Guantanamo bay Watch

Nefarious
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#21
Report 12 years ago
#21
(Original post by tctc)
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.
You obviously have very little idea of what torture entails, how evil you are is not really an issue in breaking someone. Cells are often tracked down by following the contacts.
0
reply
tctc
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 12 years ago
#22
I do.. i know how its evolved from the rack... to perhaps pouring some oil down a throat, but mostly its physcological torture "we have your family" yadda yadda. Cells? im familar with that term as either a battery or a prison cell.
0
reply
Nefarious
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 12 years ago
#23
(Original post by tctc)
I do.. i know how its evolved from the rack... to perhaps pouring some oil down a throat
Which is really going to help them talk. :rolleyes:

but mostly its physcological torture "we have your family" yadda yadda.
Psychological torture is indeed the main form of torture. Arguably deprivation is the most devastating form of torture although to be effective it requires skilled control.

Cells? im familar with that term as either a battery or a prison cell.
It can also refer to a small group of an illegal organisation with operational control over a limited scope of operations but unaware of the activities, membership and locations of other cells.
0
reply
tctc
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 12 years ago
#24
Well thats the iraqis form of torture so i hear...
sounds tasty.. the americans do like there oil
No deprivation is the least effective though..
You know a bit too much about theese organisations heirachy, are you a member
0
reply
halloweenjack
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report 12 years ago
#25
As a side note, if anyone is interested in hearing the US Armies PoV on interrogation and the techniques used at Bagram and Kandahar, then i would suggest this "The Interrogators: Task Force 500 and America's Secret War Against Al Qaeda" by Chris Mackey, Greg Miller.

Its a very good book about the problems associated with interrogation and the problems faced by the US Army in gaining information from unwilling suspects. I have learnt a lot from reading this book and highly recommend it.

"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)."
Who decides what counts as severe? For example, killing a cat in front of a cat lover would be severe, but would it have the same effect to a sadist who enjoyed killing cats?

Why?
Because one of the first things al-qaeda operatives are taught is how to manipulate the dozy idiots.

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.
I'll use an example that was highlighted in the book and has since been mentioned in the media. At gitmo they are holding a proportion of chinese muslims. They pose no direct threat to the US or her allies, however, they do have an agenda which could cause problems if it ever came to fruition. They want to create a war between china and the usa, so that in the aftermath they could declare independence for the region they hail from.

Obviously the USA isnt too bothered about a few crack pots like this, however they only have chinese passports. Thus to release them, means deporting them back to their own country. As the group they belong to is classed by China as terrorist, they would be immediatly incarcerated and it doesnt take much to wonder what punishment they would receive. As such they US cannot release them in such a way and no other country has offered to take them.
0
reply
Alasdair
Badges: 14
#26
Report 12 years ago
#26
(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.
Called Camp Delta these days isn't it?

Anyway, I agree with my distinguished co-institutionalist (errr...we go to the same Uni. I hope that's what that means).

It's not just wrong, but counter-productive. If they've commited a crime, try 'em for it. If they haven't, let them go, or treat them as POW's. Don't just leave them in Limbo...
reply
halloweenjack
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report 12 years ago
#27
Afaik, the Taliban members are being treated as PoW's, however those that fall under the Al-Qaeda designation are not and should not be classed as PoW's.
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#28
Report 12 years ago
#28
(Original post by halloweenjack)
Afaik, the Taliban members are being treated as PoW's, however those that fall under the Al-Qaeda designation are not and should not be classed as PoW's.
Most of them are treated as POWs, though they theoretically don't have to be, as the US (and all but 3 countries in the world) didn't recognize the Taliban to be the government of Afghanistan.
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#29
Report 12 years ago
#29
(Original post by halloweenjack)
Who decides what counts as severe? For example, killing a cat in front of a cat lover would be severe, but would it have the same effect to a sadist who enjoyed killing cats?
Well, since you've discounted Human Rights organisations, then it might as well be the torturers.
Because one of the first things al-qaeda operatives are taught is how to manipulate the dozy idiots.
So (1) All members of all Human Rights organisations are easily manipulated idiots and (2) Al-Qa'ida haven't manipulated anyone else with any degree of success. Not even the US government into fighting an incredibly hard-to-win war. Right.
I'll use an example that was highlighted in the book and has since been mentioned in the media. At gitmo they are holding a proportion of chinese muslims. They pose no direct threat to the US or her allies, however, they do have an agenda which could cause problems if it ever came to fruition. They want to create a war between china and the usa, so that in the aftermath they could declare independence for the region they hail from.

Obviously the USA isnt too bothered about a few crack pots like this, however they only have chinese passports. Thus to release them, means deporting them back to their own country. As the group they belong to is classed by China as terrorist, they would be immediatly incarcerated and it doesnt take much to wonder what punishment they would receive.
What would they receive, incidentally?
As such they US cannot release them in such a way and no other country has offered to take them.
If it cannot or will not find them guilty of a crime in a court of law then surely that constitutes an admission that, in its own terms, these people are no threat. If you're worried about them getting tortured when they go home - which the US and UK don't seem to be so bothered about regarding illegal immigrants, by the way - then just put them in protective custody or grant them citizenship.
0
reply
Wez
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#30
Report 12 years ago
#30
If a nation is going to try and spread 'peace and democracy', I don't think Guantanamo bay will do them any favours. If they can't follow their own moral code, what chance is there that they'll convert others to it?

I think the detainees should be charged and given a fair trial or released. Holding them without charge or trial is imo ridiculously immoral.
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! (329)
37.3%
No - but I will (71)
8.05%
No - I don't want to (63)
7.14%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (419)
47.51%

Watched Threads

View All