Topic: First-person Prisoner Account From Guantanamo Bay (Read 511 times)

moistness · « **Reply #30 on:** February 10, 2005, 01:51:00 PM »

QUOTE(self @ Feb 10 2005, 06:07 PM)

Reading through the responses to this post there are a few things that needs to be made crystal clear:

moistness · « **Reply #31 on:** February 10, 2005, 03:23:00 PM »

QUOTE(self @ Feb 10 2005, 08:22 PM)

1. He was innocent.

Tony42077 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 10, 2005, 04:05:00 PM »

QUOTE(moistness @ Feb 10 2005, 10:29 PM)

I just cannot separate the truth from the crap and propaganda that the media (ANY media) spews out these days, too much is made up, or has political motivations for avoiding/bending the truth.

Arvarden · « **Reply #33 on:** February 10, 2005, 05:07:00 PM »

All news outlets are biased in some shape or form and the younger generation is forgetting an old rule of thumb, you are innocent before being proven guilty. Guantanamo Bay automatically assumes you are guilty and you are tortured for X years for info you may or not know. Torture may not physical in some cases but locking a man up in solitary confinement for periods of 6 months is just as bad mentaly.

There will be some who will take up the fight again but out of approx 200 prisoners released around 10 have been reported dead or re captured. The story broke in October and had very little coverage. The BBC reported it along with Washington Post and a few other rep sites but they offered very little info past and present.

FoeHammer05 · « **Reply #34 on:** February 10, 2005, 06:00:00 PM »

melon · « **Reply #35 on:** February 10, 2005, 06:12:00 PM »

Foehammer we know exactly what it is like to grow up feering terrorists!

Britain has had many bombings by the IRA and Spain has Eta.
You have had one attack.

Is Michael Jackson guilty?
Noti untill proven and the evidence looks stacked against him.

If a suspected serial murderer is on trial he is not assumed guilty and put in prison for life with very little chance to even prove he is innocent.

why the difference?

edit: why do Americans go on about the food for oil program? It wouldnt be to distract away from a certain oil pipe that is being built in Afghanastan would it?

FoeHammer05 · « **Reply #36 on:** February 10, 2005, 06:23:00 PM »

QUOTE(melon @ Feb 10 2005, 07:18 PM)

Foehammer we know exactly what it is like to grow up feering terrorists!

Tony42077 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 11, 2005, 11:16:00 AM »

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 11 2005, 01:45 AM)

Once the terrorist is proven guilty without doubt go ahead and do what you wish, bar killing him.

The unProfessional · « **Reply #38 on:** February 11, 2005, 12:39:00 PM »

QUOTE

And if these people are claiming their innocence shouldn't they need proof of innocince

Actually, we're supposed to prove them guilty. Until then, they're "innocent".

damam · « **Reply #39 on:** February 11, 2005, 04:01:00 PM »

QUOTE(melon)

Is Michael Jackson guilty?
Noti untill proven and the evidence looks stacked against him.

If a suspected serial murderer is on trial he is not assumed guilty and put in prison for life with very little chance to even prove he is innocent.

why the difference?

innocent until proven guilty - while touted here in the US a lot, is not actually written into any of our legal code. Most people I know that have been in the defendants chair just roll their eyes at it. It is just as much up to the defendant to prove their innocence as it is to the prosecuter to prove their guilt. I think that "innocent until proven guilty" actually originated in Britain - But im not entirely sure on that.

QUOTE(melon)

Britain has had many bombings by the IRA and Spain has Eta.
You have had one attack.

I dont know too much about the IRA - but isnt the ETA kinda considered a joke in terrorist circles. They go out of their way to ensure that their are no casualties by announcing locations and times of attack hours ahead of time. The Spainish authorities know who they are and have all their phones tapped. Its how they knew the train bomb was not ETA - their was no warning, people got killed, and the phone tapes gave ample evidence that they did not plan it and did not know about it.

QUOTE(melon)

edit: why do Americans go on about the food for oil program? It wouldnt be to distract away from a certain oil pipe that is being built in Afghanastan would it?

And my aunt plays guitar - how does that have anything to do with anything.
since we are comparing trivia -
how much have they actually built? None
Who developed and proposed the current plan? Penspen ( a British Company )
Who is most likely to get contract to build the trans-Afghani pipeline? Penspen and The Asian Development Bank (to fund it).

damam · « **Reply #40 on:** February 11, 2005, 04:06:00 PM »

This thread has gotten awful disturbing.
@My_Brain_is_on_Fire &
@Tony42077
Im really shocked by the fact that so many dont see a need for a minimum standard of treatment for prisoners of any type. While I do agree that killing or plotting to kill should result in either a death sentence or life imprisonment, and I am willing to allow for a laxed period of interrogation. Their should be a baseline of treatment for prisoners while in custody. Im not saying it has to be fancy or nice. I am comfortable with the baseline provided by prisons in the US. Nothing can change the fact that they are, at that point, a defenseless human being. Beating senseless a defenseless human being with prior knowledge that they have nothing to offer you is just wrong. Since both of you feel it is ok: What purpose does the ongoing treatment portrayed (whether real or not) have beyond pure SADISM?

Tony42077 · « **Reply #41 on:** February 12, 2005, 05:39:00 PM »

QUOTE(damam @ Feb 11 2005, 11:12 PM)

This thread has gotten awful disturbing.

FoeHammer05 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 13, 2005, 12:42:00 AM »

damam · « **Reply #43 on:** February 13, 2005, 12:55:00 PM »

QUOTE(Tony42077)

damam, what was so disturbing about saying that terrorists who conspire to kill innocent civilians should be put to death?

You miss understand me. I have no moral issues over the death penalty. The death penalty is not a deterrant nor is it a punishment. It is, however, an effective means of ridding the planet of truly awful people.

My issue is with the baseline you feel is ok to treat a defenseless human being while they are in custody. The only thing difference between us and them, has nothing to do with right or wrong, it only has to do with who had the bigger army.

QUOTE(Tony42077)

You're automatically assuming that these terror suspects have nothing to offer in terms of intelligence. The fact of the matter is that many of these tactics actually do work in terms of breaking their spirits, then leading to useful information.

I think it is fair to assume that they have little if anything to offer at this point. I am sure that Alqueda has a pretty good idea of who is their, and what information has probably been comprimised. Im also sure that they have changed plans, organizational structure, etc accordingly. My guess is that any prisoner their is good for about year. After that, any information they might divulge is to old to act on anyways.

Also just to clarify, the example used for this thread did not seem to be an ideal prisoner. He, under his own admission, was not compliant with the guards on numerous occasions. I have no issue with tune-up squads. I am sure that you brits also have tune-up squads as well. That is just a reality of being in any prison.

Let make this easier - Lets assume that they have nothing to offer. That they are guilty. Would you still be comfortable with how they are bing treated?

FoeHammer05 · « **Reply #44 on:** February 13, 2005, 02:15:00 PM »

Yes, they deserve it.

Author Topic: First-person Prisoner Account From Guantanamo Bay (Read 511 times)