Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

[Ziggurat]

One day, the majority of American’s and then their government will understand that the unlawful detention and torture they are currently engaged in fuels the war on terror as opposed to bringing it to a quicker end.

Wow, is that silly. Not only do you completely misunderstand terrorism (and it's real causes), your thinking on the topic is so fuzzy that you even managed to say something essentially self-contradictory. What I can only assume you meant was that our actions are fueling terrorism, which would be bad. If our actions are fueling the war on terrorism, well, that's a GOOD thing, because it means we're better able to fight the terrorists. And you may be inadvertently right about that part: Guantanamo may indeed be helping us fight terrorism.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I stand corrected, then. Still, I believe everyone, POWs and all, should be entitled to fair trial. Otherwise, something's wrong.

POWs do not get trials. They are held until the conflict is over.

Whjat is your point? That they are NOT POWs and should therefore get trials? If they are not POWs and were captured in combat then they can be shot out of hand - there are no rules, Geneva or otherwise, for people who do not adhere to the rules of war.

If they are POWs then them being held in a detention center is totally legitimate.

 

[Ziggurat]

BPSCG that sentiment of yours is fine, but it does not address the extremely poor containment conditions there nor the pretty grave methods of interrogation used.

What, specifically, about their containment condition is bad? And what, specifically, about the interrogation methods is unacceptably harsh? And do you have any source for this information other than former detainees, many of whom would have reason to lie regardless of the actual conditions?

I don't think anyone on this forum would complain (much, at least) if we held them without trial if we at least let them live in decent conditions in the meantime.

Wrong. That specific complaint (that they are held without trial) has been repeated here in this very thread time and time again. And I have NEVER before seen it qualified by any statement to the effect that if conditions there are satisfactory then it's OK to do so. So don't tell me that nobody would be making such complaints when that complaint has been leveled from the start.

 

[rocketdodger]

What, specifically, about their containment condition is bad? And what, specifically, about the interrogation methods is unacceptably harsh? And do you have any source for this information other than former detainees, many of whom would have reason to lie regardless of the actual conditions?

The pictures I have seen and the statements made by the U.S. government regarding acceptable interrogation techniques.

"Acceptable" containment conditions are comfortable, climate-controlled private rooms, decent meals, plenty of available exercise, reading material, and peace and quiet.

Any interrogation technique that involves duress of any kind is unacceptably harsh. I am not an expert on interrogation but as far as I know there is no evidence that duress-based techniques are any more reliable than non-duress based techniques.

Wrong. That specific complaint (that they are held without trial) has been repeated here in this very thread time and time again. And I have NEVER before seen it qualified by any statement to the effect that if conditions there are satisfactory then it's OK to do so. So don't tell me that nobody would be making such complaints when that complaint has been leveled from the start.

Yes, I know it has been repeated and is in fact probably the main point in this thread. I am saying if the detainees had better conditions then being held without charge would be much less offensive to many of us, and I for one would certainly be appeased.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Try the troubles in Northern Island. It ended? when the people wanted to end it. Not because the British locked up everyone they thought was the enemy.

Not sure how often I will post here. This thread does not appear to be going very far.

The troubles in Northern Ireland may or may not be over but it had much more to do with the depowering of the Provos by British counterintelligence and their control of the UDA and the Protestant terror gangs than it ever did with this mythical "when the people wanted to end it".

I don't know of any time when the majority of people in Northern Ireland were FOR the troubles. Most people I know were much more interested in a regular job and the ability to go to the local without getting shot, bombed or kidnapped.

The next time someone cites Northern Ireland as a "success" - perhaps you should bear in mind that British Intelligence was running deep cover agents in the Provos - agents who perpertrated terrorist acts as part of their cover. The head of the PIRA counter intelligence unit was a British agent codenamed Stakeknife - who was responsible for the murder of suspected touts. (suggest you read the May edition of Atlantic Monthly for a good article about this). British intelligence (according to UDA - Inside the heart of Loyalist Terror) was also running or influencing the protestant terror gangs - including feeding them Republican targets.

It may well have quietened down in Northern Ireland but the tactics and strategy used to get there would not hold water in ANY court.

 

[BPSCG]

"Acceptable" containment conditions are comfortable, climate-controlled private rooms, decent meals, plenty of available exercise, reading material, and peace and quiet.

Are you serious? I mean, are you [rule8]ing serious?

The soldiers in Iraq don't have those kinds of conditions. I didn't have those kinds of conditions when I was in college.

Maybe your prisoners should get a wake-up call in the morning and a mint on their pillows at night?

How about daily massages? Maybe we should also import a daily quotient of 72 virgins for each of them for, you know...?

 

[rocketdodger]

The soldiers in Iraq don't have those kinds of conditions. I didn't have those kinds of conditions when I was in college.

The soldiers in Iraq are volunteers, they choose to join the military. You choose to go to college, and furthermore while you were there you could leave your dorm whenever you wanted to get fresh air or whatever.

The people being held at gitmo are forced to be there, at gunpoint. Furthermore, if they are guilty, then eventually when we get around to making it formal, we can put them in normal stinking prison conditions or kill them or whatever. Hell, I would pull the trigger myself, no sh--ing. But until then, they should be treated fairly well.

I don't see why this is so hard for you, of all people, to understand BPSCG. We make mistakes, we certainly have done it before, and I would rather spend a little (and it is very little, in the grand scheme of things) money giving these guys better conditions at first than have on my conscience such horrible treatment of an innocent person, even just one.

 

[fishbob]

Well, seeing as how some of the guys released ended up shooting at us again, perhaps it's not as easy to determine who's still dangerous, who's not-dangerous-any-more, and who's never-was-dangerous as you think, hmm?

Seeing as how Hicks was training with the Taliban and al Qaeda, and even appears to have been buddy-buddy with bin Laden, I think it would be prudent to err on the side of caution, don't you?

Now if you'd like to volunteer to go to Guantanamo yourself and talk with the gentlement involved, maybe you could help our poor benighted justice system work things out. Warning, though: You could end up like Richard Pryor, who famously described his visit to a penitentiary. He said he was all jazzed up about how he was going to meet with some brothers, yeah!, and find out how they'd been screwed buy the man! and he was going to get down! with his brothers and fight the oppression! Yeah!

Then he went to the penitentiary and talked with some of the guys there. His reaction (Pryor shaky voice): "Thank God there's penitentiaries! Thank God there's penitentiaries! I was talking with one guy: 'Why. Did you kill. Everyone. In. The. HOUSE?'

'They wuz there, man...'"

Oh, looky - lets be prudent and err on the side of caution by locking up a bunch of people we have little or no solid evidence about. Oops, you missed about 5.5 billion.

Then lets confuse the issue by bringing people convicted of horrible crimes into the discussion - overlook the fact that evidence was presented at their trials in order to convict them.

Grow up.

 

[fishbob]

POWs do not get trials. They are held until the conflict is over.

Whjat is your point? That they are NOT POWs and should therefore get trials? If they are not POWs and were captured in combat then they can be shot out of hand - there are no rules, Geneva or otherwise, for people who do not adhere to the rules of war.

If they are POWs then them being held in a detention center is totally legitimate.

The point is that some were were not captured in combat - some were under 18, some were old men, some were picked up in other countries. Who is it that is not adhering to the rules of Geneva? Who is it that has provided a lot of angry people with what looks like justification for shooting our guys out of hand?

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006/06/15/opinion/opinion/doc4490662a34afa191703140.txt

 

[Ziggurat]

The pictures I have seen and the statements made by the U.S. government regarding acceptable interrogation techniques.

Pictures of what? The chain-link fences that were first built when we needed to build a prison fast? Or their current housing? Because it's not the same.

"Acceptable" containment conditions are comfortable, climate-controlled private rooms,

Why does it need to be climate controlled? Is that some sort of human rights requirement? This isn't the Sahara, you know. Hell, they don't even have climate control in most French hospitals - are you going to go on a crusade about that? Sorry, but climate control simply isn't a necessity. And they do have private rooms - in fact, that very privacy is what allowed those inmates to successfully kill themselves.

decent meals,

They do get decent meals. And most inmates have put on weight because of that.

plenty of available exercise,

That's up to them, not you and me (you aren't advocating they be made to work out, are you?), but they do indeed have the option to exercise. In fact, I think most of them can even play sports with each other. Restrictions on such activity are based upon their behavior: if they're violent, they won't be allowed to play, and I've got no problem with that.

reading material,

They all get a Koran if they want one. Beyond that, why is this a requirement?

and peace and quiet.

That's a vague requirement if I ever heard one.

Any interrogation technique that involves duress of any kind is unacceptably harsh.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/duress
1 : forcible restraint or restriction
2 : compulsion by threat; specifically : unlawful constraint

So if the inmate attempts to get violent, and is tied down to his chair to prevent him from hurting his interrogators, that's duress. That's not unacceptable to me. Your criteria, as stated, are not unacceptable to me. And I asked for specific interrogation techniques that were actually used that you object to - you have provided none.

Yes, I know it has been repeated and is in fact probably the main point in this thread. I am saying if the detainees had better conditions then being held without charge would be much less offensive to many of us, and I for one would certainly be appeased.

I doubt it. In fact, I doubt any improvements on conditions in the prison would even get widely reported. And I say that because conditions HAVE improved (with the construction of new living quarters), and that detail was NOT widely reported.

 

[BPSCG]

And they do have private rooms - in fact, that very privacy is what allowed those inmates to successfully kill themselves.

[Nit]
How does one unsuccessfully kill oneself?
[/Pick]

 

[LW]

True, me neither, but I was only using this as a comparison with Gitmo in terms of relative efficiency.

I hope that if USA had shown similar efficiency as Stalin's NKVD, you would be far more pissed of at them than you are now. The NKVD way would be to summarily execute those who were seen largest threats, give 10-25 year forced labor sentences to the rest, and then round up their families, relatives, and friends and either deport them to isolated areas or put them also in camps.

NKVD was efficient in getting convictions because no one in there cared if the accused were guilty or not. If you got arrested, you were sentenced. If you met a NKVD interrogator who was determined to uncover a large conspiracy, you would be interrogated until you confessed and named your co-conspirators, even if it took months. If your interrogator didn't have an axe to grind, you would get your sentence in days or a couple of weeks and off you go to the camps.

 

[Belz...]

POWs do not get trials. They are held until the conflict is over.

Whjat is your point? That they are NOT POWs and should therefore get trials? If they are not POWs and were captured in combat then they can be shot out of hand - there are no rules, Geneva or otherwise, for people who do not adhere to the rules of war.

If they are POWs then them being held in a detention center is totally legitimate.

Yes, following the thread since that post made me realise that.

However, fair treatment should be expected, and in some cases at least, there seems to be doubt as to whether they are really POWs.

For now I'm just lurking, since it's somewhat obvious I'm out of my league on this subject.

 

[rocketdodger]

Pictures of what? The chain-link fences that were first built when we needed to build a prison fast? Or their current housing? Because it's not the same.

I am not aware of their current conditions but based on my own experience with the military I would bet good money that it doesn't meet the standards I have in mind.

Why does it need to be climate controlled? Is that some sort of human rights requirement? This isn't the Sahara, you know. Hell, they don't even have climate control in most French hospitals - are you going to go on a crusade about that? Sorry, but climate control simply isn't a necessity.

Because being in a room that is too hot or too cold sucks. Why should it be a necessity? It is common decency, in my opinion. Who cares if others don't have it, OTHERS ARE NOT FORCED TO BE WHERE THEY ARE.

They all get a Koran if they want one. Beyond that, why is this a requirement?

Again, its not a requirement, its my opinion. I would certainly rather pass the time reading a good book (and NOT the stupid koran over and over) than scratching at the walls.

That's a vague requirement if I ever heard one.

Yes, extremely vague, which means it gets to be defined by the people being held. Personally, it means a low enough level of noise as to not distract me from sleeping when I want to.

So if the inmate attempts to get violent, and is tied down to his chair to prevent him from hurting his interrogators, that's duress. That's not unacceptable to me. Your criteria, as stated, are not unacceptable to me. And I asked for specific interrogation techniques that were actually used that you object to - you have provided none.

Being tied down to a chair so they can't attack the interrogators is not what I meant and you know it -- stop using tactics like this to detour around valid points made by people.

Specific techniques? Sleep deprivation, waterboarding, stress positions, unmuzzled dogs used to threaten, exposure to climate extremes, forced nudity...

 

[Belz...]

How about daily massages? Maybe we should also import a daily quotient of 72 virgins for each of them for, you know...?

[/Lurk] Don't forget the 28 pre-pubescent boys!! [lurk]

 

[Ziggurat]

[Nit]
How does one unsuccessfully kill oneself?
[/Pick]

By surviving

 

[Ziggurat]

I am not aware of their current conditions but based on my own experience with the military I would bet good money that it doesn't meet the standards I have in mind.

In other words, it's only your suspicion. You have no evidence to that effect.

Because being in a room that is too hot or too cold sucks.

Regulating room temperature isn't the only way to accomodate personal climate preferences. There's also a little thing I like to call clothing.

Like I said, most of the world doesn't live in climate-controlled conditions. On a tropical island, climate swings are generally pretty mild. I think they'll get by just fine.

Yes, extremely vague, which means it gets to be defined by the people being held.

And you don't see why that might be problematic?

Personally, it means a low enough level of noise as to not distract me from sleeping when I want to.

Well, the "when I want to" is a useless requirement. Allow that, and you can't do anything to the prisoner. It's enough that they can sleep without distraction at night. Do you have any evidence that they can't?

Being tied down to a chair so they can't attack the interrogators is not what I meant and you know it -- stop using tactics like this to detour around valid points made by people.

I know it's not what you meant. But it's what you said, and that is precisely my point. If you cannot say what you really mean (and I do not know what you really mean because you didn't say what you really meant), then how can you expect others to evaluate your position?

Specific techniques? Sleep deprivation, waterboarding, stress positions, unmuzzled dogs used to threaten, exposure to climate extremes, forced nudity...

Now we're getting somewhere. Do you object to these techniques being used on anyone at all, or do you object to them being used on people who might potentially be innocent?

 

[rocketdodger]

In other words, it's only your suspicion. You have no evidence to that effect.

Well, I have circumstancial evidence. But I admit they are suspicions. If they turn out to be false, then I wouldn't care -- I am happy to be mistaken.

And you don't see why that might be problematic?

Not really. I am not talking about giving each person their own sound-proofed building. I am talking about just respecting their peace and quiet. If they want to yell at each other, fine.

Well, the "when I want to" is a useless requirement. Allow that, and you can't do anything to the prisoner. It's enough that they can sleep without distraction at night. Do you have any evidence that they can't?

I am mainly talking about the sleep deprivation policy here, plus the fact that the military is painfully abrasive when it comes to respecting people's need to sleep longer than their dictated sufficient 8 or 9 hours.

Now we're getting somewhere. Do you object to these techniques being used on anyone at all, or do you object to them being used on people who might potentially be innocent?

Just those who might be innocent. Lets put it this way -- if someone kidnapped my fiancee, or future children, and I knew for absolute certain that someone had something to do with it (as in, I saw them taking part), then there is nothing I would not do to them to make them talk -- and I can think of some pretty horrible things, trust me.

But if you aren't absolutely certain, then the potential moral cost is just too great. The fact that the U.S. has made any mistakes at all regarding who is guilty is reason enough to completely prevent any such techniques from being used on people who might be innocent, in my opinion.

A 99.999999999% certainty is enough to validate torture, but not 99.0%.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just those who might be innocent.

OK. So then next question is, are the techniques you object to approved for use on all prisoners? I'm actually not sure of the answer myself, but it seems like that's a question you should be asking but I'm not sure you are.

 

[Mycroft]

One day, the majority of American’s and then their government will understand that the unlawful detention and torture they are currently engaged in fuels the war on terror as opposed to bringing it to a quicker end.

Can you provide evidence for this? Or is it just a gut feeling?