Treatment of prisoners (yep, those ones...)

[Lanesra]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grand-Ranger:

what part of there was NO WAR dont you people understand. Just alot of fighting involving us and another country. Im sure that if the Al Queda captured Americans... OH IM SORRY ... THEY DID... they locked them in a downstairs CELLAR with no food or oxygen and they barley escaped with their lives! At least WE were so good enough as to put them on the best damn peice of America on earth! GTMO! well not techincally a peice of america, but if its gotta MIckey Ds and some guys in uniform thats close enough!

and CAGES! who came up with that word? The BBC is always trying to dig up DIRT on things you'd LEAST expect to be BAD...


Why hasnt anyone reconized this post??

OH WAIT, I know, It because it has facts that cant be dennied.

---

Hasn't China got a Mc d's now and guys in uniform ? Also the BBC never came up with the word cages, that would be the English word for a room with no roof, constructed from chain fence or bars

[John D Harris]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fable:
Another debating trick. Does this mean that you will go back, now, to all your former posts, and in an extension of your own logic, put down numbers to back every statement of fact that you've made?
Until now no questions have been ask of me to back up any of my points, and yes it does mean I'll go back and give the facts to back up my points.


Let's try that, shall we? Using your own approach, above. We'll start with your quotes, and then I'll use your technique in reply:

Your comment: "These men had already started at least one up-rising in a "prisoner of war camp" (said tongue-in-cheeck)."

Mine: How many uprisings did they start?

I'll give the relevant quote and the link or reference it came from.

"Rioting prisoners captured by opposition fighters killed Mike Spann at a compound in Mazar-e-Sharif in northern Afghanistan, the agency said. Officials recovered his body from the prison after Northern Alliance rebels backed by U.S. airstrikes and special forces quelled an uprising by Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners. "
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40266,00.html

" Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said at a Thursday afternoon press conference that American military officials would do whatever they could to make sure the prisoners were taken to Cuba safely with "appropriate restraints."

"They are authorized to use whatever restraints are needed," he said. "They have reviewed the Mazar-i-Sharif uprising (and) reviewed Pakistan army problems as they tried to detain them."

He noted that other groups of Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners had killed their guards in at least two instances in the war. "
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42678,00.html

"Fleischer said President Bush is concerned that U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo could be harmed in prisoner uprisings. In November, Taliban and Al Qaeda members held near Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan, began a rebellion in which CIA operative Johnny "Mike" Spann, along with numerous Northern Alliance fighters, was killed."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,43888,00.html

How many prisoners were involved?

"The revolt began Sunday by about 300 non-Afghan Taliban inside the highly fortified compound near Mazar-e Sharif, occupied by Northern Alliance top Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, who was not in the compound at the time. The Taliban forces said they were surrendering, but smuggled weapons into the camp and launched a rebellion."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapc...olt/index.html

How long did the uprisings occur?

"During the uprising, which began November 25, hundreds of the Taliban prisoners and a CIA operative were killed.

Authorities ended the threat by flooding the garrison's cellar Friday night. More than 80 Taliban fighters emerged Saturday morning and surrendered to members of the Northern Alliance, according to the Red Cross. The Red Cross had suspended collecting bodies from the compound Thursday when armed Taliban began shooting at rescue workers, killing one and wounding two others."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapc...ban/index.html


But this is just silly high school debating tactics. Of course, the joke is (as I'm sure you realize) that it's too much work: if you had to go back and give figures for every statement you made, based on what you'd ever read or seen, you'd never have time to do anything else, because you would live in a library. So would I. Instead, I lived, voted, and worked during those years, and I kept a close watch on national politics for my own...amusement. If you really want to find out that my comments about Reagan and the defense department budget, etc, are accurate, I'll recommend some books, and *you* can look 'em up. Or, we both can, for all our remarks. You don't want to accept the veracity of my comments? I'm having trouble with yours, too.

Asking you to back up a point is a silly high school debate tactic? So, what do you propose? That we just spout anything we like and call it true? I too lived, voted, and worked during those years. I remember both MLK's and RFK's assaination, as well as the attempt on Reagan, both on Ford, and the one on Wallace. I remember a South Vietmanies (sp?) Col. Shooting a Viet Cong in the head durting the Tiet offensive, the Watts riot, Wallace's stand in the door.Jfk was still alive when I was born, I remember my Dad coming home from his first tour in S.E. Asia in '63. I can continue on this "pointless piss'n contest"

Come on. First you make major mistakes about what I've posted in the past, then you resort to something as unoriginal and uninspiring as the above.
[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: fable ]

I quoted you correctly that's the neat thing about computers they are accurate, I did not miss quote you, I copied and pasted your quotes. When I rebuted a point I believed you had made instead of clearifcation of your point, (which you indicate we are not that far off from each other) I get this I'm being mistreated/misread defense.

I expected better of you. Try again.
How was that phrased oh, yeh "then you resort to something as unoriginal and uninspiring as the above." Fable, I owe you an apology for I seem to have bestowed attributes that excede the evidence of the capablities.

Edited to try and get the [ b ] thingies right JDH
maybe the second time is the charm
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Tarox]

If the USA mistreats these guys (no matter what they deserve) then there is no excuse for complaints the next time Yank troops get captured in the Middle East and are tortured physically and mentally.

I always think how despicable those nations are for abusing NATO troops and civilians and how it would never happend in the west cos we are not barbaric.......yet the USA is a law unto itself as always, mistreating these terrorists is saying to me
"We don't care what you do to any troops or civilans of ours cos we do the same things to your guys"

We the West are meant to be so much better than east and yet here is America the Great Western SuperPower just proving they are no better and abusing these prisioners...
No-one is dumb enough to believe anything that is said about they are not mistreated etc etc

Sure people want them to suffer but don't we want our guys to be treated humanely as we would treat their guys? Apparently not according to the US but they will be first to shout next time NATO troops get beaten and abused when captured

Too many people are just saying stuff them, thinking with blind rage and not with their head...
Just remember how you all wanted to see them suffer when the next terriorist attack hits the US.......cos there will be one, you are naive to think people don't see this all around the world, and their will be plans for reprisals going on, this will surely not have helped.


Nothing will change and I'm sure some of those big-wigs in the White House will think back on how they treated these prisioners when USA gets hit again.....

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:

Now, back to the Charter. Al-Quedans would be considered POW under provision (1) as a volunteer corps fighting alongside the army.

---

I don't think so, to me this reads as those units being called up to be part of the army. Like reserves are militia being called to active service. I think the terrorists would only qualify as milita under "2" which subjects them to the a,b,c,d qualifiers.

The point made above by Sir Taliesin is a great one. POWs may not be required (read as forced) to answer more than the apecified questions, but their captors are not under an obligation not to ask. That would be incredibly stupid.

Personally, I don't think they qualify at all, but this just furthers my point that there are as many reasons for as against.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lanesra:


Hasn't China got a Mc d's now and guys in uniform ? Also the BBC never came up with the word cages, that would be the English word for a room with no roof, constructed from chain fence or bars

---

We asked for volunteers to let the prisoners "sleep over" with until we finish hooking up their air conditioning and cable, but no one replied.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarox:
If the USA mistreats these guys (no matter what they deserve) then there is no excuse for complaints the next time Yank troops get captured in the Middle East and are tortured physically and mentally.

---

We'll try not to complain too much the next time the bodies of American troops are drug through the streets, after all, how can we complain, the murderous terrorists don't even have air conditioning yet

Funny that people's logic works that way. If we don't treat them the way everyone expects, we shouldn't complain about our treatment anymore, but what about the way they have treated American's. That doesn't matter? That doesn't make you think no complaints are necessary from their side?

The point is that they have not been mistreated in Cuba. Camp X-Ray was inspected by the International Red Cross and now has resident IRC inspectors.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarox:

No-one is dumb enough to believe anything that is said about they are not mistreated etc etc

Nothing will change and I'm sure some of those big-wigs in the White House will think back on how they treated these prisioners when USA gets hit again.....

---

How are they being mistreated? You believe they are, but you don't say why. Just because you don't believe what is said? You can't believe America wouldn't mistreat prisoners?

I don't have to wait until the next terrorist attack to think back to September 11th and wonder about the treatment of these prisoners. I wonder why they aren't all in a cave with a bullet in the back of their heads. Walker and the Brits included.

It's amazing to me that anyone could think of September 11th and then complain about what, according the International Red Cross, is humane treatment of the prisoners in Camp X-Ray.

But of course, September 11th was an attack on America where mostly American civilians died and that's obviously ok. We certainly have no reason to fight back or take prisoners. Thanks for pointing that out, now I see the light.

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


I don't think so, to me this reads as those units being called up to be part of the army. Like reserves are militia being called to active service. I think the terrorists would only qualify as milita under "2" which subjects them to the a,b,c,d qualifiers.

The point made above by Sir Taliesin is a great one. POWs may not be required (read as forced) to answer more than the apecified questions, but their captors are not under an obligation not to ask. That would be incredibly stupid.

Personally, I don't think they qualify at all, but this just furthers my point that there are as many reasons for as against.

---

Ronn, this illustrates how badly the GC was written. It takes into account only one fighting style: the Occidental. Where people are dressed up in nice uniforms and where a rank structure exists. It doesn't even brushes the issue of other society and their style of war!

As a military officer, I would say that Al-Queda fighters caught fighting alonside the Talibans would be prisonners of war. They do meet the requirement of point 1. They are a volunteer resistance group fighting with the national military.

Now to all others who think that Al-Queda fighters are being mistreated at Camp X-ray, you are mistaking. They are pampered. There is no question about this. In actual fact, they are getting it much easier than all the other Talibans still in Afghanistan.

The problem is that the US, if they were to charge any of those individuals, they can only do so in an International Military Tribunal as they are POWs. That's not what they US want. They want them to be tried in the US.

For an International tribunal, you need to bring forth and demonstrate their Illegal actions in terms of war actions that they actually did. Being an Al-Queda member and being associated to Bin Ladden just doesn't cut it. Even having plans to destroy this building or bomb that place is not enough. You need the actual event to lay charges and hope to win.

That's why the American government doesn't want to acknowledge that they are POW. It really has nothing to do with the treatment issue but rather with a legal issue.

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
[QB]

Funny that people's logic works that way. If we don't treat them the way everyone expects, we shouldn't complain about our treatment anymore, but what about the way they have treated American's. That doesn't matter? That doesn't make you think no complaints are necessary from their side?

QB]

---

Ronn my friend, you're running in a Catch-22.

(Taken at large, putting the inclusive on everybody when clearly not every single individual is to blame)

They are treating Americans badly because American treated them badly. In return Americans treat them badly because they treated Americans badly.

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:



Ronn my friend, you're running in a Catch-22.

(Taken at large, putting the inclusive on everybody when clearly not every single individual is to blame)

They are treating Americans badly because American treated them badly. In return Americans treat them badly because they treated Americans badly.

---

My point exactly Ryanumar! We need to break that Catch 22 sometime and I think the sooner the better, for all concerned.

Just briefly I should point out that the UN beleives they are being mistreated, thats a good enough evaluation for me. I don't know why the Red Cross disagrees with this but it is interesting to see how some people have latched onto that. As I said, I go with the UN after having seen the photos, you can't just dismiss the whole thing as media outrage - there is substantial evidence behind it.