Guantanomo Bay

[liam88]

You make your point well and I accept it (it is only fair to admit this fact to you ;) ) but I don't think anyone concerned with drawing attention to human rights abuses can afford to be selective or snooty about the motives of others doing the same. This is where I stand on Michael Moore - I don't always agree with what he says or how he says it but the fact that he's making at all is something that I consider to be a good thing. For your part, you have the ear of these people that you accuse of having less worthy motives - why aren't you convincing them to campaign for Dayna Curry's release instead of wasting your energy throwing brickbats?

:ball: PP


Fair play-same to you; you make your point well and I accept it. Re. Dayna Crry-she's already out; I do however push for other campaigns I spend my time working on; against Total Oil's Investment in Burma (http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/total.php)being the most recent. I've got to say I was pretty dissapointed at the anti-war guys in our college-they go on anti-war, anti-Camp Delta protests but when I exaplianed to them about and invited them on a protest we organised for the International Day of Action Agaist Total (outisde the local Total station) not one of them turned up....(still made enough noise without them ;) and had a big sucess).

As a final point I was surfing and, purley by accident came across this (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=71179&comment_id=115717&results_offset=60) very interesting discussion on political parties becomming involved in portests (particularly in Ireland). You might fancy a read.

[Plastic Paddy]

Fair play-same to you; you make your point well and I accept it.

Very noble of you. Now back to the debate.


Re. Dayna Crry-she's already out

Then why did you make all that noise about her?


I've got to say I was pretty dissapointed at the anti-war guys in our college-they go on anti-war, anti-Camp Delta protests but when I exaplianed to them about and invited them on a protest we organised for the International Day of Action Agaist Total (outisde the local Total station) not one of them turned up....(still made enough noise without them and had a big sucess).

Of all the people I shouldn't have thought it necessary to say this to you; keep the faith. You'll meet the right people to make a noise with soon enough. Not everyone has your conviction or sense of purpose after all. And anyway, us old gits need people to take over the protest-marching on cold March Saturday afternoons when we'd rather be indoors. :o

:ball: PP

[liam88]

Very noble of you. Now back to the debate.

There I was thinking it was at it's conclusion ;)



Then why did you make all that noise about her?

The point was:

-Dayna Curry was imprisoned by the Taliban for being a Christian-although there was a campaign for her release it did not have a huge following/support

-Inmates at Camp Delta are imprisoned and there is huge support-the vast majority of those campaigning against Camp Delta (Again going on personal experience and taking this to it's logical conclusion) did not campaign for Dayna Curry's release

-Surely the case one person being (arguably) wrongly imprisoned, held without fair trial (although Dayna Curry had a trial it was a forgone conclusion), and being ptentially a victim of torture is the same as another (worth remembering Dayna Curry wasn't the only person imprisoned under the Taliban for her beliefs)

-So why are so many people campaiging for Muslim inmates in Camp Delta and who did not campaign for Dayna Curry or her fellow Christian inmates it whichever hell-held in Afghanistan she was locked in?

-My answer: Anti-camp Delta stance is left-wing and trendy, Free Dayna Curry stance was not




Of all the people I shouldn't have thought it necessary to say this to you; keep the faith. You'll meet the right people to make a noise with soon enough. Not everyone has your conviction or sense of purpose after all. And anyway, us old gits need people to take over the protest-marching on cold March Saturday afternoons when we'd rather be indoors.


:D Aye I'm keeping it alright! Nah it didn't matter that they didn't come-we had a good dedicated turnout and it was a great sucess (in several ways I could tell you about sometime ;) ) I was just surprised that out of the people who were preapred to go up to London to protest for human rights in Afghanistan/Iraq not one of them was prepared to take a short bus ride with us to protest for human rights in Burma.

Interesting scenario....say in 5 years time US troops got into Burma, topple the regime and are acussed of torturing members of the Tatmadaw and there was a huge outcry and protests from people who never raised a finger to help us campaign for human rights in Burma now, then I would be sickened.....I know that Burma and Taliban Afghanistan are certainly different situations but I'd guess that's how Dayna Curry and her supporters are probably feeling right now-if not a little bemused!

[Roverstillidie]

-So why are so many people campaiging for Muslim inmates in Camp Delta and who did not campaign for Dayna Curry or her fellow Christian inmates it whichever hell-held in Afghanistan she was locked in?

-My answer: Anti-camp Delta stance is left-wing and trendy, Free Dayna Curry stance was not



3 simple reasons
1: the us profess to be the 'home of the free' and have a rigidly fair legal system they have bypassed here.
2:we dont have the same cultural and historical link to the afghans that we have to the us.
and 3: our government didnt get caught helping the taliban in their sharp practices.

are you saying the moral equivalence of the taliban and us govt is the same?

and need i point out the left were rallying against the taliban (and saddam for that matter) while the us were still arming them, so this right sided argument is a nonsense. ditto burma. its the amnesty and swp types who are making all the noise on this case, not your the americans.

[liam88]

3 simple reasons
1: the us profess to be the 'home of the free' and have a rigidly fair legal system they have bypassed here.

So it's only wrong if they claim to be good people and if they admit their a totalitarian regime it's fair play? That's like saying China's human rights abuse are fien because they don't claim to be the nicest government int he world or that Ian Huntle's actions were fine because he didn't claim to treat kids well [I'm arguing against the logic you use here-obviously I'm not in anyway claiming that you agree with human rights abuses in China/Huntley's actions ]



2:we dont have the same cultural and historical link to the afghans that we have to the us.

Again-is this really a justified reason or is this 'white man complex' i.e. It's ok if Asian/African governments are doing it ubt not if a white government does. Similar to reason the West did more to stop genocide in Serbia than it did in Rwanda. It's time we in 'the West' grew out of the "they're black let them get on with it but I can't stand seeing white people slaughter each other" attitude-countries governements should be treated the same whether they are black, white, Asian etc. Nobody has that close historical ties with East Timor as a state simply because it has only existed as a state for a relativly small space of time-that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on what goes on there and condem, campaign if they ever violate human rights.



and 3: our government didnt get caught helping the taliban in their sharp practices.


The same Taliban that was put in power and armed by the West?




are you saying the moral equivalence of the taliban and us govt is the same?


No I'm saying that people should-when campaiging for human rights should treat human rights as human rights no matter who is commiting the abuses be it Shwe, Jianto, Saddam, Bush or the Tabliban



and need i point out the left were rallying against the taliban (and saddam for that matter) while the us were still arming them, so this right sided argument is a nonsense.

I wouldn't say I or my argument is rightwing, simply that the involvement of left wing politics in the anti-war, anti-Camp Delta movement is clouding what it should be all about and giving the alleged human rights abuses in camp Delta disproportionate amoutns of publicity leading to the neglect of "what are undoubtedly vital and worthy causes" (quoting PP there!)



ditto burma. its the amnesty and swp types who are making all the noise on this case, not your the americans.

Ok firstly Amnesty and SWP types? Since when have Amnesty had any link to the SWP. Many members of Amnesty are Christian and would not touch the SWP with a bargepole, others stay right out of oliticis and similarly would not touch the SWP with a bargepole. Conclusion-one is a non-religious, non-political human rights group, the other is a left-wing political party; how can you class them together?

Secondly in all my years of campaiging for Burma I have never once come across SWP sympathisers or activists. The nearest I've seen is supprot from UNISON and a lad who i subscribed to Red Pepper signed a postcard in college. I'll check with my relatives and other campaigners for you though.

Finally "your the Americans"?? Either you meant "your Americans"-which they are msot certainly not mine-I'm half Burmese half Irish, or you meant "you or the americans" which is even more wrong considering the amount of time I spend campaiging for Burma. They key point, I believe, however is the Americans involvement. The USA is one of only two countries to impose unilateral (and highly sucessful and enforced) sanction on Burma and is, along with Norway, the most outspoken critic of the regime. The USA along with Norway (and the Burmese governemnt in exile) has done more for Burmese democracy than any other government in the world.

To claim that the SWP has done more for Burma than the US government (particularly the Bush administration) is frankly absurd.


(It is also worth noting that the US Campaign for Burma is one of the most sucessful Burmese democracy movements in the world, as was the Free Burma Coalition before their leadership went anti-sanction against the wishes of the NLD)

[Roverstillidie]

ill concede the burma thing, you obviously have superior knowledge on the ins and outs. i meant activist groups like amnesty and swp types, who are far mre consistant on these issues than the US govt.

the phrase was meant to read 'the americans', or more accuratley their government.

as for the rest, you asked WHY people are more upset by western states abusing human rights than developing states (for want of a better expression) and i offered some brief explainations. hey might not read well, but the reality is we have more contact socially, culturally, economically and geographically with the US than dictatorships in the east and quite frankly expect better and are able to focus opposition easier. it is most certainly not white mans burden. again, when was the last dictatorship caught using shannon for renditions and to transport daisy cutters? our government have put us right in the firing line here and pwople need to stand up to a: them, b the american govt and c: the islamic world that we dont agree with this abuse of irish state property.

also i never said the irish 'left' are right, merely far more consistent in their criticisms than the american right, who as you said, armed the taliban when the left were still, opposed to their extremism. see the fawning over china by western business interests who now seem to have no problem with maosim in action.

[hamish]

More updates on this situation

Guantanamo war-crimes trials questioned

March 29, 2006

BY GINA HOLLAND - Chicago Sun Times

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court justices appeared troubled Tuesday by President Bush's plans to hold war-crimes trials for foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

And several seemed outraged by the government's claim that a new law had stripped the high court of authority to hear a case brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who once worked as a driver for Osama bin Laden.

Hamdan has spent nearly four years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo, and the Supreme Court has been asked to decide if he can be put on trial with fewer legal protections before a type of military tribunal last used in the World War II era.

The appeal could set the stage for a landmark ruling, and the courtroom atmosphere was tense.

'Blank check' on foreigners?



''The use of military commissions to try enemy combatants has been part and parcel of the war power for 200 years,'' Solicitor General Paul Clement told justices.

Two years ago the Supreme Court ruled that ''a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens.''

Hamdan's lawyer, Neal Katyal, told justices that the Bush administration acts like it has a ''blank check'' to do what it wants with foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay.

Hundreds of people suspected of ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban have been swept up by the U.S. military and secretly shipped to the prison since 2002.

At first, the Bush administration would not let detainees see lawyers or notify family where they were, and interrogators used aggressive strategies to get information.

Justice Stephen Breyer said that lawyers for Hamdan, who faces a single conspiracy count, argue there is no emergency to justify the special trial.

''If the president can do this, well then he can set up commissions to go to Toledo, and in Toledo pick up an alien and not have any trial at all except before that special commission,'' Breyer said.

Without Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative Bush nominated last year, the argument seemed lopsided against the government. Roberts supported the Bush administration as a lower court judge and had to withdraw from participating.

Kennedy may be key



Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito gave hints that they support the administration, both suggesting that the high court should delay a decision until after the trial is over.

The outcome of the case will likely turn on moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who questioned Clement several times about the legal safeguards for the trials. It was unclear whether Clement resolved Kennedy's concerns.

The Bush administration has tried the scuttle the case on grounds that a law passed late last year bars Guantanamo prisoners from filing petitions to fight their detentions. The administration claims this law retroactively voided hundreds of lawsuits.

Justice David H. Souter said it would be ''stupendously significant'' for Congress to retroactively close courts to constitutional challenges.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said ''it's an extraordinary act, I think, to withdraw jurisdiction from this court in a pending case.''

Hamdan, who was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001, is charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, murder and terrorism. He claims he worked as a driver for bin Laden only to eke out a living for his family.

Hamdan is among about 490 foreigners held as ''enemy combatants'' at Guantanamo Bay. AP

[hamish]

US Army Report accuses Rumsfeld

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12746.htm

Excerpt

the defence secretary of specifically prescribing "creative" techniques, but they said he regularly monitored the progress of the al-Kahtani interrogation by telephone, and they argued he had helped create the conditions that allowed abuse to take place.

Reuters report on this
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/d4e77d346fb867426f293bb1dc0dafa1.htm

[hamish]

More updates on the above post
Rumsfeld Linked to Guantanamo Torture
http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/131172/1/4536

Extracts
"A six-week regime of sleep deprivation, forced exercises, stress positions, white noise, and sexual humiliation amounts to acts that were specifically intended to cause severe physical pain and suffering and mental pain," said Joanne Mariner, HRW's director of terrorism and counter terrorism.
"That's the legal definition of torture," she added.

Human Rights Watch's Mariner says a special prosecutor is needed because Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was himself "deeply involved" in the policies leading to the abuse of prisoners, a conflict of interest that is likely to prevent a proper investigation
"The question at this point is not whether Rumsfeld should resign," said Joanne Mariner, "it's whether he should be indicted. A special prosecutor should look carefully at what abuses Rumsfeld either knew of or condoned."


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/19/content_4450142.htm
Everywhere General Miller goes - torture seems to be ramped up.:mad:

[hamish]

Article by a US army chaplain with the unfortunate first name of Kermit.

Inhuman behavior

A chaplain's view of torture

By Kermit D. Johnson

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12833.htm

Extract
Nor should we take comfort that we do not chop off heads or field suicide bombers. What we must face squarely is this: whenever we torture or mistreat prisoners, we are capitulating morally to the enemy—in fact, adopting the terrorist ethic that the end justifies the means. And let us not deceive ourselves: torture is a form of terrorism. Never mind the never-ending debate about the distinctions between "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" and "torture." The object of all such physical and mental torment is singularly clear: to terrify prisoners so they will yield information. Whenever this happens to prisoners in U.S. control, we are handing terrorists and insurgents a priceless ideological gift, known in wartime as aid and comfort to the enemy.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Guantanamo Bay should be returned to the Cubans.
Ceuta should be returned to Morocco.
Gibraltar should be returned to Spain.
Jersey, Alderney, Guernsey and Saark should be returned to the French.
Las Malvinas and South Georgia should be returned to the Penguins :D

[hamish]

More news on US torture - a few bad eggs is not gonna play anymore. This is disgusting.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12922.htm
Includes actual US Government documents
Documents Reveal US approved torture before Abu Ghraib scandal

By Raw Story
Extract
Cases include assaults, punching, kicking and beatings, mock executions, sexual assault of a female detainee, threatening to kill an Iraqi child to "send a message to other Iraqis," stripping detainees, beating them and shocking them with a blasting device, throwing rocks at handcuffed Iraqi children, choking detainees with knots of their scarves and interrogations at gunpoint.