Amnesty International: "Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time"

[Ghost of]

TEG

You'd be correct. There MIGHT have been a few guys who were later classified as such, I don't know. But generally, they are illegal combatants.

Upon capture on the field of battle, they could, legally, have been executed. Same applies to the insurgents in Iraq. Especially since they have now made attacking junior high girls schools and different religions and ethnicities(non-Sunni Arabs) de rigeur for their operations.

[Baculus]

Keep in mind, the Bush administration has stated that the detainees at Camp X-Ray are not POWs, and as such, are "unlawful combatants." Thus, in one fell swoop, they have decided the Geneva Convention has no bearing in this case. Which is complete BS, because, according to Article 5 of the Geneva Convention:

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribuna

These detainees have yet to be determined by such a tribunal. And if these detainees are covered under article 5, then several of the other articles have already been violated as well.

Thus, do we not expect for our soldiers to be covered under the Geneva Convention? And if we did violate this, do we not care? Keep in mind that entering the Geneva Convention as just as much to protect our own soldiers when captured by the enemy. Camp X-Ray only encourages the mis-treatment of enemy combatants. After all, if we can do it, why can't anyone else?

[codeorama]

Originally posted by T.E.G.

However, I am not sure if the people currently being held at Getmo are actually classified as POW's. I remember reading somewhere else that "terrorists" are not afforded POW status. Suspecting that those at Getmo are classified by the U.S. as "terrorists".

I think that's the 64,000 dollar question.

I know I have seen and read that the government can hold those they classify as "terrorists" for as long as they want and they don't have to charge them etc...

I think that should be the question? Should the government be allowed to basically do what they want when they think someone is a terrorist?

I'm not claiming to have the answer, but it's a legit question? What if the person isn't a terrorist?

Ultimately, it doesn't affect me because I won't be in a position to be at risk, but I'm not sure if I'm a fan of a government having "carte blanche" to do what ever they want IF that's the case.

[Joe Sick]

If these guys are guilty, try them and fry them. I have no problem for that.

When you hear of guys being released from Gitmo, with no charges filed, it makes you wonder why they were there in the first place.

That's a far cry from Kilmer & Portisizzle assurance of all prisoners guilt. Do you really think that these are " the pigs that attach explosive to their bodies and kill innocent lives." Hello, McFly. I seriously doubt we let these type of people go free.

In America, unless we want to appear hypocritical, we should apply the same standards to prisoners as we would to regular criminals.

Give them a trial. If you guys are so sure of their guilt, why shouldn't they get trials? They can get the death penalty.

Is someone behind bars since 2001 really going to have some great intelligence on current activities? When they were captured, Saddam was a no-go for Terrorist attacks.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by codeorama

I think that's the 64,000 dollar question.

I know I have seen and read that the government can hold those they classify as "terrorists" for as long as they want and they don't have to charge them etc...

I think that should be the question? Should the government be allowed to basically do what they want when they think someone is a terrorist?

I'm not claiming to have the answer, but it's a legit question? What if the person isn't a terrorist?

Ultimately, it doesn't affect me because I won't be in a position to be at risk, but I'm not sure if I'm a fan of a government having "carte blanche" to do what ever they want IF that's the case.

I can see wanting to have the tribunal to make a determination as to status.

The problem, as we know, is that we HAVe released people who were later killed doing battle with US/Afghan troops. We have released people who return right back to bombings in Iraq.

The question is, shouldn't we just have the tribunal to determine if they are illegal combatants, and then separate the detainees?

THE PROBLEM, in terms of PR, is that it wouldn't matter for many people if we DID DO THAT. Did any of the rest of the world say a GD thing about Zimbabwe? Mugabe has gone to Europe. Nothing has happened to him.

I'd say even if the US followed the convention more closely, we'd still have the majority of the same critics unless we released EVERYONE or had civilian trials of people who were often captured after surrender or in the commission of a 'military' act.

I refer more to the European critics when I speak about the inability to really satisfy them.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

I can see wanting to have the tribunal to make a determination as to status.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

I don't know if the horror stories are true, regarding the prisoners and the non trials etc... But if they don't have a case against them, I don't think they should be able to hold them for no reason, just because the "think" they might be a terrorist.

What's next? Extremeskins posters getting detained for not agreeing with whomever the president is?

(again, i'm not pointing a finger, or cursor... I don't know enough of the specifics...)

[dreamingwolf]

I think its so cute that the thread was started about amesty international refering to gitmo as gulags, and imediately the wildly rabid leftists on the board went on the attack about how criminal the US is.

Amesty Int is an org that appears to be founded on admirable principles(and very well may have been), but it seems they have been hijacked into an organization to attack the US and other western nations and their allys. Sure they take pot shots arround the globe at other nations, but when it comes to the US they are viscious.

Check this out from their website.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/2md-index-eng

Throughout the year there were reports that scores of civilians had been killed unlawfully by the US-led forces during bombardments of Fallujah, Najaf and Samarra’, and in various operations in Baghdad.

Scores of hostages, including Iraqis, foreign aid workers, journalists and security contractors, were abducted by armed groups, and dozens were killed.

ok now, I understand this is just the omission of a descriptor but really thats what propaganda is at root. Its all in how you say it.

Here we have their claim that the US has killed scores of civilians unlawfully, but when it comes to the "armed groups"(their loving way of refering to terrorists in iraq) beheading kidnapped civilians they just calling it killing.

This organization has lost all and any credibility with me, for some reason they are a tool of the terrorists now. If its truely from their altruism and not cause they are trying to aid the terrorists cause, then they need to check their head. They cant even bring themselves to call the beheading of kidnapped civilians murder, I mean come on people see them for what they are.

[Ghost of]

The resident left will disagree, but while many rank and file members are solid individual, I'd actually say Human Rights Watch was slightly less leftist.

Most of the big NGOs have been hijacked by the international left.

Reminds me of the international "peace groups" that were merely Soviet fronts or pawns that advanced an agenda that really only favored the Soviets during the Cold War.

[dreamingwolf]

Your right ghost, but Im not so sure about HGW though you might be right.

I wouldnt care if people didnt prop them up on some pedestal, and if those orgs would be unbiased.

[du7st]

The Geneva-based ICRC is the only independent group to have access to the Guantanamo detainees. Amnesty has been refused access to the prison camp[/Quote]

So Amnesty has absolutely no first hand knowledge of what is going on in the prison camp yet they feel they are qualified to compare the conditions to a gulag? They sound as qualified to comment on the conditions of Guantanamo as...we do, which is to say we aren't qualified at all. Nobody knows what the heck is going on there because our government feels no obligation to tell us anything. Nobody here knows what is going on that is for sure (and they wouldn't be allowed to share if they did). Feels great doesn't it?

[jpillian]

I believe all of the baddies at X-Ray are unlawful combatants -- i.e., they were not part of any organized armed forces which are recognized by the Geneva Conventions.

Therefore, they are not to be treated as POWs. However, they should all at the very least have their case heard by a military tribunal (to determine if they are to be granted POW status).

If they are determined to have been a unlawful combatant, we can do what we want with them.

If these tribunals are not happening, that does concern me a bit.

Of course, just because we aren't hearing about the tribunals does not necessarily mean they have not been carried out (I don't think).

However, the quandry of people being released... period... after being held at X-Ray --- that really does boggle my mind.

The only thing I can think of, is that they are being released because we think they are dumb enough to lead us back to other bad guys.

I just don't see us transporting many folks around the world because they are completely innocent folks.

Remembering, of course, that by their actions, the people who captured these said "innocents" are a helluva lot more patriotic in action than those of us sitting here in our comfy chairs typing on a message board (i.e., if in doubt, I'd probably trust their judgement on such matters).

Regardless, I do wish X-Ray was being handled a bit more openly as to its purpose and more transparent in the way its innmates were treated.

While I do think there are quite a few organizations that revel in US-bashing, we don't appear to be exactly above reproach in this case.

[Baculus]

I think its so cute that the thread was started about amesty international refering to gitmo as gulags, and imediately the wildly rabid leftists on the board went on the attack about how criminal the US is.

Exxagerate much? If our nation does something unlawful, I feel we, as its citizens, are much better to speak or debate it, don't we think? After all, that is why discourse is important in settling matters. And whether you like it or admit it, there is the very strong possibility that has happened. It cannot be white-washed by dismissing it as "rabid leftists," which does nothing to change the nature of the subject.

Keep in mind that, since the U.S. is seen as a nation that respects laws, including doctrine governing the conduct of war, some killing of innocents and civilians can be seen as unlawful. Terrorists and armed thugs who round up and kill folks aren't perceived in this same light as a nation that adheres to rules of engagement, with certain actions being unlawful.

[Baculus]

I think that is part if it, Jpillian - we do not know the status of many of the Camp X-Ray detainees. And that will immediately create questions surrounding the detention camp, especially since many of the detainees are being released. Not only that, but it doesn't exactly help America's international image as a moralistic nation.

And I have a feeling that these tribunals have not happened, or it wouldn't be such an issue. Also, I am extremely wary of a mentality that a person is found to be of a certain status, unlawful combatant, allowing us, regardless of morality compared to those we are supposedly fighting, to do anything we want with them.

That just leads to an "anything goes" mentality, and that is never a good road to follow.

[Larry]

Now, OTOH, I think it's a pretty safe bet that every single person at Gitmo (with the possible exception of Saddam, himself, if he's there.), was, at the least, "out of uniform" at the time he was taken.

And yes, if I remember my WW2 movies, "this means you can be shot as a spy".

OTOH, I have problem with the legal position that, if the US invades somebody's country, then the citizens of that country aren't allowed to fight back, because we haven't given them permission.

And, by a similar token, with us claiming that we can declare war on terrorists, but they're not "authorized" to fight back. To me, when we declared "war on terrorism" (a stupid political move, IMO), we recognised "terrorism" as a country. (What we should have done, IMO, was declare war on Afghanistan, "because Afghanistan, by sponsoring terrorism, has engaged in a military action against our country.")

[dreamingwolf]

ok so the started at your post, well now you have some power. Unless Im not exagerating, and the very first post after the thread starters(yours) switches from amesty internationals gulag slam into your slam of the gitmo situation. Im fairly certain your accusing the gitmo situation to be criminal, so I really dont see what Im exagerating.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Larry

No, it isn't.

PoWs aren't allowed to be removed from their country of capture. (Don't remember the exact wording.)

Tons of Germans were sent to POW camps in Oaklahoma during WWII

[redman]

Originally posted by Baculus

I read The Gulag Archipelago, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, so I am a little familiar with these camps. But it's not a good idea to say "because X isn't like y, then it's ok!"

You're fogetting that it was Amnesty that said that this was worse than the others. That's B.S. and Amnesty Int'l knows it.

The reason why they target the U.S. with this crap is because no country that truly engages in the wrongful imprisonment, torture and execution of prisoners gives a damn about AI, so they go target a democratic patsy that they know will wring its hands over their accusations. If they did otherwise they'd be exposing themselves for the irrelevant whiners they are.

[Sarge]

How touching that so many leftist here actually give a rat's a$$ about the well being of terrorists.

Maybe someone could arraign a trip to a real gulag for the AI commies. I'm pretty sure the Russians, North Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese and Germans back in the day didn't make sure that their POW's had religously correct diets (Which is bullsh!t. Feed them pepperoni pizzas and Spam), access to religous materials and a dinner mint on their pillow every night

[Larry]

And as to the inevitable "leftist propaganda" claims:

Yes, I've read a few of Amnesty International's annual reports (long ago). Yes, they spent a lot more words talking about, say, a sheriff in Alabama who was accused of beating a confession out of a suspected rapist, than they do talking about how many Chinese people disappeared last year.

But, in their defense, is that because they hate the US and like commies? Or is it simply that there's a lot more evidence against the sheriff than there are Chinese witnesses willing to talk?

When the last guy who complained to AI in Iraq, got to watch his kids get fed into a wood chipper, I can see why next year's report on Iraq might be, well, brief.

And let's also face it. When "War Justification version 4.3" is "We invaded because Saddam was violating human rights.", you have to expect a few people to say "Speaking of that, about those human pyramids, . . ."

When you win the Super Bowl, every other team starts planning against you. When you apoint yourself the Guardian of World Rightness, some of the people you're claiming superiority over are going to attempt to point out your clay feet.

[dreamingwolf]

Throughout the year there were reports that scores of civilians had been killed unlawfully by the US-led forces during bombardments of Fallujah, Najaf and Samarra’, and in various operations in Baghdad.

Scores of hostages, including Iraqis, foreign aid workers, journalists and security contractors, were abducted by armed groups, and dozens were killed.

be honest larry, just for one second come out of your hate of Bush and be honest. Can you really honestly defend them for that? Unless ofcourse you believe that when a civilian is kidnapped in iraq and is beheaded he is just being killed and not unlawfully killed? If thats the case then we will just have to agree to disagree.

[jpillian]

Larry,

I haven't seen any evidence of any Baathists at Gitmo.

I believe we are keeping all the Iraqi's detained in Iraq (to include Saddam and his cronies -- who are to be tried in Iraq).

BTW -- The War on Terror is a figure of speech. However, I do cede part of your point.

Our fight is against a fairly ambiguous opponent.

However, I don't believe the majority of those at Gitmo could even be considered Afghani or Afghani patriots. I would bet most are foreigners who were there to train for global jihaddism.

Ah, it's all speculation -- but that's what I'm thinking from the bits and pieces I've heard.

As to whether terrorists -- i.e., un-uniformed combatant forces which are unassociated with any sovereign state -- are legally able to even "fight back": No -- I don't believe they are.

Traditionally, I believe these sort of groups, fighting outside of normal political bounds -- have always been considered illegal from an international point of view.

When you consider the tactics they employ, I think this becomse all the more clear.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Jeez. A lot of you are talking like Amnesty’s totally cool with North Korea and Sudan and just loves to rip on the good ol’ US of A because it Hates Freedom.

Bullcrap. Do a Google search with the search term ‘Amnesty International condemns China’, for example, and take in the thousands of hits you get.

As for whoever referred to AI as ‘irrelevant whiners’: it’s because countries like the USA and the UK have traditions of freedom, open justice, and humane behavior that AI can have a more positive effect in them than in, say, Burma. AI speaks out on such countries because it can effect positive change in them. It relies on governments – usually governments by the people – having any sort of conscience whatsoever. Gandhi’s nonviolent protests worked because the British imperialists had a conscience; Hitler would have just killed him.

This used to work in the USA, until people resembling some on this board took over.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

This used to work in the USA, until people resembling some on this board took over.

Who on this board, I wonder, might you be referring to?

As for AI, I don't do google searches for that, and I'll tell you why--go to their website. When I last visited their site, I saw far more 'stories/charges' for Western or western allied countries than I did for Sudan/NK. Could you argue isolation and that they could get relatively fewer accounts from these places? Sure.

But I'm doubting it.

Plus, AI seems to take the traditional int'l left stances. For instance, people getting heart attacks or getting shot during no-knock drug raids would be KIND OF A BIG DEAL to me. Seizure and forfeiture would be another. Mandatory minimums for drug possession would be another.

Yet I didn't find any evidence of them really looking at that. But they got death penalty for child-raping/killing monsters COVERED, boy!

BTW, don't you find the comparison offensive??!

Actually, just thought about it, you said they talk about NK and Sudan, yet "of our time" is pretty definitive and singular a description and the SECRETARY GENERAL of AI used it in conjunction with the UNITED STATES.

Not the ACTUAL gulags of our time in North Korea or China. :doh:

[Ghost of]

ACtual quote from Miss Khan:

“The world does not need a war against ‘terrorism’, it needs a culture of peace based on human rights for all.”

Yeah, because it was a culture of peace that stopped Hitler's tanks from rolling across Europe.

But in her defense(re: Sudan)

http://www.amnesty.ie/content/view/full/3018/

Can't accuse me of trying to completely shortshrift 'balance.'

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Who on this board, I wonder, might you be referring to?

Well, not you, if that's what you're wondering. Suddenly, Tailgate seems to be full of knuckleheads who can’t grasp basic logical principles.

As for AI, I don't do google searches for that, and I'll tell you why--go to their website. When I last visited their site, I saw far more 'stories/charges' for Western or western allied countries than I did for Sudan/NK. Could you argue isolation and that they could get relatively fewer accounts from these places? Sure.

Go to their front page RIGHT NOW. They have links to articles on China, Mexico and Democratic Republic of Congo. That’s it.

Plus, AI seems to take the traditional int'l left stances. For instance, people getting heart attacks or getting shot during no-knock drug raids would be KIND OF A BIG DEAL to me. Seizure and forfeiture would be another. Mandatory minimums for drug possession would be another.

Yes, they are a big deal. I typed ‘drug raids’ into their site’s search engine and got articles criticizing such behavior in Indonesia, Thailand, Russia and China. Nothing on the USA, but that hardly supports the argument that they’re anti-American, does it?

Actually, just thought about it, you said they talk about NK and Sudan, yet "of our time" is pretty definitive and singular a description and the SECRETARY GENERAL of AI used it in conjunction with the UNITED STATES.

Not the ACTUAL gulags of our time in North Korea or China. :doh:

Can’t argue with that. Maybe it’s just the injustices in our backyard. After all, what good would raising awareness of the gulags in NK or China do? Doesn’t everyone know about them?