Top 10 things you did not know about Gitmo

[Perknose]

35 teeth cleanings! I guess those sucides were from plaque infested unfortunates lower down on the waiting list. :disgust:

 

[umbrella39]

:Q

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Hee hee - this sounds very much like someone saying "some of my best friends are black."

What you continue to ignore is the plain fact that US forces have murdered dozens of detainees through torture. The irony (okay, one of the ironies) is that the very reason Army Field Manual 34-52 doesn't allow torture (or, as the White House has euphemistically renamed it, "extended techniques") is that it has been shown consistently over the years that intel gathered through torture is unreliable.

To answer your question, I was an active-duty Air Force JAG for six years (I separated into the IRR about a year and a half ago). I joined after graduating law school and passing the CA bar. I am actually a partially-disabled veteran (only 10%, but hey . . .) and a veteran of a foreign war (I was deployed to a classified location in the Middle East on one day's notice a couple of weeks after 9/11). As it happens I have advanced training in the law of war, courtesy of the Army JAG School. One of my closest friends is an AFOSI agent who spent six months doing interrogation at Gitmo, and I have another good friend who's a prosecutor of detainees there.

Very nice Don, thank you for your service.

I do agree with that you say about intel being gathered through torture is unreliable. The question is when does rough treatment become torture? How much did we learn from Abu after placing him in that room?
Is placing someone inside a cold room and making them listen to loud music torture?

My understanding of the bill Bush wants is that it helps to define torture a little better, but I am not 100% sure, all I know is from what I have read. I have not found the bill on-line and read it myself.
Have you read it, or are you basing your ideas on what you have read too?

It is a very tough subject, we have to balance the fact that someone may have information that could save the lives of thousands of people, but at the same time we do not want to cross the line into torture. Personally I think we should error on the side of saving the lives of Americans, but we are each entitled to our opinion.

BTW: my step-dad was in the Air Force in Nam, as a dog handler. When my sister was in high school he had a German Shepard he trained to dislike teenage boys

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: ProfJohnthat could save the lives of thousands of people

So would putting Bush down to sleep. Point? And I like how you Googled "Excuses for not serving the military" and came up with scoliosis. Should have gone with Kyphoscoliosis, would have been more believable.

Hide under your bed if they scare you, stop advocating throwing US lives at a problem that only ends when our tyrant president is ousted.

Glad to see that you know me so well there umbrella, first you claim I am some banned person returned to get revenge or something, and now you claim I lie about having scoliosis, can you do anything better than name calling?

If I wanted to I could have avoided the question, or made the whole "why is it only people in the military can comment on certain topics" speech. But the truth is I have scoliosis, not to bad, most people don't even know it unless I point out that you can clearly see one of my shoulders sits lower than the other. Since you know so much, do you have any idea what degree of curvature will disallow you from serving?

 

[conjur]

Here's a nice bit about what Bush said back in Sept. on Gitmo:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html

It's important for Americans and others across the world to understand the kind of people held at Guantanamo. These aren't common criminals, or bystanders accidentally swept up on the battlefield -- we have in place a rigorous process to ensure those held at Guantanamo Bay belong at Guantanamo. Those held at Guantanamo include suspected bomb makers, terrorist trainers, recruiters and facilitators, and potential suicide bombers. They are in our custody so they cannot murder our people. One detainee held at Guantanamo told a questioner questioning him -- he said this: "I'll never forget your face. I will kill you, your brothers, your mother, and sisters."

Here's the truth about many of those released from Gitmo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061216/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/after_guantanamo

* Once the detainees arrived in other countries, 205 of the 245 were either freed without being charged or were cleared of charges related to their detention at Guantanamo. Forty either stand charged with crimes or continue to be detained.

* The Afghan government has freed every one of the more than 83 Afghans sent home. Lawmaker Sibghatullah Mujaddedi, the head of Afghanistan's reconciliation commission, said many were innocent and wound up at Guantanamo because of tribal or personal rivalries.

* At least 67 of 70 repatriated Pakistanis are free after spending a year in Adiala Jail. A senior Pakistani Interior Ministry official said investigators determined that most had been "sold" for bounties to U.S. forces by Afghan warlords who invented links between the men and al-Qaida.

* All 29 detainees who were repatriated to Britain, Spain, Germany, Russia, Australia, Turkey, Denmark, Bahrain and the Maldives were freed, some within hours after being sent home for "continued detention."

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Any one seem the movie Road to Gitmo?

Rented it last week.

W:QW

 

[Jaskalas]

... sorry for the double post.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: conjur
Wow, saying Gitmo is better than a Gulag is supposed to be a *good* thing?

Better than you saying it is one, or wishing it were one for the sake of ammunition.

The article depicts it as better treatment than any prison or elderly home in our country. Now, it probably isn?t comfortable when being interrogated but the fact is our perception is defining the reality here ? when in an honest world it?d be the reality defining our perception ? but our perception of Gitmo is ENTIRELY based on what others with agendas come out and said about it.

It?s a 5-star hotel, or it?s a Gulag. With such a split of reality in this country, we are heading for some very turbulent times. This is a divide words do not mend.

 

[Balt]

Fact No. 8, probably one of the most important, notes that, contrary to what you might have heard, the prisoners actually really want to be in Guantanamo. "The mother of a detainee stated: 'Of course they wanted to stay there. . . . They had human rights and good living standards there. They had dentists and good meals ? everything they wanted.' " Turns out, this quote from a March 2004 edition of the London Times was a Russian mother comparing Guantanamo with Russian jails.

Wow, if you actually believe that you are a hopeless dumbass.

 

[keird]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
do you have any idea what degree of curvature will disallow you from serving?

Try looking here for AR 40-501 Standards of Medical Fitness.

Edit: I got bored and looked it up.

c. Current deviation or curvature of spine (737) from normal alignment, structure, or function is disqualifying if:
(1) It prevents the individual from following a physically active vocation in civilian life.
(2) It interferes with the proper wearing of a uniform or military equipment.
(3) It is symptomatic.
(4) There is lumbar scoliosis greater than 20 degrees, thoracic scoliosis greater than 30 degrees, or kyphosis and
lordosis greater than 55 degrees when measured by the Cobb method.

 

[Craig234]

ProfJohn posted a very misleading article.

For the other side of the story, since the main point of his article was to take a shot at Amnesty International's gulag comment, here's an article from their site:

Link

n considering the basis for the US Government's scathing reaction, I conclude that the Amnesty International charges provoked the US leadership to such an extraordinary degree because those charges and that comparison are, in essence, true.

In my 26-year career as a Foreign Service Officer with the State Department (1975-2001), I served in several assignments that entailed reporting on human rights concerns. These included service at the US Embassy in Moscow and in Bangkok. In Moscow, I reported, in particular, on historic and ongoing Soviet human rights abuse in Soviet prisons. In Bangkok, I reported on human rights abuse in the Vietnamese labor-prison camp system, which the US Government, drawing on my reporting, characterized a "gulag". I also reported on human rights abuse by the Soviet-supported governments in Afghanistan and Laos...

As an American citizen and "cold warrior" who served his country as a soldier in Vietnam and as diplomat in Moscow, Vientiane and Kabul when these nations were part of the "Soviet bloc," I am dismayed by the broad parallels between conditions at Soviet bloc detention facilities I monitored and those in Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram.

The Amnesty International report, accounts by other credible human rights organizations and even US documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal treatment of detainees that is barbaric. Both in service of interrogations and punishment, US personnel systematically beat, "water-board" and humiliate detainees. Inflicting pain and threats to the health and lives of detainees, such as through attacks by dogs and use of extreme heat and cold, have been justified and recommended in official US Government policy memoranda.

The US Government has sought to prevent detainees from gaining access to the US justice system, even in some cases in which the detainees were US citizens, and has sought to disappear some detainees so as to evade monitoring by the International Committee of the Red Cross...

Having monitored and reported treatment of detainees in Soviet bloc facilities, it is painful and unacceptable to find close parallels to such treatment in the US detainee gulag comprising Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and other facilities that have not yet come to public attention.

The article posted earlier by a marine who talks about the way that the trust in the US to treat prisoners appropriately has been lost was good as well.

Look at our use of power - for our own selfish interest, making illegal aggressive war we have to make excuses for, then occupying for long-term military presence we deny as our agenda while building the largest embassy in the world and permanent military bases, torture and rendition of prisoners for which we have to make excuses even if they were guilty, while most are actually found to be innocent, and so on. It goes to show we have two types of Americans: principled, and thugs who would trash the nation's honor.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Balt

Fact No. 8, probably one of the most important, notes that, contrary to what you might have heard, the prisoners actually really want to be in Guantanamo. "The mother of a detainee stated: 'Of course they wanted to stay there. . . . They had human rights and good living standards there. They had dentists and good meals ? everything they wanted.' " Turns out, this quote from a March 2004 edition of the London Times was a Russian mother comparing Guantanamo with Russian jails.

Wow, if you actually believe that you are a hopeless dumbass.

QFT. I'm surprised it took 3 pages of posts before someone commented on this crap.

 

[Jhhnn]

I suppose it's half-assed decent, as prisons go. OTOH, we don't normally put people in prison for extended periods of time unless they've been convicted of a crime, because it's still prison... and because our legal heritage demands it. Well, until the Bush Admin came to power. Now, it's all about making a show of being "tough on Terror", whatever that means.

Guilty or not, gitmo detainees are merely part of a show, an illusion, a bit of fluffery for domestic political purposes. If a case could be made against any of the detainees in a normal court of law, that would have been done long ago. By continuing to hold them while not trying them openly, the Admin admits they have no case, just hot air and fearmongering.

But it keeps the Faithful duly impressed, willing to accept incrementally more repression in the world around them, and ultimately in their own lives, as well...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: keird

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
do you have any idea what degree of curvature will disallow you from serving?

Try looking here for AR 40-501 Standards of Medical Fitness.

Edit: I got bored and looked it up.

c. Current deviation or curvature of spine (737) from normal alignment, structure, or function is disqualifying if:
(1) It prevents the individual from following a physically active vocation in civilian life.
(2) It interferes with the proper wearing of a uniform or military equipment.
(3) It is symptomatic.
(4) There is lumbar scoliosis greater than 20 degrees, thoracic scoliosis greater than 30 degrees, or kyphosis and
lordosis greater than 55 degrees when measured by the Cobb method.

FYI: I had a 38 degree curve of my spine, but I have no clue which term is used to describe the curve I have. It is visible if you look at me though, one shoulder is a little bit higher than the other.

 

[ProfJohn]

What happens at Gitmo should be very interesting now that Democrats are in charge of congress and can take some action about it if they wanted.

I get the feeling that they may look at it and get a little more in-depth in reviewing our policies, but in the end nothing will change.

This is one of those places where you'd love to see a change, but reality shows that there really is not a better course of action. The people at Gitmo are prisoners of war, and therefore are not subject to trial.
Complain all you want, but Gitmo is a necessary evil.

 

[Jhhnn]

Geez, profjohn, at least get your jargon straight. They're not prisoners of war, they're "illegal combatants"- if they were pow's, then the Admin would have to charge them with something, or let them go... Well, unless we've entered that orwellian state of perpetual war.

Which may not be as far from the truth as Bushfans might think...

Stand 'em up in a court of law, make a case against them. Can't do it? Then why are they being detained? Window dressing for the WoT? Apparently so...

Gitmo is a necessary evil only in the sense that the Bushistas need it to convince people that they're "doing something" to "protect America" from "evildoers". It's a sham, a disgrace, an affront to the memory of people who fought and died to secure freedom from the same kind of tyranny you endorse.

 

[ProfJohn]

They don't have to charge them with anything if they are POWs, just keep them there till the war is over.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Last time I checked, guests were not being severely beaten at "five-star hotels."

nice to know the Pentagon takes care of its boys in uniform :disgust:

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Davan
If conditions at gitmo have prevented one attack on American soil, or saved one American life, then I fully condone the methods used.

How does treating prisoners violently and brutally prevent further attacks? if anything it gives people more moral justification to continue their attacks on the USA

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Davan
If conditions at gitmo have prevented one attack on American soil, or saved one American life, then I fully condone the methods used.

How does treating prisoners violently and brutally prevent further attacks? if anything it gives people more moral justification to continue their attacks on the USA

It gets information which leads to more arrests? That's one way that treating them in such a way will prevent further attacks. It's debatable whether it spawns more terrorists than we arrest via the information recieved during "torture." I don't believe there is torture at Gitmo, however, at least not anymore.

 

[Jhhnn]

" They don't have to charge them with anything if they are POWs, just keep them there till the war is over."

What "War" are you talking about? The invasion of Afghanistan was a smashing success, with a friendly govt in charge in Kabul for several years now- ask the Bush Admin, that's what they'll tell you...

Which means the "War" is over... unless you're talking about the non-War "War on Terror" which is a non-sequiter, an oxymoron, kinda like the War on drugs or the war on porn or even the war on Christmas...

War exists between two or more countries, or in the case of a civil war, between two or more armed factions in a country. Within the framework you've accepted as defining "War", dope smugglers and pornographers could be locked up in gitmo, indefinitely... It's a "War", right? and it'll never be over, either... so we'll never have to let 'em out... or even give them a day in court. Mere suspicion is grounds enough for a life behind bars.

Those aren't American values, and that's not what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to protect. Or have we become a nation of frightened children who need protection from the terrarist boogeyman, provided at the cost of our most sacred beliefs?

Your point is nonsense, anyway, since the Bush Admin has stated categorically that detainees are *not*, repeat *not* prisoners of war.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
They don't have to charge them with anything if they are POWs, just keep them there till the war is over.

Even Don Rumsfeld now says the 'War on Terror' is an inappropriate phrase he regrests, as it's not a war, you can not defeat a tactic and win the war. So, that'd be a war forever.

In other news, criminals will now be held in prison until the war on crime is over.

Just as soon as crime has been stopped, they'll be free.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Davan
If conditions at gitmo have prevented one attack on American soil, or saved one American life, then I fully condone the methods used.

How does treating prisoners violently and brutally prevent further attacks? if anything it gives people more moral justification to continue their attacks on the USA

It gets information which leads to more arrests? That's one way that treating them in such a way will prevent further attacks. It's debatable whether it spawns more terrorists than we arrest via the information recieved during "torture." I don't believe there is torture at Gitmo, however, at least not anymore.

You know absolutely nothing about interrogation, do you?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Donald Rumsfeld has really earned my trust over the last few years, I wish I could live there.

GWB et al should have an extended vacation there.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: conjur
Wow, saying Gitmo is better than a Gulag is supposed to be a *good* thing?

Better than you saying it is one, or wishing it were one for the sake of ammunition.

The article depicts it as better treatment than any prison or elderly home in our country. Now, it probably isn?t comfortable when being interrogated but the fact is our perception is defining the reality here ? when in an honest world it?d be the reality defining our perception ? but our perception of Gitmo is ENTIRELY based on what others with agendas come out and said about it.

It?s a 5-star hotel, or it?s a Gulag. With such a split of reality in this country, we are heading for some very turbulent times. This is a divide words do not mend.

Apparently you missed my post right above yours:


Here's the truth about many of those released from Gitmo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061216/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/after_guantanamo

* Once the detainees arrived in other countries, 205 of the 245 were either freed without being charged or were cleared of charges related to their detention at Guantanamo. Forty either stand charged with crimes or continue to be detained.

* The Afghan government has freed every one of the more than 83 Afghans sent home. Lawmaker Sibghatullah Mujaddedi, the head of Afghanistan's reconciliation commission, said many were innocent and wound up at Guantanamo because of tribal or personal rivalries.

* At least 67 of 70 repatriated Pakistanis are free after spending a year in Adiala Jail. A senior Pakistani Interior Ministry official said investigators determined that most had been "sold" for bounties to U.S. forces by Afghan warlords who invented links between the men and al-Qaida.

* All 29 detainees who were repatriated to Britain, Spain, Germany, Russia, Australia, Turkey, Denmark, Bahrain and the Maldives were freed, some within hours after being sent home for "continued detention."