Guantanamo bay Watch

dellamorte
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
Hi!
I've been given an assigment to write about an important issue and I chose to write about the Guantanamo. So I thought I should ask some other people about their oppions about the camp Guantanamo prison camp and everything else about it. Feel free to recommend me links that can be usefull when you need information about the camp.
0
reply
Clairface
Badges: 0
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
'Camp X-Ray' is an embarrassment to my country and works directly against the principles we have tried to build both internally and throughout the world in the course of American history.

My country was founded in order to support the unalienable rights of man, directly in opposition to the sort of arbitrary authority claimed historically by monarchs and others who ruled through absolute power without check. Today that sort of authority is claimed by our present administration in the handling of Guantanamo Bay, arbitrary and unbalanced in direct conflict with our national culture.

The rights put forth in our Constitution were meant to express unalienable RIGHTS OF MAN, not simply rights of Americans or her allies. The humane treatment of enemy soldiers is a western tradition America is obliged to uphold. Our current administration's attempts to play games with the legal terms involved throughout the continual operation of this camp represents a disgrace not only to the world but to American history, and indeed makes a cruel mockery of our founders' intentions.

I tend to believe that when we suspend our traditions and our laws in the fight against terrorism we in fact begin to dismantle our society. We continue to dismantle and trash our own society through things like Camp X-Ray, and one day there will be nothing left to defend. Not because we will 'lose' a physical war, but because we have eroded our very own traditions to the point of rendering our own country unrecognizable to our eyes.

Wikipedia can give you details as per the factual history camp itself.
0
reply
deedee8
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 12 years ago
#3
(Original post by Clairface)
'Camp X-Ray' is an embarrassment to my country and works directly against the principles we have tried to build both internally and throughout the world in the course of American history.

My country was founded in order to support the unalienable rights of man, directly in opposition to the sort of arbitrary authority claimed historically by monarchs and others who ruled through absolute power without check. Today that sort of authority is claimed by our present administration in the handling of Guantanamo Bay, arbitrary and unbalanced in direct conflict with our national culture.

The rights put forth in our Constitution were meant to express unalienable RIGHTS OF MAN, not simply rights of Americans or her allies. The humane treatment of enemy soldiers is a western tradition America is obliged to uphold. Our current administration's attempts to play games with the legal terms involved throughout the continual operation of this camp represents a disgrace not only to the world but to American history, and indeed makes a cruel mockery of our founders' intentions.

I tend to believe that when we suspend our traditions and our laws in the fight against terrorism we in fact begin to dismantle our society. We continue to dismantle and trash our own society through things like Camp X-Ray, and one day there will be nothing left to defend. Not because we will 'lose' a physical war, but because we have eroded our very own traditions to the point of rendering our own country unrecognizable to our eyes.

Wikipedia can give you details as per the factual history camp itself.
I agree with what you say & much harm must have been done to the image of your country. Tony Blairs actions have also done harm to the image of the UK. I wonder whether you might like to comment on what follows?:-

Although actions/decisions of governments are superficially a result of Bush and Blair powerful and more consistent elements in the administrations must have a major influence on policy.
Was it not probable that actions such as 'Guantanemo' and their effects were predictable and were, in fact, predicted.
If that is the case, why?
If the 'West' (USA/UK+others) were predicting or contemplating a major offensive, which could turn into WW3, would action not be taken to prepare us for that contingency (soften us up)?

Should we worry or not?
0
reply
halloweenjack
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 12 years ago
#4
Guantanamo Bay serves a purpose.

In the early stages of the war it was used as a primary holding facility for any non afghan fighter that was captured in Afghanistan. Foreigners were always sent to Gitmo, however many Afghans were also sent if it had been assessed that they were either taliban or al-qaeda. This gave the interrogators at Gitmo the chance to work on them and gain any useful intelligence and to ascertain whether they posed a future threat to the USA.

Those that did not pose a threat were released and are continuing to be released. However, there are those who are too dangerous to release and those who cant be released as their country of origin would mean they would be tortured or executed because of their associations.
0
reply
Nummer1
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 12 years ago
#5
(Original post by Clairface)
'Camp X-Ray' is an embarrassment to my country and works directly against the principles we have tried to build both internally and throughout the world in the course of American history.

My country was founded in order to support the unalienable rights of man, directly in opposition to the sort of arbitrary authority claimed historically by monarchs and others who ruled through absolute power without check. Today that sort of authority is claimed by our present administration in the handling of Guantanamo Bay, arbitrary and unbalanced in direct conflict with our national culture.

The rights put forth in our Constitution were meant to express unalienable RIGHTS OF MAN, not simply rights of Americans or her allies. The humane treatment of enemy soldiers is a western tradition America is obliged to uphold. Our current administration's attempts to play games with the legal terms involved throughout the continual operation of this camp represents a disgrace not only to the world but to American history, and indeed makes a cruel mockery of our founders' intentions.

I tend to believe that when we suspend our traditions and our laws in the fight against terrorism we in fact begin to dismantle our society. We continue to dismantle and trash our own society through things like Camp X-Ray, and one day there will be nothing left to defend. Not because we will 'lose' a physical war, but because we have eroded our very own traditions to the point of rendering our own country unrecognizable to our eyes.

Wikipedia can give you details as per the factual history camp itself.
i have to agree without the current american policies on terrorism terrorists wouldnt have a reason to continue acts of terrorism
0
reply
Cocoa
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 12 years ago
#6
ask above question at cubamania.com you'll get answers from all sides of the issue...since its a site dedicated to cuba and guantanamo happens to be in aforementioned country...just make sure that as a part of your immediate request you input something along the lines of "please no superficial bickering" because some of them tend to go overboard sometimes good luck!
0
reply
IainM
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report 12 years ago
#7
(Original post by Clairface)
'Camp X-Ray' is an embarrassment to my country and works directly against the principles we have tried to build both internally and throughout the world in the course of American history.

My country was founded in order to support the unalienable rights of man, directly in opposition to the sort of arbitrary authority claimed historically by monarchs and others who ruled through absolute power without check. Today that sort of authority is claimed by our present administration in the handling of Guantanamo Bay, arbitrary and unbalanced in direct conflict with our national culture.

The rights put forth in our Constitution were meant to express unalienable RIGHTS OF MAN, not simply rights of Americans or her allies. The humane treatment of enemy soldiers is a western tradition America is obliged to uphold. Our current administration's attempts to play games with the legal terms involved throughout the continual operation of this camp represents a disgrace not only to the world but to American history, and indeed makes a cruel mockery of our founders' intentions.

I tend to believe that when we suspend our traditions and our laws in the fight against terrorism we in fact begin to dismantle our society. We continue to dismantle and trash our own society through things like Camp X-Ray, and one day there will be nothing left to defend. Not because we will 'lose' a physical war, but because we have eroded our very own traditions to the point of rendering our own country unrecognizable to our eyes.

Wikipedia can give you details as per the factual history camp itself.
I would 100% agree. I personally think it breaches the rules for keeping prisoners of war. I would not have expected such a torturous prison from America, more like from the previous regimes of the criminal's nations.
0
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 12 years ago
#8
While I agree with Clairface, there is the problem is charging guilty people.

What do you do if, in charging people, you give away your sources and moles inside the various terrorist groups? Sure, you'll get one prison sentence, but at the expense of possibly many more and years of integrating with the enemy.
0
reply
white_haired_wizard
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 12 years ago
#9
It don't know the minutae, is that the word? regarding Guantanemo.

I know that its existance courts much controversy, allegedly human rights abuses are commonplace....holding people, very very few are charged, so should they have been charged, what are the procedures for keeping someone there, are they proper etc? Much criticism the camp has courted over said issues.

Also, a channel 4 programme four months or so ago, regarding very little media allowed into the camp's perimeters...are they hiding something, poor treatment towards prisoners? So, all of these issues...there has been something of a consensus recently calling for the camp to be abolished...from Lavour and Tory parties *i think*, yet the American neo-cons aren't quite so keen to abolish it. Hmm....
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 12 years ago
#10
(Original post by IainM)
I would 100% agree. I personally think it breaches the rules for keeping prisoners of war. I would not have expected such a torturous prison from America, more like from the previous regimes of the criminal's nations.
The rules of war apply only to states fighting other states. Why do you suppose Hussein isn't in Guantanamo?

(Original post by white_haired_wizard)
Also, a channel 4 programme four months or so ago, regarding very little media allowed into the camp's perimeters...are they hiding something, poor treatment towards prisoners? So, all of these issues...there has been something of a consensus recently calling for the camp to be abolished...from Lavour and Tory parties *i think*, yet the American neo-cons aren't quite so keen to abolish it. Hmm....
Why the obsession with neoconservatives? The only even slightly neoconservative member left in the Bush administration is Rumsfeld. If you mean Bush, just say it. Start trying to use fancy names for him, which don't actually apply.
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#11
Report 12 years ago
#11
(Original post by halloweenjack)
Guantanamo Bay serves a purpose.
So? Torturing prisoners of war would serve a purpose, too.

In the early stages of the war it was used as a primary holding facility for any non afghan fighter that was captured in Afghanistan. Foreigners were always sent to Gitmo, however many Afghans were also sent if it had been assessed that they were either taliban or al-qaeda. This gave the interrogators at Gitmo the chance to work on them and gain any useful intelligence and to ascertain whether they posed a future threat to the USA.
"Work on". Yes, it's the nature of the "working on", namely the way several human rights organisations have condemned it as totally contrary to the most basic rights of man, that is the bone of contention.

Those that did not pose a threat were released and are continuing to be released. However, there are those who are too dangerous to release and those who cant be released as their country of origin would mean they would be tortured or executed because of their associations.
"Are continuing to be released"? Why not just release all the non-threats straight away? Hmm?
0
reply
ginger_drunk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 12 years ago
#12
the only way to beat a terrorism campain is to remove the reason for terrorists to fight (IRA,ETA). Guantanamo Bay gives reasons for the terrorists to fight making it harder for america to rebuild a positive image in the middle east and prolonging the campain
0
reply
deedee8
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 12 years ago
#13
(Original post by ginger_drunk)
the only way to beat a terrorism campain is to remove the reason for terrorists to fight (IRA,ETA). Guantanamo Bay gives reasons for the terrorists to fight making it harder for america to rebuild a positive image in the middle east and prolonging the campain
I think you're right, But:
Is it conceivable that the reason for Guantanamo Bay is to produce the result that it does?
0
reply
halloweenjack
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report 12 years ago
#14
So? Torturing prisoners of war would serve a purpose, too.
Depends on what you view as torture.

"Work on". Yes, it's the nature of the "working on", namely the way several human rights organisations have condemned it as totally contrary to the most basic rights of man, that is the bone of contention.
To be honest, most human rights groups are full of crap anyway. They also have very little credibility in my eyes.

"Are continuing to be released"? Why not just release all the non-threats straight away? Hmm?
And in your obviously expert opinion, when does one decide the person is not a threat ?

Guantanamo Bay gives reasons for the terrorists to fight making it harder for america to rebuild a positive image in the middle east and prolonging the campain
Considering the terrorist campaign began long before Gitmo was up and running proves your theory is flawed. Also, you are suggesting that you should just submit to terrorist demands, which is completely illogical and will do nothing but promote future terrorist attacks.
0
reply
tctc
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 12 years ago
#15
I see torture as an "alright" idea; if it gets you information that will help to prevent further saftey issuses.
I have no idea why tony blair wants to shut it down..
0
reply
Nefarious
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 12 years ago
#16
(Original post by tctc)
I see torture as an "alright" idea; if it gets you information that will help to prevent further saftey issuses.
I have no idea why tony blair wants to shut it down..

Torture is very good at getting confessions, it is less good at getting information.
0
reply
tctc
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 12 years ago
#17
ah... you dont use it for confessions, cause people will confess to make the pain to stop- not fair.
However if it was that man who got prosecuted for 9/11 i would of tortured him untill he died to retrieve information that could/would prevent a further dastardly attack
0
reply
Nefarious
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 12 years ago
#18
(Original post by tctc)
ah... you dont use it for confessions, cause people will confess to make the pain to stop- not fair.
However if it was that man who got prosecuted for 9/11 i would of tortured him untill he died to retrieve information that could/would prevent a further dastardly attack
And how much would he have known? There is a reason why terrorists operate in cells. Torture is a means of obtaining confessions (or in sick and twisted situations for revenge.) If a person is truly dedicated to a cause that merits torture to find information they are unlikely to break. If they are not dedicated then there probably isn’t the need for torture.
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#19
Report 12 years ago
#19
(Original post by halloweenjack)
Depends on what you view as torture.
Hmm, it's actually quite hard to define. I'd take as my starting point Wikipedia's opening definition: "Torture is any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, a deterrent, revenge, a punishment, or as a method for the extraction of information or confessions (i.e. "third-degree methods" of interrogation)."

To be honest, most human rights groups are full of crap anyway. They also have very little credibility in my eyes.
Why?

And in your obviously expert opinion, when does one decide the person is not a threat ?
When does one decide they are? That's not what I was getting at, anyway. I was referring to the implication that people were, once identified (somehow) as non-threats, then not being immediately released. Which seems, in my supposedly expert opinion, silly.
0
reply
tctc
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 12 years ago
#20
No if i had my way he would of broke, trust me. I can be very evil. Particually to inhumane beings. Torture was only really used for confessions in the middle ages. He would of known contacts, you track them down... repeat untill every last ******* is dead.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (441)
37.89%
No - but I will (88)
7.56%
No - I don't want to (80)
6.87%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (555)
47.68%

Watched Threads

View All