Our very own Gulag...

[michaeledward]

I tend to trust my government more when there is daylight shining on its activities. When things are done in secret, without checks and balances, my level of distrust increases.

What were the names of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, again?

What nationalities are they?

What crimes have they been accused of?

What legal course of action do they have to defend themselves of these crimes?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Just got off the website, after joining AI--and about time, too.

I thought you might be interested to read their October, 2004, report on our abuses in the current pseudo-war, given that there has been a repeated clim that a) we ain't done nothin' wrong, b) well, we did but it wasn;t systematic, c) everybody else is worse anyway, so what's all the fuss?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511452004

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What were the names of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, again?

What nationalities are they?

What crimes have they been accused of?

What legal course of action do they have to defend themselves of these crimes?

I believe the answers are "Classified, Classified, Classified, None."

 

[ginshun]

"You want the truth!?

You can't handle the truth!!"

Sorry, I couldn't help it. This whole conversation reminds me of Jack Nicholson's diatribe while on the stand in A Few Good Men. I sort of think that it rings true.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...so we've got a carefully-researched report, a fair working knowledge of the current administration's actions and statements, and a basic understanding of U.S. law and history, and against that....

...movie dialogue?

But I agree about the, "Can't handle the truth," part.

 

[ginshun]

Uh...so we've got a carefully-researched report, a fair working knowledge of the current administration's actions and statements, and a basic understanding of U.S. law and history, and against that....

...movie dialogue?

But I agree about the, "Can't handle the truth," part.

Oh lighten up Dr., I said I was sorry.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I didn't think that's what that, "sorry," actually meant, but fair enough. My apologies.

So what do you think about the AI reports, at this stage?

 

[Rich Parsons]

In a report issued May 25, Amnesty International described the U.S. as having established a, "new gulag," around the world, with detainees locked up in Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Additional, the organization noted that our country had done considerable damage to the very notion of human rights, with our President and his Administration repeatedly and vocally arguing against the very concept that certain of our detainees had any rights at all--including rights to be safe from torture.

Here's the "Chicago Sun_Times," article:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/amnesty25.html

Asked about this during an AM press conference, the President of the United States said that the report was, "absurd," and avoided further comment.

The Evil U.S.A.

Yes our country is not as clean as some think it is or as clean as others want it to be.

Yet there is always two sides to every arguement. Statistics depends upon sample sizes and populations and where those populations came from. This sways data. Yet, this is about how can the USA, be so evil becuase we do not support the issues the AI wishes.

So, I digress back to a previous thread where people stated that we lost more jobs over sees in the last few years, and when I brought up and quoted a magizine, the responses were still, even one job is too many, versus the stagering numbers lost to increased productivity based upon technology.

I also bring up this issue: From NewsWeek March 21, 2005; The Last Word - Anna Quindlen:

She discussed the evils of the USA and not ratifying the CEDAW aka The United Nations Convention on Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women. The countries that have not ratified are Sudan, Brunei, Somalia, and Oman. So the USa is listed with these countries in this issue. The convention asks for mandated percentage representation in the legislation and governmental processes. The auther finishes with, " . . . Even Iraq, under our tutelage, has written into its Constitution a guarentee that 25 percent of its legislators will be women. By my count, that menas someone owes me 11 Senators."

My reply and I quote the 19th Admendment:

Article [XIX].

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Proposal and Ratification

The nineteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-sixth Congress, on the 4th of June, 1919, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 26th of August, 1920, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Illinois, June 10, 1919 (and that State readopted its resolution of ratification June 17, 1919); Michigan, June 10, 1919; Wisconsin, June 10, 1919; Kansas, June 16, 1919; New York, June 16, 1919; Ohio, June 16, 1919; Pennsylvania, June 24, 1919; Massachusetts, June 25, 1919; Texas, June 28, 1919; Iowa, July 2, 1919; Missouri, July 3, 1919; Arkansas, July 28, 1919; Montana, August 2, 1919; Nebraska, August 2, 1919; Minnesota, September 8, 1919; New Hampshire, September 10, 1919; Utah, October 2, 1919; California, November 1, 1919; Maine, November 5, 1919; North Dakota, December 1, 1919; South Dakota, December 4, 1919; Colorado, December 15, 1919; Kentucky, January 6, 1920; Rhode Island, January 6, 1920; Oregon, January 13, 1920; Indiana, January 16, 1920; Wyoming, January 27, 1920; Nevada, February 7, 1920; New Jersey, February 9, 1920; Idaho, February 11, 1920; Arizona, February 12, 1920; New Mexico, February 21, 1920; Oklahoma, February 28, 1920; West Virginia, March 10, 1920; Washington, March 22, 1920; Tennessee, August 18, 1920.

Ratification was completed on August 18, 1920.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Connecticut on September 14, 1920 (and that State reaffirmed on September 21, 1920); Vermont, February 8, 1921; Delaware, March 6, 1923 (after having rejected it on June 2, 1920); Maryland, March 29, 1941 (after having rejected it on February 24, 1920, ratification certified on February 25, 1958); Virginia, February 21, 1952 (after having rejected it on February 12, 1920); Alabama, September 8, 1953 (after having rejected it on September 22, 1919); Florida, May 13, 1969; South Carolina, July 1, 1969 (after having rejected it on January 28, 1920, ratification certified on August 22, 1973); Georgia, February 20, 1970 (after having rejected it on July 24, 1919); Louisiana, June 11, 1970 (after having rejected it on July 1, 1920); North Carolina, May 6, 1971; Mississippi, March 22, 1984 (after having rejected it on March 29, 1920).

Both men and women have the right to vote and the right to vote who they want too. Why mandate something that the citizens can handle themselves with the already existing process.

I have heard some women even argue that the ERA propsed admentment was not needed, for if women felt strong enough about an issue they could vote people into office to address the issue. Also see the recent election of a Latino to the office of Mayor in L.A.

So my take, it all depends upon what data you look at, what point of view you are coming from, and what is your agenda. And I agree that the U.S.A. is not innocent nor clean.

Peace
:asian:

 

[Tgace]

The Evil U.S.A.

Yes our country is not as clean as some think it is or as clean as others want it to be.

I agree. And no nation ever has been eh Rich?

Odd how people want to argue the good old days of America in one post then hack away at things like Civil War politics, Slavery, Indian oppression, Japanese internment camps in the next.

This is no different than many other points in our nations history. However I do have faith in the core "goodness" of our Nation and its people that we will find our way through these troubling times and learn, at least a little, from our mistakes along the way....

 

[Gemini]

Odd how people want to argue the good old days of America in one post then hack away at things like Civil War politics, Slavery, Indian oppression, Japanese internment camps in the next. .

It's kind of eerie that these are the exact instances I was thinking of when I posted before.

This is no different than many other points in our nations history. However I do have faith in the core "goodness" of our Nation and its people that we will find our way through these troubling times and learn, at least a little, from our mistakes along the way....

I agree. I doubt there is any one of us personally that doesn't cringe thinking back on something we did at some point in our lives. We, as a nation, also have those moments in our history, and we'll have to live with things that we're not particularly proud of. At the same time, we can look back on things we should be very proud of.

Regards,

 

[ginshun]

So what do you think about the AI reports, at this stage?

Has the US done some wrong? Ya probably.

Are the US wrongs really as bad as the AI report, or maybe more acurately, as the media's coverage of the AI report seems to make them out to be? Doubtful.

That is pretty much my take on it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Unlike the "Gulags" or the Japanese Internment camps during WWII, Camp X-Ray is NOT full of random Muslims or people who held a political belief we found dangerous, they are people who, by direct action or direct association, took up arms against the United States of America. Further, most of them took up arms against the US in violation of the same Geneva Conventions that some claim WE are violation in that they took up arms secretly, they did not carry arms openly and they sought to hide themselves in civilian populations. There is moral equivalency here with "Gulags". Any attempt to make one is an extremly cynical brand of political opportunism and nothing more.

As for the following questions:

"What were the names of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, again?"
Some are simply unknown. What is known is that they are members of Al Queda or the Taliban respectively.

"What nationalities are they?"
Very likely Afghani, Pakistani, Saudi, Egyptian, or any of a multitude of nations who have citizens represented in Al Queda or the Taliban (as they can be described as seperate entities)

"What crimes have they been accused of?" Depends on the particular accused. At the very least they are accused of participation in a terrorist organization who's goal is the destruction of the United States. That's good enough for me.

"What legal course of action do they have to defend themselves of these crimes?" Certainly not the legal recourse of an American citizen. I guess it remains to be seen what recourse they deserve as foreign terrorists engaged in world wide terrorist activities. That recourse, I hope, does not include a US style jury circus trial, but I guess we'll see. I do remember the trials of certain Nazi saboteurs who enter the US via a U Boat during WWII. Lets hope that the trial of these terrorists is something similar.

 

[michaeledward]

The term 'gulag' is not used in the Amnesty International report. The person who uttered the phrase certainly is not helping anything.

Concerning the detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

We know very little about them. Any suppositions you are putting forth, sgtmac_46, are simple wild *** guesses. We don't know, because the government isn't saying. Also, the government is restricting the International Committee of the Red Cross's access to the detainees.

The Pentagon did release a report telling us that, apparently, a United States soldier urinated on a detainee's Quran. Nice!

Lastly, the United States Supreme Court has said that these detainees, being held by the United States do fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Court System.

You may not like it, but I was always led to believe that we have laws in this country to protect all of us. If they can do it to Hasim today, they can do it to Hector tomorrow, and Harold the next.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The term 'gulag' is not used in the Amnesty International report. The person who uttered the phrase certainly is not helping anything.

Concerning the detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

We know very little about them. Any suppositions you are putting forth, sgtmac_46, are simple wild *** guesses. We don't know, because the government isn't saying. Also, the government is restricting the International Committee of the Red Cross's access to the detainees.

The Pentagon did release a report telling us that, apparently, a United States soldier urinated on a detainee's Quran. Nice!

Lastly, the United States Supreme Court has said that these detainees, being held by the United States do fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Court System.

You may not like it, but I was always led to believe that we have laws in this country to protect all of us. If they can do it to Hasim today, they can do it to Hector tomorrow, and Harold the next.

We know that the majority of them were captured during operations in Afghanistan against Taliban and Al Queda. It's a safe assumption that the majority ARE Taliban and Al Queda.

As for Urinating on Qurans, it certainly sounds distasteful when it's played up to the hilt by AI and the Media, but it's hardly a blow torch and pair of pliars or daily beatings. If the worst abuse we have is a soggy Quran, there isn't much to complain about. Again, we didn't have to give them the books to begin with so I could care less who urinates on one, the whole concept is completely blown out of proportion for the sake of sensationalization for the sake of cynical political gain.

The media for the last several years has been trying to PROVE abuse as Gitmo, yet the best they have is "Soggy Quran's". Last time I checked, our enemies were decaptitating THEIR prisoners. Apparently the soggy Quran story is the BEST that they have and it's nothing, if they had proof of WORSE abuse, they would have used it, but they haven't. That PROVES that is all they have.

As for the tired old "They came for the jews and I did nothing" argument, it's a bit stretched on this topic and is merely designed to spread fear for the sake of political discourse. I'll draw a firm line at dealing with American Citizens in this manner, so you don't have to worry about the slippery slope argument. We'll reserve it strictly for foreign terrorists actively engaged in violence against the US. Period. If they decide to come after you for dissenting against the government, i'll promise my rifle at your defense.

And lastly, some people might not like it but the the key is WE have laws to protect US citizens, "WE THE PEOPLE" does not include every member of this planet, merely those who fall under the protective sphere of the US. Our Constitution is a document that is a clear statement of the rights of US citizens, which none of these folks are.

I know that might offend the "We want to be citizens of the world" crowd, but tough. I expect my government to protect ME FROM these people, not to protect these people from my government. Further, arguing that protecting our foreign prisoners protects US soldiers from abuse is silly in the extreme. It does nothing to stop our prisoners from being beheaded and it never has. US POW's have ALWAYS suffered far worse at the hands of our enemies than captured POW's in our possession, and how we treat our POW's has never had a direct effect on how US POW's are treated, so it's a ficitious argument.

If they bought the animosity of my nation through their actions, they should reap the whirlwind. In fact, as an example for those who wonder where the real political power comes from, I will hold accountable at the polls any administration that decides to deal with kid gloves against the enemies of my nation. As we've seen, those with my view have held sway in US politics recently, much to the consternation of many on the far left. I don't always agree with the social domestic agendas of this administration, but on the issue of the terrorists held in Cuba, I whole heartedly agree with the way things are being handled.

I also have to wonder why more attention has been placed on treatment of Prisoners at Gitmo over the last 4 years (especially given the fact that worst violation they have is "soggy Qurans), than has been given to the rest of Cuba for the last 30 years, especially given the Cuba has been one of the worst REAL abusers of human rights in recent years. Castro has REAL Gulags. Could it be that Cuba gets a free pass because Castro is a darling of the radical left? I wonder.

 

[michaeledward]

How very sad, sgtmac_46.


Oh, and one more thing.

The Constitution provides guarantees for citizens. It also provides guarantees for non-citizens. Why do you think they are detaining these 'Taliban' and 'Al-Qaeda' on foreign soil?

 

[sgtmac_46]

How very sad, sgtmac_46.


Oh, and one more thing.

The Constitution provides guarantees for citizens. It also provides guarantees for non-citizens. Why do you think they are detaining these 'Taliban' and 'Al-Qaeda' on foreign soil?

Exactly my point, they are not on US soil, they are not subject to protection by our Constitution.

I've read the The Constitution and it provides no comment on the issue of non-citizens. See as follows:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It's very clear from the preamble what the Constitution was created for. "To secure the Blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES and our posterity" and "Insure DOMESTIC tranquility". The Constitution makes not comment on how to treat foreign nationals on foreign soil by our military. Because the Military is an instrument of national defense, it allowed far more latitude than domestic, civilian authority. For that same reason, we have Posse Commitatus, which prevents the US military from operating on US soil as any kind of enforcement arm. I whole heartedly support this concept that allows the US military to operate ONLY on foreign soil in the capacity it does.

Again, find something in this http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html that confers rights to Non-US citizens on foreign soil by the US constitution and i'll concede the point.

As far as the behavior of individual soldiers at Gitmo, if that behavior served no relavent interrogation purpose, meaning that it wasn't used to gain useful information to aid the US, it was horseplay by the soldiers that can't be tolerated from a discipline standpoint. Soldiers who engage in it should be discipline. That, however, is FAR from saying that this is some sort of GREAT crisis of abuse, as it is not. Those who are using the this to embarass the administration are doing nothing but engaging in a cynical form of political opportunism. I stand by that statement. A few wet Quran's is not in the same LEAGUE as the abuses perpetuated around the world by other nations, especially our enemies.

Further, save the comments about how "sad" I or my comments are, they serve no place in a rational discussion. I would hope you were above such petty ad hominem attacks, and i'll just assume that it was a slight, and uncharacteristic, slip and mention nothing further about it. Remember, it is possible to disagree and not be disagreeable. I have strong opinions, but I don't take disagreement personally.

 

[Matt Stone]

I usually try to stay away from "conversations" like this, because I'm not a political animal the likes of some others. I rarely watch the news (since it is all biased toward one side or another - there is no such thing as a truly objective reporter), and my politics were decided when Bush won the presidency (as a soldier, though I am still a citizen, I am bound by my enlistment oath, regardless of what functional retard is in power).

But I get really tired of all the liberal whiners citing Abu Grahib as the be all/end all to US "oppression." That was a solitary incident, and the individuals responsible are being dealt with. Period. Blaming the entire military, or the entire Government, is ridiculous. Certainly, Bush is "ultimately" responsible, but do any of his critics fully grasp the fact that he simply can't be aware of 100% of everything that goes on in every foxhole over there? Puh-lease...

Lastly, sure we do some things on occasion that aren't on the up and up. Every country and every government does that. We're human and not quite as fully civilized as we'd like others to believe. Humans are violent and passionate, and when we are injured we retaliate. However, I'll say that we probably do a much better job of retaliating and concerning ourselves to some degree about what happens to the bad guy than most other countries. We don't have thousands of people abducted by Government agents, never to be seen again. We don't execute people in the street for lifting a veil from their face. We don't cane vandals repeatedly for their first violation (though I suspect there'd be a lot less graffitti if we did). We do a pretty good job, all things considered.

Some folks lack perspective, and though they haven't "said" they hate their country, the sentiment is easy enough to see when you read what they write. Critical is one thing, but I have yet to see some of these folks ever mention all the good we've done in Iraq (like bringing running water, electricity, and other modern concepts to rural areas that have been living in the 16th century thanks to Saddam and his philanthropic regime)...

I'm done here. Enjoy.

 

[michaeledward]

We don't have thousands of people abducted by Government agents, never to be seen again.

How many people can we abduct, move to an undisclosed location, hold incommunicado, with no criminal charges before it becomes wrong?

We don't execute people in the street for lifting a veil from their face..

One of those who died in an Iraqi detention facility, while under U.S. supervision, and at the hand of U.S. soldiers, was a taxi driver. He was detained without charge.


Who needs rules, when we can have exceptions?

 

[ginshun]

How many people can we abduct, move to an undisclosed location, hold incommunicado, with no criminal charges before it becomes wrong?

How much of this do you know for a fact is going on? None, because just buy the very nature of that statement and the clandestine themes it implies, nobdy can possibly know how much (or even if ) this type of thing is actually happening. Its easy to make the accusation, but impossible to prove one way or the other.

Whether or not you assume it is happening and publisize it as such depends on your political motives and opinions on our government, nothing more.

 

[sgtmac_46]

How many people can we abduct, move to an undisclosed location, hold incommunicado, with no criminal charges before it becomes wrong?

"Abduct" must be a strange euphemism for taking enemy terrorists prisoner and detaining them so they can't "BLOW UP MORE AIRLINERS!"

A better set question for you, michael, is

A) How many enemy terrorists should we allow to run free to appease your bizarre set of imaginary rules? I guess you'd prefer we just opened the gate and allowed all those Al Queda operatives and former Taliban to just leave?

B) Who is going to be responsible for them? Are you going personally vouche for them?

C) If we DO allow those people to run free, at what point will WE be responsible when they kill more US citizens?

I'd like the answer to these questions before I answer yours.
Without clear answers to these questions, i'd prefer they just stay where they're at, thank you.

One of those who died in an Iraqi detention facility, while under U.S. supervision, and at the hand of U.S. soldiers, was a taxi driver. He was detained without charge.

Really? So you're suggesting that he was "only a cab driver" because a real terrorist would have surely listed his job title as "terrorist" and not "taxi driver"? If only they were that honest. Actually, taxi driver is about as good a cover for a terrorist as there is, it affords plenty of freedom of movement, gives you a reason to drive a car around with lots of different people in it, and gives you "deniability" (at least that's what i'm sure he thought).

Who needs rules, when we can have exceptions?

I gave you a list of the rules, and you haven't shown me where we are violating them. You keep referring to vague "rules" but you've yet to list those rules. Sounds like these rules may only exist in the heads of those claiming we are "violating" them.