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

[norompanlasolas]

personally, i dont think they are being mistreated (well, at least not any more than the standard imprisonment rules are for any prisoner anywhere). the sensory deprivation and all that seemed only temporary, and some here said they are given meals, medicine, religious comfort, which seems to be true acording to the IRC, a trustable institution.

on the other hand, i disagree on the trying of taliban fighters... what are they going to try them for??? fighting for their country? the alquaidans terrorists, well, maybe they are triable, but the taliban should be set free.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by norompanlasolas:
personally, i dont think they are being mistreated (well, at least not any more than the standard imprisonment rules are for any prisoner anywhere). the sensory deprivation and all that seemed only temporary, and some here said they are given meals, medicine, religious comfort, which seems to be true acording to the IRC, a trustable institution.

on the other hand, i disagree on the trying of taliban fighters... what are they going to try them for??? fighting for their country? the alquaidans terrorists, well, maybe they are triable, but the taliban should be set free.

---

You make a good point, but my impression was that those being brought to Camp X-Ray are the hard core Al-Queta fighters.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:


LOL, as usual Ronn, I guess we better agree to disagree on that one [img]smile.gif[/img]

---

You're right about this and so am I!

I'm not trying to be argumentative on this one, just pointing out that it's open to interpretation, so there really is no single right answer.

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


You make a good point, but my impression was that those being brought to Camp X-Ray are the hard core Al-Queta fighters.

---

Yes, the Taliban at Camp X are know Al-Queda members and potential terrorists. All Talibans that were not Al-Quedans are still in Afghanistan.

Ronn, I totally agree with you that the GC can be interpreted in many different ways - all of them probably just as true as the other. [img]smile.gif[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fable:


Get your facts straight. You first claimed that the Democrats controlled the Congress under Reagan. They didn't. The Senate went Republican under Reagan enough to override any objections to fiscally radical defense bills formulated in a House led by a coalition of Republicans and Conservative Southern Democrats. Don't fool yourself: Reagan had complete control over that Congress from the start. If you doubt that, check the Congressional Record. *The Budget from 1990 onwards was exactly the budget asked for by the White House.* And the deficit did not drop under Reagan's second term. Money allocated to Social Security was "foxed in" (as one noted econmic put it) to make the deficit look smaller: a sort of "throw it into the hopper as available revenue when we're counting money, then take it out again when we're looking at we can do."

The deficit (which, as I initially stated, was created by Reagan's defense budget requests, and catapulted us from a position as No #1 creditor nation to No #1 debtor nation) wasn't substantially decreased until Clinton came to office. His plan for doing so worked remarkably well, despite the vociferous objections of the Republican-controlled Congress. (One member of the House said that Clinton's plans to remove the deficit "made us into a socialist state," one of the most bizarre comments I ever recall seeing on C-SPAN.) I still think Clinton was possibly the best "Republican" president we've seen in a long time.

Check the constitution any bills pertaining to monies MUST originate in the House of Reps. Until 1994 the Dems controled Congress and we had growing deficits coincidence?.....Mmmmmmm you decide.

Wrong. As I wrote above, the Republicans made enormous gains in the House, and formed an alliance with Southern Conservative Democrats to vote in all the additional defense expenditures *that the White House asked for.* They didn't provide anything Reagan didn't want, first. In fact, George Bush, hearing Reagan's budget plans when they were running against one another in the primaries, referred quite well and disparagingly to them as "voodoo economics." Hmmmmmm....you decide.

And for the record Carter was the only Dem I'd ever even concider voting for, for president! He is an honest Man!

Yes, but my point was that I didn't vote against Reagan, so my opinions as expressed here aren't party biased. As it happens, I think Carter is an extremely moral man, but made a terrible president. It's not a job that calls for honesty or morality. Make of that what you will.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: fable ]

---

Fable you are just plain wrong about the defense budget causeing the deficits in the 80's there was only a 17% increase in defense spending which was far too little in real numbers to rack up trillion dollar deficits and it WAS the democrats that forced the incresed spending in nearly every area of the government. We needed the defense spending then just as we need it now to replace resources esed up in the last 8 years in a very wasteful campaign to be the worlds policeman. Defense is one of those nesecary evils that you must accept the cost of....it is never acceptable to the USA to be second best in this area.

[Barry the Sprout]

Could people please stop jumping on me when I post. It seems that whenever anyone posts something remotely humane towards the prisoners we get shouted down. This is not an argument over what the best way to torture the Taliban fighters to death is.

Sir Taliesin - I do not work via the internet very well. I have no links, but I did read it in The Independant, about the most credible of UK newspapers. For the most part it was pro war and has always been anti taliban. Sorry if it seems like I am just throwing up lies to confuse you all, against that challenge I have no defence other than to say its not true... I need a better lawyer I think...

Ronn - I did not choose the UN over the Red Cross, I was just saying that whilst the Red Cross proclaim there is no mistreatment the UN beleives differently. I was pointing out that this is not as cut and dried as some people on this thread were proclaiming it to be - there is a difference of opinion. And I know where I stand on that difference, not because I am pro Taliban or anti american, but because of the political emotion surrounding this situation. I think we all knew that if the captured fighters received normal treatment then I would be a small duck (animal picked at random). The reasons for that are understandable even if I still disagree with it.

And as for your "side order" idea... The whole point of the geneva convention is that you have to ignore any side issues. Sorry but that is one of the reasons it was set up.

And Garnet, we weren't saying that if humane treatment was given the muslims would simply stop being angry at americans. What I was trying to say at least was that if we treat them badly then it won't help the situation. Considering we are trying to pacify muslim nations so that we can take out more terrorist groups this is not the time to start playing an eye for an eye. That is simply my opinion based on current world feeling.

I am not the devil incarnate. When I started this thread I was hoping we could have a flame free discussion, can we pleas keep it that way. I won't get angry if you guys don't ok?

[Ronn_Bman]

I'm not angry Barry, and I'm not against the humane treatment of the prisoners.

I do think anyone who automatically assumes these prisoners are being mistreated, despite an ongoing physical inspection by the IRC, is seeing what they want/expect to see. Think about it. People who have seen pictures of the camp versus people who have actually been with the prisoners and are staying onsite to continually moniter conditions.

So is the UN really right and the IRC being coerced to lie or is that just easy to believe because it's what you expect? I don't ask that as a slam against you or a flame, but instead, as something I'd like you to really consider, because let's be honest, there is very little the US could do in the current situation that you would agree with [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
let's be honest, there is very little the US could do in the current situation that you would agree with [img]smile.gif[/img]

---

I always take great care to word my posts in such a way that they are not perceived as just a gainsay anti-american view point. Yes I am opposed to this war and I hold extreme left wing views, these sometimes take me into contrary positions to many Americans on this forum. I say it once more just so that everyone has heard it, I do not believe that makes me anti-american. I know what you are getting at Ronn, and there is a partial truth in it, in that I think the war should never have been started, but this opinion of mine is based on fact.

What I was saying is that if the prisoners are being treated correctly why does the UN not think they are? Lets put the burden of proof your side of the table shall we. I don't know why the UN would say such a thing if it were not true, do you? I just think we can't dismiss all of this as hot air. And yes, most of the actions of the American government I disagree with, but if I ever posted my true opinions on a wide variety of subjects I have this horrible feeling I would be completely swamped by flame filled posts or merely dismissed as a troll. So I'll just stay quite, a flame war is not something I need.

[Sir Taliesin]

Barry, I had no intention of flaming you. I was simple pointing out that the IRC has vastly more experience with this issue than the UN. They've been in the business much longer. I would tend to believe those that have been to an actual site as opposed to those that have only seen pictures.

I also believe that was what everyone else was pointing out just as well.

BTW, I don't get around the Internet all that well either.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
I always take great care to word my posts in such a way that they are not perceived as just a gainsay anti-american view point. Yes I am opposed to this war and I hold extreme left wing views, these sometimes take me into contrary positions to many Americans on this forum. I say it once more just so that everyone has heard it, I do not believe that makes me anti-american. I know what you are getting at Ronn, and there is a partial truth in it, in that I think the war should never have been started, but this opinion of mine is based on fact.

What I was saying is that if the prisoners are being treated correctly why does the UN not think they are? Lets put the burden of proof your side of the table shall we. I don't know why the UN would say such a thing if it were not true, do you? I just think we can't dismiss all of this as hot air. And yes, most of the actions of the American government I disagree with, but if I ever posted my true opinions on a wide variety of subjects I have this horrible feeling I would be completely swamped by flame filled posts or merely dismissed as a troll. So I'll just stay quite, a flame war is not something I need.

---

Barry, I don't know why the UN does, says, or thinks many things, but the hard and fast fact is that the UN has not inspected the facility and the IRC has.

How much proof and what kinds of proof would you actually accept? You aren't willing to accept the findings of a well respected, neutral, international aid organization, so I'd imagine proving anything to you about this would be pretty hard.

BTW, the burden of proof is on the accusor not the accused. We don't have to prove we're innocent (although we spend much time doing just that in vain), those who make allegations have the burden of proof.

Anti-American? Barry, I don't think you're anti-American in the sense that you hate Americans and all American things. Nor do I think you are anti-American in the sense that you support/condone terrorism, the Taliban, et al. I do think you've made a permanent judgement about what America is and what it represents.

That is not an insult, you are entitled to your beliefs. I enjoy debating with you. This is just to let you know where I'm coming from when I respond to your posts. I'm not claiming to know your mind, but I don't think I'll ever see you post anything about how America did something right...lol.

Flame Wars? Who needs those? Believe what you want and share what you want to here. No worries! I'll tell you when you're wrong... [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]