Egyptian returnee 'faces torture'

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Oh come on, wise the hell up. Being subjected to severe beatings, electric shock, and mutilation, among other things- is far worse than what goes on at Gitmo. If you had to choose after experiencing both, you would most definitely choose Gitmo.

Aye, we're the softer side of torture. And sadly, that's not really meant as a joke.

So what happened in a small place is now true for all of America?

You're taking a small isolated event and making it seem like its a widespread problem. But you're not the first to do it.

Let me guess, you're thinking about Abu Ghraib? Well, we're talking about Gitmo, where the abuses have yet to stop. And is that true for all of America? Yup, thanks to the work of Alberto Gonzales' aides, we have legals reasons why we can abuse people down there.

Thanks for guessing what I was thinking. I was talking about GITMO and Abu Ghraib. They were small cases of rogue soldiers and higher ups. But I know you would like to make it appear that this sort of thing goes on throughout America.

And using Alberto Gonzales there is a cheap shot.

WE AMERICANS TWICE voted in the torturers and these higher ups... They would rather have a torturing bible thumper in the white house than a guy who can't throw a football very well and looks french

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Oh come on, wise the hell up. Being subjected to severe beatings, electric shock, and mutilation, among other things- is far worse than what goes on at Gitmo. If you had to choose after experiencing both, you would most definitely choose Gitmo.

Aye, we're the softer side of torture. And sadly, that's not really meant as a joke.

So what happened in a small place is now true for all of America?

You're taking a small isolated event and making it seem like its a widespread problem. But you're not the first to do it.

Let me guess, you're thinking about Abu Ghraib? Well, we're talking about Gitmo, where the abuses have yet to stop. And is that true for all of America? Yup, thanks to the work of Alberto Gonzales' aides, we have legals reasons why we can abuse people down there.

Thanks for guessing what I was thinking. I was talking about GITMO and Abu Ghraib. They were small cases of rogue soldiers and higher ups. But I know you would like to make it appear that this sort of thing goes on throughout America.

And using Alberto Gonzales there is a cheap shot.

You're right, using the guy who signed off on the abuses is cheap..... :roll:

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Oh come on, wise the hell up. Being subjected to severe beatings, electric shock, and mutilation, among other things- is far worse than what goes on at Gitmo. If you had to choose after experiencing both, you would most definitely choose Gitmo.

Aye, we're the softer side of torture. And sadly, that's not really meant as a joke.

So what happened in a small place is now true for all of America?

You're taking a small isolated event and making it seem like its a widespread problem. But you're not the first to do it.

Let me guess, you're thinking about Abu Ghraib? Well, we're talking about Gitmo, where the abuses have yet to stop. And is that true for all of America? Yup, thanks to the work of Alberto Gonzales' aides, we have legals reasons why we can abuse people down there.

Thanks for guessing what I was thinking. I was talking about GITMO and Abu Ghraib. They were small cases of rogue soldiers and higher ups. But I know you would like to make it appear that this sort of thing goes on throughout America.

And using Alberto Gonzales there is a cheap shot.

OH PLEASE !!! Are you really saying that the prison that has all the worls's eyes on it and houses inmates that could be Al-Qeeda operatives, has a thing such as "rogue soldiers" are you out of your mind, don't you think that the government isn't in the know what of every single detail that goes in there , that's if they don't have 27/7 surrveillance on it. They want them to torture ppl like that and make it look such that it's a rare case, but hey cases keep poppin so stay tuned .

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: dahunan
Certain Islamic countries torture the fvck out of their prisoners... and don't care about human rights...

As opposed to...? The US? Maybe only to a small degree. Maybe.

Putting someone in a prison cell and pissing on a Koran, force feeding hunger strikers and subjecting people to unconfortable undamaging psycological torture does not compare to hanging someone by their ankles, pulling their finger nails out with pliers and hooking 5000 volts up to their testicles while they watch their family members be killed in front of them and then slowly burning them alive. If you are suggesting they are similar you have no concept of scale.

I can somewhat agree, but I also strongly believe your description of Gitmo as "Putting someone in a prison cell and pissing on a Koran, force feeding hunger strikers and subjecting people to unconfortable undamaging psycological torture," is horribly minimal compared to what actually goes on there, even what is documented, not to mention what is not documented. Torture is torture, and there is a point in which the scale no longer exists.

That is not a widespread problem, it is a rare thing. Torture in these muslim countries is widespread and even a slightest bit of crimes can put you in some real trouble.

The torture that may have happened in GITMO was not right, but there is no comparison.

You have something to back up that statement, or are you just making generalizations?

Err it's well known that most Middle Eastern and Asian countries routinely torture prisoners.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: dahunan
Certain Islamic countries torture the fvck out of their prisoners... and don't care about human rights...

As opposed to...? The US? Maybe only to a small degree. Maybe.

Putting someone in a prison cell and pissing on a Koran, force feeding hunger strikers and subjecting people to unconfortable undamaging psycological torture does not compare to hanging someone by their ankles, pulling their finger nails out with pliers and hooking 5000 volts up to their testicles while they watch their family members be killed in front of them and then slowly burning them alive. If you are suggesting they are similar you have no concept of scale.

I can somewhat agree, but I also strongly believe your description of Gitmo as "Putting someone in a prison cell and pissing on a Koran, force feeding hunger strikers and subjecting people to unconfortable undamaging psycological torture," is horribly minimal compared to what actually goes on there, even what is documented, not to mention what is not documented. Torture is torture, and there is a point in which the scale no longer exists.

That is not a widespread problem, it is a rare thing. Torture in these muslim countries is widespread and even a slightest bit of crimes can put you in some real trouble.

The torture that may have happened in GITMO was not right, but there is no comparison.

You have something to back up that statement, or are you just making generalizations?

I think this has to be some kind of joke.

Ever heard of Saudi Arabia? Malaysia? Pakistan?

beatings? torture? execution? severe pain? ...

And I didn't even mention Iran yet.

Never said they did not not exist. You said it was "widespread," while cases like Gitmo for the US is rare. What is your definition of "widespread?"

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: bamacre
After reading and hearing about what happened to Kutb and al-Zawahiri in Egypt, they probably could do worse things than what goes on in Guantanamo Bay. Kutb's torture ended with a heart attack after he was smothered in animal fat and locked in a small cell with a dog trained to attack humans. Kutb's torture in Egypt only made his grief with Egypt and western culture worse. And when he died, al-Zawahiri, took over Kutb's plans. I think a good question is, did these kinds of torture exist in Egypt before the US brought in it's wealth and influence?

Don't you read history? Gitmo is the most humane POW (or whatever) camp in the entire history of humanity, and all libs can do is whine about it.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: dahunan
Certain Islamic countries torture the fvck out of their prisoners... and don't care about human rights...

As opposed to...? The US? Maybe only to a small degree. Maybe.

Read what Omar said...

Do you see videos of Americans chopping off peoples heads with knives and machetes...

Outsourcing torture to certain middle eastern countries has been done for decades at least.

Dahunan, have you changed? These postings I am seeing today and this evening just don't sound like the you I have grown to know in P&N.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Oh come on, wise the hell up. Being subjected to severe beatings, electric shock, and mutilation, among other things- is far worse than what goes on at Gitmo. If you had to choose after experiencing both, you would most definitely choose Gitmo.

Aye, we're the softer side of torture. And sadly, that's not really meant as a joke.

So what happened in a small place is now true for all of America?

You're taking a small isolated event and making it seem like its a widespread problem. But you're not the first to do it.

Let me guess, you're thinking about Abu Ghraib? Well, we're talking about Gitmo, where the abuses have yet to stop. And is that true for all of America? Yup, thanks to the work of Alberto Gonzales' aides, we have legals reasons why we can abuse people down there.

Thanks for guessing what I was thinking. I was talking about GITMO and Abu Ghraib. They were small cases of rogue soldiers and higher ups. But I know you would like to make it appear that this sort of thing goes on throughout America.

And using Alberto Gonzales there is a cheap shot.

WE AMERICANS TWICE voted in the torturers and these higher ups... They would rather have a torturing bible thumper in the white house than a guy who can't throw a football very well and looks french

Nope, same ole Dahunan. Thanks. For a moment I was worried that I was on the slippery slope to insanity.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Never said they did not not exist. You said it was "widespread," while cases like Gitmo for the US is rare. What is your definition of "widespread?"

Throughout the region, states continued to pay little regard to their obligations under international human rights law. Arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture and ill-treatment, and unfair trials ? sometimes before exceptional courts ? were routine. In Algeria, Iran, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen and other countries, the authorities regularly placed restrictions on freedom of expression and association, or carried out sporadic clampdowns, often resulting in the detention of prisoners of conscience. Political activists continued to face arbitrary detention or prolonged imprisonment after unfair trials in countries such as Iran, Libya and Syria.

Perpetrators of human rights violations continued to enjoy complete impunity in most countries in the region. However, in Morocco, in an unprecedented measure in the region, an Equity and Reconciliation Commission was inaugurated to look into cases of "disappearances" and arbitrary detention in previous decades.

Death penalties continued to be imposed and carried out throughout the region. In Libya and other countries, death sentences were handed down after unfair trials, and in Iran, the execution of children under the age of 18 was still permitted. There was a setback in Lebanon, where capital punishment was reintroduced following a five-year de facto moratorium, when three executions were carried out at the beginning of the year. Human rights activists launched a campaign against the reintroduction of executions in Lebanon. There were public debates about the death penalty in Egypt and within the regional human rights NGOs.

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

 

[Aimster]

hey look

another Pakistani

no surprise

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: bamacre
After reading and hearing about what happened to Kutb and al-Zawahiri in Egypt, they probably could do worse things than what goes on in Guantanamo Bay. Kutb's torture ended with a heart attack after he was smothered in animal fat and locked in a small cell with a dog trained to attack humans. Kutb's torture in Egypt only made his grief with Egypt and western culture worse. And when he died, al-Zawahiri, took over Kutb's plans. I think a good question is, did these kinds of torture exist in Egypt before the US brought in it's wealth and influence?

Don't you read history? Gitmo is the most humane POW (or whatever) camp in the entire history of humanity, and all libs can do is whine about it.

They're not POWs, otherwise there wouldn't be any debate on whether or not they're covered by the Geneva Conventions. And that is complete nonsense in and of itself.

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: dahunan
Certain Islamic countries torture the fvck out of their prisoners... and don't care about human rights...

As opposed to...? The US? Maybe only to a small degree. Maybe.

Putting someone in a prison cell and pissing on a Koran, force feeding hunger strikers and subjecting people to unconfortable undamaging psycological torture does not compare to hanging someone by their ankles, pulling their finger nails out with pliers and hooking 5000 volts up to their testicles while they watch their family members be killed in front of them and then slowly burning them alive. If you are suggesting they are similar you have no concept of scale.

I can somewhat agree, but I also strongly believe your description of Gitmo as "Putting someone in a prison cell and pissing on a Koran, force feeding hunger strikers and subjecting people to unconfortable undamaging psycological torture," is horribly minimal compared to what actually goes on there, even what is documented, not to mention what is not documented. Torture is torture, and there is a point in which the scale no longer exists.

That is not a widespread problem, it is a rare thing. Torture in these muslim countries is widespread and even a slightest bit of crimes can put you in some real trouble.

The torture that may have happened in GITMO was not right, but there is no comparison.

You have something to back up that statement, or are you just making generalizations?

I think this has to be some kind of joke.

Ever heard of Saudi Arabia? Malaysia? Pakistan?

beatings? torture? execution? severe pain? ...

And I didn't even mention Iran yet.

So....you still got nothing and making generalizations? I'd like some links showing it is regularly done and widespread...if you show its just a few specific cases, I will just use what you guys do to defend Gitmo and Abu Gharib.

 

[Czar]

mOeeOm,
it is pretty much a fact that many middle east countries use torture

here is one, its just a common fact
http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/2md-index-eng

 

[mOeeOm]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I would rather just have my head chopped off then humiliated, tortured and fear for my life the whole time and then have a chance of dying(someone a while back made a post of people killed in gitmo and abugharib).....especially if I am improsened for no reason like this Egyptian man was...

Being killed > horrible torture and then killed anyday

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
I don't know about the rest of you, but I would rather just have my head chopped off then humiliated, tortured and fear for my life the whole time and then have a chance of dying(someone a while back made a post of people killed in gitmo and abugharib).....especially if I am improsened for no reason like this Egyptian man was...

Being killed > horrible torture and then killed anyday

Yah, I really get that "humanitarian" vibe from you and your posts.. :roll:

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
I don't know about the rest of you, but I would rather just have my head chopped off then humiliated, tortured and fear for my life the whole time and then have a chance of dying(someone a while back made a post of people killed in gitmo and abugharib).....especially if I am improsened for no reason like this Egyptian man was...

Being killed > horrible torture and then killed anyday

Yah, I really get that "humanitarian" vibe from you and your posts.. :roll:

I'm with him.

Torture of any kind does sometimes physical damage which heals but also deals huge mental damage. That is the aim of torture, to brake the mind, and mental damage does not heal as easily.

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: Czar
mOeeOm,
it is pretty much a fact that many middle east countries use torture

here is one, its just a common fact
http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/2md-index-eng

I've read half of it, so far all I got was ''The region continued to suffer from judicial and extra judicial executions, widespread use of torture and unfair trials.''

Saying something, doesn't make it so, I'll finish reading after.

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
I don't know about the rest of you, but I would rather just have my head chopped off then humiliated, tortured and fear for my life the whole time and then have a chance of dying(someone a while back made a post of people killed in gitmo and abugharib).....especially if I am improsened for no reason like this Egyptian man was...

Being killed > horrible torture and then killed anyday

Yah, I really get that "humanitarian" vibe from you and your posts.. :roll:

So you would rather be tortured and then killed? Or be killed right off?

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is that the whole conceptual framework behind gitmo is defective, and stands in violation of the principles of the rule of law, and of the basis of our criminal justice system- the presumption of innocence, the right of habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury.

So the guy gets snatched up in pakistan, dragged halfway around the world, ruthlessly interrogated with extremely coercive methods for 3-1/2 years, only to have it determined that he's not an enemy combatant, probably never was. Oh, yeh, there's also some dispute as to how his back was broken, and how he ended up in a wheelchair.

And now, he gets shipped off to Egypt, which he left in 1986, where they're just locking him up indefinitely... promising humane treatment...

Locked up for what? The Bush Admin is just outsourcing unlawful detention, putting this guy, and probably others, deeper and deeper into legal limbo and abusive situations...

The whole exercise is based on domestic fearmongering and chest puffing, convincing the public that they're "Tough On Terror"- which is malarkey, anyway. If they had any substantial evidence against any of the Gitmo detainees, there would have been trials and convictions, even if such were carried out in kangaroo tribunals. But that hasn't been done. Why not? Because it's all bullsh!t, and the detainees are just expendable pawns in another bit of Bush Admin fakery...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9259472/

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The problem is that the whole conceptual framework behind gitmo is defective, and stands in violation of the principles of the rule of law, and of the basis of our criminal justice system- the presumption of innocence, the right of habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury.

The Supreme Court has ruled more than once that the Constitution only applies to those individuals on US soil. Gitmo is on Cuban soil. Right or wrong, it's a fact.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Rahvin-

"The Supreme Court has ruled more than once that the Constitution only applies to those individuals on US soil. Gitmo is on Cuban soil. Right or wrong, it's a fact."

That's not correct, Rahvin. The issue isn't about "soil", but rather about jurisdiction, even though the Bush Admin has been trying to avoid that concept with their rather disingenuous use of Guantanamo. If it wasn't under US jurisdiction, then the US military wouldn't be based there, regardless of the arrangements with Cuba. If Guantanamo were under Cuban jurisdiction, then Cuban law would apply, but it doesn't, at all.

As is the usual situation with the current SCOTUS, they've avoided making substantiative rulings in the matter, simply because they've been able to invoke certain technicalities to do so... Sooner or later, they'll be forced to rule, and the whole notion that a US military base isn't subject to the rules and regulations of the legal system or the UCMJ is patently absurd. Even a ship in the middle of the ocean flying the US flag is subject to the rule of law- our laws, our jurisdiction. Gitmo is no different.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: bamacre
After reading and hearing about what happened to Kutb and al-Zawahiri in Egypt, they probably could do worse things than what goes on in Guantanamo Bay. Kutb's torture ended with a heart attack after he was smothered in animal fat and locked in a small cell with a dog trained to attack humans. Kutb's torture in Egypt only made his grief with Egypt and western culture worse. And when he died, al-Zawahiri, took over Kutb's plans. I think a good question is, did these kinds of torture exist in Egypt before the US brought in it's wealth and influence?

Don't you read history? Gitmo is the most humane POW (or whatever) camp in the entire history of humanity, and all libs can do is whine about it.

They're not POWs, otherwise there wouldn't be any debate on whether or not they're covered by the Geneva Conventions. And that is complete nonsense in and of itself.

OK, do some real research. Go through the history of prison camps, compare them and tell me what you find. Put your canary ass where your alligator mouth is!

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Condor

OK, do some real research. Go through the history of prison camps, compare them and tell me what you find. Put your canary ass where your alligator mouth is!

Remove the insults and try and formulate a question. I said they're not POWs and that what you said is nonsense. And perhaps you shouldn't assume things. Is what is happening it Gitmo comparable to real POW camps? Hardly, but that doesn't make it right.

Perhaps you should try and make an argument that doesn't involve attacking the person or doing a blanket statement like "silly liberals?"

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Condor

OK, do some real research. Go through the history of prison camps, compare them and tell me what you find. Put your canary ass where your alligator mouth is!

Remove the insults and try and formulate a question. I said they're not POWs and that what you said is nonsense. And perhaps you shouldn't assume things. Is what is happening it Gitmo comparable to real POW camps? Hardly, but that doesn't make it right.

Perhaps you should try and make an argument that doesn't involve attacking the person or doing a blanket statement like "silly liberals?"

Well, go and seek some facts then. Research Batann and some of the past camps and find just one that was more humane than Gitmo. If they are not POWs, it is simple due to a narrow definition drafted in a document that they are not signatories of. They were at war with us and we took them prisoner! They are being treated better than any such have been treated in human history. If it ain't so, prove it!

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Rahvin-

"The Supreme Court has ruled more than once that the Constitution only applies to those individuals on US soil. Gitmo is on Cuban soil. Right or wrong, it's a fact."

That's not correct, Rahvin. The issue isn't about "soil", but rather about jurisdiction, even though the Bush Admin has been trying to avoid that concept with their rather disingenuous use of Guantanamo. If it wasn't under US jurisdiction, then the US military wouldn't be based there, regardless of the arrangements with Cuba. If Guantanamo were under Cuban jurisdiction, then Cuban law would apply, but it doesn't, at all.

As is the usual situation with the current SCOTUS, they've avoided making substantiative rulings in the matter, simply because they've been able to invoke certain technicalities to do so... Sooner or later, they'll be forced to rule, and the whole notion that a US military base isn't subject to the rules and regulations of the legal system or the UCMJ is patently absurd. Even a ship in the middle of the ocean flying the US flag is subject to the rule of law- our laws, our jurisdiction. Gitmo is no different.

A strict interpretation of the constitution would in fact limit protections of the constitution to CITIZENS, the court has only stretched those protections to those areas contained in or part of america. Gitmo is unique, the treaty is phrased such that the ground and base is Cuban, we do not own it, we lease it. Therefore, even though we have a base there it is NOT part of America, we simply occupy it's ground as long as we pay the lease.