent done that for me. I honestly dont think you can proove it. I also belive that they arent torturing them. I guess sensory and sleep deprivation, and making them stand in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time qualifies as torture for you. Kinda funny, considering our military personnel go through the same thing in their basic training. Probably worse for our special forces, kept wet and cold for long periods of time with no or little sleep. I know the military is voluteer, but most of these guys are captured on the battlefield in the act of fighting, some are snatched up in intelligence operations. I could understand your quarrell with the ones snatched up in sting type operations because intel isnt always right, but when they are caught fighting on the battlefield its fair game to take them to gitmo for imprisonment and interrogation.

There is no Burden on me - sorry to Dissapoint you.

There have been NUMEROUS Proofs, that US are infact Torturing their Prisoners of War, which are not protected by any of the Conventions regarding Prisoners of War and regarding Torture.

We have all seen pictures from Abu-Gharib - and I bet that the Scenery is not very different in Gutananamo.

We have the UN Reports, citing, that Torture and Abuse is going on, and that they Demand Closure of this Detention Fascility.

And NOW - we have the Goverment of United States saying, that the ANTI-TORTURE LEGISLATIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THE PRISONERS IN GUANTANAMO. Now what does that tell you?

When using Human Logic, that would mean, that US Goverment is trying to protect Something that really is Going on in there.

Firstly - why didn't the US goverment allow the UN Inspectors to Interview the Detainiees?

Secondly - what we have seen today - the US Govermetn is saying that the Detainiees simply are not Protected anymore by the Anti-Torture Legislation passed by US Senators, NOR by INTERNATIONAL Conventions and Laws regarding the Treatment of Prisoners of War and regarding Torture.

Simply meaning - they DO toture.

BUT - IT IS LEGAL!!!

Since the Prisoners of Gutananamo do not have any Rights nor are protected by any of the Laws, Legislations and Conventions mentioned above.

Well - how do you Understand that?



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
In Souljah's world,
If the US does not deny it is doing wrong..... Means that the US is actually doing the evil just not wanting to admit to it

If the US denies that they are doing anything wrong.... Means that the US is Lying.

If the US admitted that they were doing something wrong...... It must mean that they are hiding something(s) that are even worse and are only admitting to the lesser evils to cover up the darker events.

Have you not figured it out yet? That is Souljah's one and only perspective on anything that is even remotely connected with the US, the American citizen, the American military. Anything that has even a remote connection to the US.

No Mister kenshiro2012,

That is the REAL WORLD.

That is the World you are not able to see.

Or better yet - you do not Want to see.

I do not make up these News.

They are the Reflection in the Mirror you try to evade.

It is pretty funny to watch you defend your Goverment, after all the things thy have done.

Apparently you do not have a problem with the image of US goverment in the name of the people of America - torturing people.

Apparently you do not have a problem with US goverment spying on their own citizens.

That is all Acceptable for you.

You can take it however you want it mister kenshiro2012 - it will not make it go away.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Dear Souljah,
you are out to prove my point? That there is absolutely nothing good that the US can do or has ever done. This "real World" of yours, you know the one the one that you say that I cannot see or that I ignore, All news the involves the US is 100% negative. All of it aptly demonstrates the evils that the US commits daily. There is never anything that the US is doing that is positive in anyway shape or form?
I am sorry to disillusion you dear sir but your stance is not held by everyone and be every news organization. Remember, you are the one that continualy denounces anything that shows the US in a postive light as just propaganda or "purchased" news stories.
I am not "running" from any reflections in fact I have faced them as I am doing here now. It is you dear sir that run from any reflection that detracts from your fanatical hatred of anything US. You have stated that this is not so, that you do not hate all things US ..... I have waited for nearly 2 weeks now for you to show one single post. nor response. So deny all that you want, your words and continued rants aptly demonstrate where you stand.
I see by your response that you do not deny that whatever the US say, does not say, or says, is always a lie. This is another one of your favorite tactic. Avoiding the questions.


Apparently you do not have a problem with the image of US goverment in the name of the people of America - torturing people. Apparently you do not have a problem with US goverment spying on their own citizens.
That is all Acceptable for you. You can take it however you want it mister kenshiro2012 - it will not make it go away.

Dear Souljah, where have I ever said this? If torture is proven true then I would love to be one of the jurors to ensure that those involved pay the price.
As far as the US spying on US citizens, I do not like it, I even posted a thread on this around this time last year where the it was beleived that the local army base was spying on an abortion rights group that had an anti-bush rally. I was very surprised that you did not jump on the bandwagon then. The thread must have caught you sleeping

As yet though, there have been no evidence that what "spying" that has been done has broken any US laws. Do I like it no, Do I accept it no. I have done the writting to my politcal leaders informing them that I am against it. I have also submitted letters to the editors of the local newspapers stating my opinions on this matter. What have you done but slander all americans? I have you sent any letters to your country's UN rep to bring such up to the UN for violating privacy? I am sure that there is something in all this that would be a "violation" of some UN rule.
No dear Souljah, what you find more entertaining is to come up here and rant about all the evils that the US may (stress that word ) have done. Nope, you continue to live your armchair soapbox screaming that all that is US is evil. That all that the US does that is good is lies. That all the US says in denying your claims are lies.
Unfortunately dear Souljah, as I pointed out to you earlier, this thread is based off of a person that is making a movie based off of detainees that have recently been released. I challenged you to speak with recently released prisoners that come out of your local jails to see if they do not claim abuse, torture, or have anything even remotely positive to say about the facility or the people that kept them in prison. You never responded to that. Go figure

You dear sir are the one that is hiding from the reflections. I have pointed this out to you before but of course....... you ignore such statements.
Enjoy your hate filled world dear sir. One day ( as I said before) mayhap, you will start to see both sides of the issue.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
There is no Burden on me - sorry to Dissapoint you.

There have been NUMEROUS Proofs, that US are infact Torturing their Prisoners of War, which are not protected by any of the Conventions regarding Prisoners of War and regarding Torture.

We have all seen pictures from Abu-Gharib - and I bet that the Scenery is not very different in Gutananamo.


We have the UN Reports, citing, that Torture and Abuse is going on, and that they Demand Closure of this Detention Fascility.

And NOW - we have the Goverment of United States saying, that the ANTI-TORTURE LEGISLATIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THE PRISONERS IN GUANTANAMO. Now what does that tell you?

When using Human Logic, that would mean, that US Goverment is trying to protect Something that really is Going on in there.

Firstly - why didn't the US goverment allow the UN Inspectors to Interview the Detainiees?

Secondly - what we have seen today - the US Govermetn is saying that the Detainiees simply are not Protected anymore by the Anti-Torture Legislation passed by US Senators, NOR by INTERNATIONAL Conventions and Laws regarding the Treatment of Prisoners of War and regarding Torture.

Simply meaning - they DO toture.

BUT - IT IS LEGAL!!!

Since the Prisoners of Gutananamo do not have any Rights nor are protected by any of the Laws, Legislations and Conventions mentioned above.

Well - how do you Understand that?


Its still just your opinion. In a court of law, all of this evidence as you call it would be circumstantial at best. And yes the burden of proof is on you when you make the allegations. Meaning you must substantiate your claims. You may see it yourself that you have, but in my opinion and review of what you have provided is not concrete. The International Red Cross inspects Guantanamo Bay Prison. Any complaints from them? How about when these captives go on hunger strikes, they are medically checked upon daily and given IV's to make sure they are getting their nutrients that keep them alive. These new anti-torture laws were trying to stop these more mild forms of interrogation, such as waterboarding. Which aint the worst thing anyone could do to you. While I personally dont think it should be used, I can also think of much worse things than giving someone the sensation they are drowning. These are not considered prisoners of war because they belong to no specific army or country, they are enemy combatants, and are getting treated much better than they deserve. We already know that in the Al Quaida training manual it specifically orders lying about treatment while in detainment. What gives their claims any credit. Have there been abuses, of course, I will cede to that point, but they have been acts on an individual or small group level of which these individuals or groups have been punished. Their holding cells for those that are members of the Taliban of Afghanistan are even conformed to their customs of the matress being on the floor. They seperate the juveniles from the adult prisoners, they get medications, and good medical care.

Camp X-Ray

Camp Delta



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Dear Souljah,
you are out to prove my point?

I usually Proove My points.



There is never anything that the US is doing that is positive in anyway shape or form?

Sadly the Image of US is represented by the current US Goverment - and they have shown to be nothing but a bunch of Liars and Wolfs in Sheep Clothes.

Will that Answer Your Question?



I am sorry to disillusion you dear sir but your stance is not held by everyone and be every news organization. Remember, you are the one that continualy denounces anything that shows the US in a postive light as just propaganda or "purchased" news stories.

What "Good Light"? Will you Describe it to me? What is it? Is it the Wonderful situation in Iraq? Excellent Situation in the World? Most Great Situation in the Middle East? Where? Light? Where? Positive? Where?

Where are the "Good News" mister kenshiro2012?

Can they be overheard by all the Gunfire, the sound of Sirens, the Woosh of Passing Missiles and Warplanes, the Crash of Buildings, the Cries of Children, the Crack of Bones?

I hear the voices of Generals Calling for Ammunition.

Presidents calling for Arms.

People calling for Help.

I really do not hear anything Positive.

Can you show it to me?

Can you point it out maybe?

Anyway, I see we do not Agree.

And we proably will not in the near future.

Or maybe we will.

Who knows...



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Thank you dear Souljah!
You have proven my point 100%
That you are 100% anti-US! Since, according to your own words you can only hear and can only see the negative. (My words) even if it is NOt correct.
Now, please quit claiming that you are NOT anti-US. You have just stated that this is not true! Sad for you.
Now we can all take you threads and postings with more than a grain of salt now that you ahve come out of the closet and stated that you can see and can only hear the negative. Yipee! Finaly! many have asked you to do this. today you finaly have. thank you!

Note added, You did not of course respond to the challenge that I presented to you earlier in this thread and again just above. Try interviewing recently released criminals out of your own local jails and see if you will not find that these criminals were not also tortured, demeaned and all the other accusations that have been leveled at the US. I am sure that you would not have to try hard to find many who were so sorely abused by the people who kept them imprisoned.
If you want, I am scheduled to come over to Slovania in 6 weeks, I will take a few days time while I am there and I am sure that I too can put together a film that proves 100% that your criminals are routinely tortured. When I am finished, I can send you a copy of the film if you wnat. It would not be too hard to produce such a film, but you already knew that


[edit on 3-3-2006 by kenshiro2012]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
It's clear, why would UN bring it up if it's nothing.
I see some of you evoid questions and only answer what you like.
Why would they denny un inspectors to talk to the prisoners, I dont see why?
If there is nothing rong then why not?

1 Why would UN bring this issue up.
2 Why would they denny un inspectors the access to prisoners.



[edit on 3-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I try to be as impartial as possible without completely contradicting my beliefs or being hypocritical. I'm not perfect, and will be the first to admit this. We all make mistakes either without realizing them, or realizing them and regretting them later. Granted, even someone who has no beliefs of any kind and is 100% impartial isn't impartial, because total impartiality can blind one to the feelings of others, and feelings or perceptions are often as relevant as or more relevant than facts alone. But I try my best. I just wanted to say that before posting.

I'm by no means a brilliant or even particularly intelligent individual, and know very little as to the legal nuances of what's going on here. For that reason, and because as others have pointed out, news stories can't be counted as wholly objective sources for hard evidence, I too concur that it's not possible at this time to prove torture is happening. At the same time, however - and again, keeping in mind that I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier - I could also effectively argue that it's impossible to prove it's raining outside right now. I see it raining. I hear it raining. If I hold my hand out the window, I feel the rain hitting my skin. I can't prove any of that sensory information is accurate, though. I might be hallucinating, or be in a waking dream, or I might be suffering under the influence of an elaborate illusion of some sort. Unfortunately, all I have to go on are my - admittedly somewhat limited - wits, intuition, and common sense (which is somewhat of a misnomer, since it isn't common to all nor sensible to everyone equally) to decide these quandaries for myself.

Accordingly, I have tried my best to consider the valid beliefs - as I hold that all beliefs are valid - by others that torture isn't happening, and as part of that effort, I re-read articles posted but did so keeping in mind the notion that torture is not occurring at all. One such article is the latest one, the one debated above regarding the government's defense surrounding exceptions to the McCain legislation. Assuming no torture is taking place, I asked myself, "why would they cite exceptions to the torture ban as defense, in a case where torture could be disproved since it never took place?" I could find no answer to this question that maintained the notion on which it was predicated i.e. that torture was not occurring. If there has been no torture, then their defense should be that there has been no torture and to prove that, not to say, in effect, that prisoners are exempt from the anti-torture legislation even if torture did occur. They shouldn't have need of that defensive tactic.

If the case was "Torture is legal in this instance vs. torture is illegal in this instance," then that would make sense. But the case is "Torture never happened in this instance vs. torture happened in this instance and is illegal." Thus, all that needs to be proved is that torture never took place. Resorting to proving the legality of torture in this instance indicates to me that they have been unable to prove that torture never occurred.

Does this unequivocally prove that torture did occur? No. However, it certainly makes it impossible to prove that it didn't based on what is available to us in the public domain. I for one find that deeply troubling. I feel that everyone has gotten too hung up on the technicalities here. Legal doesn't always mean right. The fact that it's even possible that torture is occurring, and the fact that pointing out legal exemptions allowing torture was a viable defense tactic against accusations of torture, is deeply troubling to me as an American citizen. Call me old fashioned or simple minded - I'm certainly the latter, in any event - but I can't stand the thought of even my worst enemy who would kill me without question, suffering or being tortured. That's just the way I'm made, and I don't think torture is permissible - morally, albeit perhaps not legally it seems - under any circumstances. The fact that such an exemption even exists tells me we have few qualms about using torture when the perceived need arises, even if it can’t be proved in this case – and I’m not saying torture was used in this case. I can’t know that. None of us can. I do know it hasn’t been disproved either, though, and that the means to use it has a legal basis now.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
You certainly do now know, that they fight for Human Rights in China, Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Isreal, Turkey or United States - WHEREVER those Basic Human Rights are Broke and Raped. But for YOU, that is ofcourse "Not News".

Well, if it isnt the 'Sympathy' Brigade.
Maybe if Amnesty actually did pursue the gross violations of human rights in all these places as much as they like to vilify the US for guantanamo, where in fact the only thing these Terrorists are suffering from is being in detention. Apart from this they have clean food, water ,clothing, religious liberties etc. Things that they wouldnt be able to have on their own are now being provided to them free of cost.
So while Amnesty pursues the pampering of Terrorists, real world issues where they have to fight real enemies of liberty like dictatorships and communist nations, Amnesty doesnt have the spine to do it. This because unlike the US where such slander is tolerated these nations will hit back.
Being the cowards that typifies Amnesty International, they give up on these millions of people that they have pledged to protect and instead move to greener pastures where they can fight the easy fight and still appear regularly on the TV so people dont forget their decadent institution.
Amnesty International is an utter disgrace to the cause of Human Rights.

But Apparently, they are the exponents of your propaganda and are an integral part of you Anti-Western Pro-Terrorist Agenda.



You are doing Exactly the same thing with United Nations. You deny and Deny and DENY - yet they are quite suitable, when the Inspectors from UN are not allowed to access Nuclear compounds of Iran for example.

Not only does this show your absolute ignorane about the Weapons inspectors but also the amount of histrionics that you put into your propaganda.

The inspectors that visited Iran were from the IAEA, which even though part of the UN is an independent body in its own right and doesnt fall under the purview of that criminal Kofi Annan. The UN as in the main body is in no way related to the inspections in Iran as the inspectors are IAEA appointed and are not under Kofi Annan but under Al Baredi (*spelling ) .


I bet your Seniors at the PNAC do now allow you to even think about UN being Right and You being Wrong.

I dont know what nonesense this is about PNAC but you are trying desperately to promote your agenda of slandering the US and the entire West at large.
Also I think you already know from experience that your entire 'link-a-thon' can be disproved easily and shown to be the 'pro-terrorist' propaganda that it is. But I dont have the energy to expend on this frivolous exercise.
Yes - truly Independant your Opinions are...

[edit on 3/3/06 by Souljah]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
In case if you did not know - the Reports of Torture are Nothing but an Al-Qaeda Trick to stain the Perfect record of the Bush administration.

How Low can the Al-Qaeda go?


Rumsfeld denies claims of torture at Guantanamo

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, has dismissed claims of torture by Guantanamo Bay terrorist suspects, describing them as a calculated attempt to manipulate the western media.

Mr Rumsfeld suggested that the media were playing al-Qa'eda's game. Referring to an al-Qa'eda training manual uncovered by Greater Manchester police, Mr Rumsfeld said: "Of course we know what those prisoners were taught [with] the Manchester document. They're taught to lie, they're taught to allege that they have been tortured, and that's part of the training that they received."

Poor Rummy - I think that he is running out of Excuses so I guess its like this: Desperate Times call for Desperate Measures.

More About Guantanamo in the News:


Gitmo Detainee: False 9/11 Confession Was Tortured Out of Me

Mohammed Al-Qahtani, a Saudi, is the best known detainee held at the US prison for "war on terror" suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

But lawyers who are fighting his detention in US courts say US military interrogators used "brutal" tactics to get statements from the Saudi.

"The government has recklessly accused Mohammed of many different crimes with no real evidence, just dubious interrogation statements," said Gitanjali Gutierrez, a lawyer for the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a New York based group that has provided lawyers for many Guantanamo detainees.

Well if the Suspected Terrorists Held in Prison Camps are Innocent - then Beat them up until they are admit that they are Guilty!


Vatican Denounces US Treatment of Gitmo Detainees

The Vatican issued a sharp rebuke on Friday to the United States over its continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay prison, accusing it of failing to respect human dignity in its treatment of prisoners there.

"It seems clear that in this prison man’s dignity is not being respected at all," said Cardinal Renato Martino, the Vatican’s "minister" for justice and peace.

The Vatican has not previously commented directly on the controversial prison camp, which the United Nations has demanded that Washington shut down.

"Isn’t the lack of rights stamping on the dignity of man. Everyone always has the right to an equable and just judgement," said Martino, speaking in an interview with Italy’s ANSA news agency on his return from a visit to Cuba.

Well - even VATICAN City denounces the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo.

But for Some people everything is A-OKEY in Gitmos.

IF There is some Bad News - then its Al-Qaeda planting the Fake News!

BEWARE!




posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
oh so they are being fed agains their will jeez we gotta stop that, please i bet tats not even a real UN report, its probably some made up BS from some bleeding heart liberal, im mean come on , like almost everyone on this page said, they try to kill us because of our beliefs, and heres what i have to say, screw them all, they are just a waste of space and a waste of life, they dont want to eat then let them starve, when they want to eat dont feed them anyway because its ok for them to behead americans and put bombs under dead animals in the road and blow up a humvee or two , but we cant use whatever means we need to get information out of them, that just makes me mad how people are more worried about our enemies than our own troops, its disgusting already, i mean why do people have the magnetic ribbons on their cars that say support our troops, BECAUSE IT MEANS WE SHOULD SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, if they want to support those flea ridden things we call captives then stick an old paper bag on your car and write support s**t, thats all i have to say about that, oh and by the way support our troops

and another thing, if they say our troops shoot innocent people in iraq, well wouldnt you after driving around on patrol and seeing little kids with AKs and RPGs?



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
In case if you did not know - the Reports of Torture are Nothing but an Al-Qaeda Trick to stain the Perfect record of the Bush administration.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/03/04/wguan04.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/04/ixworld.html]
www.heraldsun.news.com.au...
[url=http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2006-daily/04-03-2006/world/w2.htm[/url]

Well - even VATICAN City denounces the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo.


Okay what do we have here; Sarcasm ??


The Telegraph, The Herald and A pakistani news source. All very credible arent they?
I mean The Telegraph has carried out their campaign since 2000 against America and with the Herald closely tagging along. Apparently, the telegraph specializes on American infamy than on covering the News globaly. This is evident from the tone of all their articles regarding America and its people. A paper that has lost all credibility as an unbiased source of news.

As for the Vaticans view on Guantanomo which ironicaly is from a pakistani news paper. This really shows the mental attitude of the Islamist groups. They are under the impression that American policy is similar to their narrow mindset of following a policy based on religion. This shallow attempt to editorialism is clear testement to the depths to which organisation have devoted themselves in spreading a campaign of slander and bringing infamy to America and the West at large.
Moreover the Vaticans views are still uncoroborated as this Islamist media outlet cannot in all seriousness be considered as credible.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join