Pres. Bush: Close Guantanamo Prison

[snakelegs]

Guantanomo is the symbol of US domination... in many ways

to me it is the symbol of our shame

 

[Abdul Fattah]

More like a symbol of U.S. law. If the U.S. was as bad as foreign pop culture assumes, these people would be dead. After they were fully interrogated of course.

So basically your defence the whole time has been "it could be worse", so It mustn't be that bad.

That's like saying, "9/11 wasn't that bad, there could have been a plane that hit the white house to, but that didn't happen, so you have no right to complain".
Obviously everyone would say I am mad if I actually meant that. But I think it illustrates my point clearly: "Just because it could be worse, doesn't mean it's ok.".

You're even amazed when your fellow Christians have signed it???
I can tell you why => human rights, morality, decency, empathy, ethics, ...

 

[Keltoi]

I would be interested to know what human rights have been violated. These people were captured on the battlefield in many cases, and in others they were captured in anti-terrorism operations. Now, these people need to be charged and given a fair trial. That is underway. Guess what, when you are in a war you usually take prisoners. Do you realize how many German prisoners there were in the U.S. by the end of WWII? No, these aren't recognized POW's because they don't represent a nation-state. So what are we to do with them? I hear alot of complaints, but no alternatives. Should we just let them go?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I would be interested to know what human rights have been violated. These people were captured on the battlefield in many cases, and in others they were captured in anti-terrorism operations. Now, these people need to be charged and given a fair trial. That is underway. Guess what, when you are in a war you usually take prisoners. Do you realize how many German prisoners there were in the U.S. by the end of WWII? No, these aren't recognized POW's because they don't represent a nation-state. So what are we to do with them? I hear alot of complaints, but no alternatives. Should we just let them go?

Their trail is on the way? Yeah these guys have been hearing that for 5 years... Thruth is, hundreds of people have been taken under arrest for nothing more then speaking English in Afghanistan! Well you know, they were only interested in the Afghans that were easy to interrogate. and at the same time there's military blunders, where they have the HQ of Al-Qaida completely surrounded, except for the part that borders to Pakistan, but decided to wait one day and set up their troops in clear vision at the gates of the city. Next day to their surprise all the high up members seemed to have vanished, well better luck next time. Should you let them go? Defenitly! don't tell me it takes 5 years to press charges against someone. Either press charges or let them go. You can't just detain people for 5 years on the ground of suspicion, that is just wrong on so many levels.


I'm happy to hear that you are "interested to know what human rights have been violated". Because given that interest you probably won't have any problems reading my extensively long post explaining the different human rights that the US ignores.

United Nations Convention Against Torture
Article 1
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

* Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there must be levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture (often termed "cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment"). However, "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" is independently proscribed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 5. Discussions on this area of international law are influenced by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on sensory deprivation.

* Section 2: If a state has signed the treaty without reservations,[1] then there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever where a state can use torture and not break its treaty obligations. However the worst sanction which can be applied to a powerful country is the publishing of the information that they have broken their treaty obligations. In certain exceptional cases the authorities in those countries may consider that with plausible deniability that this is an acceptable risk to take as the definition of severe is open to flexible interpretation.
* Section 16: contains the phrase territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, so if the government of a state authorises its personnel to use sensory deprivation on a detainee in territory not under its jurisdiction then it is suggested that that government has not broken its treaty obligations.

The Convention has received new attention in the world press because of the Stress and duress interrogation techniques used on the detainees by United States military personnel, most notably at the Abu Ghraib prison and Bagram prison. The United States ratified the Convention, but declared that "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."[2]

The Convention also requires states to take effective measures to prevent torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to their home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured.

copy-paste from wikipedia:
Hague and Geneva Conventions

Specifically, Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention covered the treatment of prisoners of war in detail. These were further expanded in the Third Geneva Convention of 1929, and its revision of 1949.

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his or her name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).

 

[snakelegs]

the policy of "extraordinary rendition" may very well be even more shameful than guantanamo.
if anyone is unaware of it, do a google search.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Yeah, lot's of European countrys are guilty of
Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
The patriot act alone should be sufficient grounds for UN-countries to longer give any detainy into US custody.

 

[MTAFFI]

Perhaps other people, nations and religious groups should take a look at their own gross violation human rights before they comment on the US's. I would say the US could be a model of human rights compared to those who complain about Gitmo. Take a look at yourself before you bash others