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.

 

Guantanamo Detainees Are Not Human Beings

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Just because someone in Afghanistan is carrying a rifle does not make them a terrorist.


I talked to a girl from Pakistan about a year ago and she was showing me pictures of her 15th birthday party. She was holding up an AK47 which she said she got as a birthday present that year. Imagine that. She gets an AK47 assault rifle for her birthday. She was quite happy with the gift and it seemed a rather normal thing to get. Strange, at least to me. But then again, I don't see it as any different to certain areas of the US where guns and rifles are a big thing to the people.

Her home was in Baluchistan province. For those of you who aren't very good at geography, that's next to the border of Afghanistan, near the troubled regions.




posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by BlueRaja
 




If they'd been rounded up while having a egg mcmuffin and some hash browns, without probable cause, I'd share your view.


There is no MickeyD's in Afghanistan. (At least there wasn't anyway.)

Either you have no concept of the regular lifestyle in rugged Afghanistan, and no recollection of its history, or you are deliberately stinking up this thread. Just because someone in Afghanistan is carrying a rifle does not make them a terrorist. And you can look back in the thread where I already explained the uniform issue as well.

Keep in mind, once again, that the US invaded Afghanistan. The common people had little to no idea it was coming. One day they're out herding goats, the next day they are being inveded by a superpower again.


I'm aware there aren't McDonalds in Afghanistan. I was using it as an analogy. These folks with rifles(or whatever other weapon they may have had), were rounded up at the scene where a military exchange had occurred. Does it not seem reasonable that the likelihood that they were just some poor armed schmo, in the wrong place, is low? How long are POWs normally held during a conflict, looking back into historical settings? Is there any historical precedant for POWs using the US court system, and the military having to prove that every enemy prisoner is guilty?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


In which previous conflict has the US military(or any military for that matter) had to go into court to show evidence that enemy POWs were in fact guilty? It's simply an impractical standard to be held to, that every prisoner goes through the legal system, as if it were a civil trial.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


They are POWs. They aren't accused of robbing a liquor store. They were apprehended after fighting with US forces. What is being established is their level of guilt, not whether they are guilty.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



These folks with rifles(or whatever other weapon they may have had), were rounded up at the scene where a military exchange had occurred. Does it not seem reasonable that the likelihood that they were just some poor armed schmo, in the wrong place, is low? How long are POWs normally held during a conflict, looking back into historical settings? Is there any historical precedant for POWs using the US court system, and the military having to prove that every enemy prisoner is guilty?


Even if these prisoners were caught while engaging US forces, we must look to their motivations. Were they deliberately engaging US forces based on a fanatical belief system, or were they simply defending their homes against a foreign invader? Are these prisoners terrorists, or armed shepards?

POW's are normally held for the duration of the war. Please do not bother to argue that the Gitmo prisoners should be held until the "war on terror" is over. They should have been released when the new government in Afghanistan was established as the legitimate political entity. They should either be freed, tried by the new authority in Afghanistan, or be tried in an international court.

Defining the prisoners as non-persons actually reveals the fact that the United States government has no authority over them, and therefore the prisoners should be released now that Afghanistan has been conquered.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   


He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

-Thomas Paine



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


As was mentioned earlier, over half the detainees have already been released, so I think it can be argued that they won't all sit there for the duration for the war on terror. As was also mentioned, some may have been detained due to their neighbors giving inaccurate info. This is unfortunate, but their story still needs to be verified, so we're not releasing the wrong people(which has happened). There is no 100% solution, that will please everyone. I'd rather the prisoner be checked out to make sure they're not a threat, rather the recklessly set everyone free, without knowing exactly who you're setting free.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


You sound to be in the same mindset as our dear and loving president.

'Take away people's rights, rule them with an iron fist, monitor every second of their lives. If there's terrorists around, we'll get 'em. Invoke an act that prohibits their free thinking, and another that allows US to pick and choose who goes to prison without any due process whatsoever.

Control them, so that the risk of terror is minimized.'

I hope you can see what I'm getting at here. These people have been 'POWs' for longer than it took to fight the entirety of WW2. Where will it end?

And do WE stand the same risk of having that happen to us? Well I can tell you, with the Patriot Act, and people backing it like you, YES, we do.

[edit on 1/16/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


If you're trying to imply that I think American citizen's rights need to be taken away, and constantly monitored, you're making a bad analogy. I make a big distinction between someone who has taken up arms against us, and how they're treated vs. ignoring Constitutional protections. FYI anytime I see erosion of Constitutional rights, it bothers me. I just don't happen to think enemy combatants should have the same rights as you and me is all. Felons can't vote, buy guns, etc.. - does the loss of their rights bother you? Please don't lump me in with the removal of law abiding citizens rights.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by BlueRaja]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Once the system is totally swept away (by an orchestrated disaster) these crazy ass prisons where nobody is tried and you're imprisoned indefinitely will suddenly be the new home of American patriots who refuse to roll over for the Fourth Reich.


Not me brother. The only thing they will stick into a camp/detainment facility/Gitmo etc. is my DEAD body. Nothing Else.


Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775


Emphasis mine.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
and yes, people who enslave or murder innocent civilians due to their fanatical Religious beliefs are Animals.



Does that include Christians as well? Or just Muslims?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
They are POWs. They aren't accused of robbing a liquor store. They were apprehended after fighting with US forces. What is being established is their level of guilt, not whether they are guilty.


No. What's being established is whether they deserve to be treated as human or not. POW's (at least in wars past) were treated as humans and not animals.

Or did we forget the title of the thread?


Guantanamo Detainees Are Not Human Beings



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Detainees are not treated like animals. They receive food, shelter, medical care, time for religious activities, just like any other POWs from previous conflicts. You're getting wrapped up in semantics.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
They receive food, shelter, medical care, time for religious activities, just like any other POWs from previous conflicts.


Add waterboarding, force feeding hunger strikers, Duct taping people chanting Koran verses. etc. and you might be right on.


Interrogators violated regulations when:


A female touched detainees inappropriately and smeared them with a substance described as menstrual blood, but which was fake blood

Interrogators threatened to go after a detainee's family

Duct tape was used to bind the head and mouth of a detainee chanting verses of the Koran
The report also found that:


Military staff impersonated FBI and state department interrogators

A detainee was chained to the floor in the foetal position

Cold, heat, loud music and sleep deprivation were used on detainees.


news.bbc.co.uk...




As of Tuesday, 20 of 23 fasting detainees at Guantanamo were being fed liquid meals through flexible tubes inserted through their noses and throats, said Guantanamo spokesman Navy Cmdr. Rick Haupt. The strikers are protesting conditions at the camp and their open-ended confinement.


www.cnn.com...


You're getting wrapped up in semantics.


While you're getting wrapped up in anti-semitic propaganda.

Before you call foul and say "but they are not Jewish".


The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.


en.wikipedia.org...

Although, anti-Semitism has come to mean anti-Jewish now days.

[edit on 1/16/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
You're taking specific events, and extrapolating them to the general practice. I guarantee you, those are events that occur with any regularity, and those that have done those things have been punished.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
and those that have done those things have been punished.


Obviously you didn't read.


But the Southern Command, which runs the base, said Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller had committed no violations.



Michigan Senator Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the report showed there were more than a few isolated cases of abuse.

"It is clear from the report that detainee mistreatment was not simply the product of a few rogue military police in a night shift," he said.


news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


From your link-

-The report found three cases when army doctrine had been violated.

-US military officials say disciplinary or administrative action has been taken in all 10 cases of misconduct documented since prisoners were first brought to Guantanamo in January 2002.

-The report said many techniques used, including those during the interrogation of the key suspect, were permitted.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Keep in mind that this isn't really just about the prisoners at Gitmo. This case would have set a precedent for all prisoners, many of whom are being held secretly in various locations.

But in the macro view, it only had to do with the action brought by a few specific prisoners who have already been released. These individuals were tortured, though they were never found to be guilty of anything.

The real problem is that they brought the action to the wrong court. Obviously the Supreme Court is not going to make a ruling in contradiction of its own interests, regardless of any morality. This is a matter that should be brought before an international court.

Furthermore, it is really no surprise that the Supreme Court failed to recognize them as "persons." Even US citizens are no longer recognized as "persons." A person is entitled to the rights and protections outlined in the US Constitution. The Constitution has been suspended since 1933. The entire court system of the United States no longer practices law under Constitutional authority, but is a self-serving system operated by the private entity known as the BAR association under military authority and practising public policy. That is correct. No US court has practiced or upheld law since 1933. They are an instrument of public policy, and can change that policy at any time they see fit, in accordance with whatever they interpret to be in the interests of the public. Obviously, the Supreme Court does not see it to be in the interest of the United States to hear a case being brought against the Unites States.

For some backround in this, I suggest you visit the thread:

A Bigger Picture (Rise of the NWO)

Then you will see that this Supreme Court decision is really the same thing as this decision in regards to a domestic action brought by a citizen against the government:

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


You complain about the NWO, and folks other than the US Government actually running things, yet you want to give up sovereignty, and have an external force that doesn't have US interests at heart be the arbitrator? I'm trying to understand that view, but it's not making sense to me. I agree with you that the Judicial branch should not legislate from the bench. I believe strict constructionist judges should be the standard. Their job is to tell the Legislative branch if the law is constitutional, not to make law through precedent. Getting back to your point though- I as a US citizen, don't want a foreign organization deciding US policy. That's why the President has to be a US citizen, so the likelihood of foreign vs. US loyalty doesn't come into question. I believe it to be the role of the US(or any other nation) government, to look out for its self interest. It wouldn't be doing a very good job for its citizenry if the interests of other nations were a higher priority.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I as a US citizen, don't want a foreign organization deciding US policy.


But you want the US to be able to dictact foriegn policy?


I believe it to be the role of the US(or any other nation) government, to look out for its self interest.


So, why did we attack Iraq again? If it was their role to look after their own self interest, we had and have no business being there IMO and obviously in your opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join