So the 54 year old teacher is going home in 15 days

She was in a Third World country with a military dictatorship and Islamic fundies calling for her execution, but a trial was conducted and after 15 days for a non-crime she will go home.

Now everyone who reads a newspaper knows that prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo were "simply rounded up" are ignored and left to protest and commit passive suicide for how many YEARS now?

An al-Jazeera journalist captured in Afghanistan six years ago and sent to Guantanamo Bay is close to becoming the fifth detainee at the US naval base to take his own life, according to a medical report written by a team of British and American psychiatrists

Sami al-Haj, a Sudanese national, is 250 days into a hunger strike which he began in protest over his detention without charge or trial in January 2002. But British and American doctors, who have been given exclusive access to his interview notes, say there is very strong evidence that he has given up his fight for life, experiencing what doctors recognise as “passive suicide”, a condition suffered by female victims of Darfur.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2956428.ece

Anyone know or care whats happening to them?

Why isn't this plastered over the media and blogs?

Where is the pressure on the government to act?

Personally, and this will sound heartless...but nobody told him not to eat. Unless the food is physically being kept from him, this is his choice. I suppose it is like a patients choice to refuse treatment. Although sad that he thinks that starvation suicide is necessary for some reason or another, there is no moral obligation on my part to intervene.

Personally, and this will sound heartless...but nobody told him not to eat. Unless the food is physically being kept from him, this is his choice. I suppose it is like a patients choice to refuse treatment. Although sad that he thinks that starvation suicide is necessary for some reason or another, there is no moral obligation on my part to intervene.

I was talking about the illegal detainment but your response is very interesting.

is 250 days into a hunger strike which he began in protest over his detention without charge or trial in January 2002.

5 years of detention without cause in a place where torture is routine may be considered cause for protest, don't you think?

I was talking about the illegal detainment but your response is very interesting.



5 years of detention without cause in a place where torture is routine may be considered cause for protest, don't you think?

There is never ANY reason for someone to take their own life. And as far as torture being commonplace...ever heard this analogy? maybe I can communicate it correctly...

You could be the greatest bridge designer that ever existed. Built hundreds or even thousands of succesfull bridges...envy of thousands of engineers. But that 1 time you design a bridge that collapses, from that point on you are known as the "guy who designed the bridge that fell and killed people".

There is never ANY reason for someone to take their own life. And as far as torture being commonplace...ever heard this analogy? maybe I can communicate it correctly...

You could be the greatest bridge designer that ever existed. Built hundreds or even thousands of succesfull bridges...envy of thousands of engineers. But that 1 time you design a bridge that collapses, from that point on you are known as the "guy who designed the bridge that fell and killed people".

Ah so you're saying people randomly picked up and detained without cause are not worthy of attention. And a few tortured here and there is just collateral damage.

Ah so you're saying people randomly picked up and detained without cause are not worthy of attention. And a few tortured here and there is just collateral damage.

Im saying that maybe the situation is being over-exaggerated. I accept that sometimes people get lost in the system. Does this make them not worthy of attention? nah..but does it mean the whole system is ready for an overhaul? of course not...

Im saying that maybe the situation is being over-exaggerated. I accept that sometimes people get lost in the system. Does this make them not worthy of attention? nah..but does it mean the whole system is ready for an overhaul? of course not...

Ah so you support a system where people are randomly picked up and detained for 5-6 years without charge. And even 250 days of a hunger strike is not sufficient to allow the case to be brought to trial. Pictures of torture taken by guards are an exaggeration.

The Sudanese really should learn how the western justice system works.

Standard operating procedure (http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/chapter_1/index.html)

No one was picked randomly. They are all terror suspects. We have better things to do than "randomly" pick up innocent people. We don't randomly "torture" either. After having diseased human feces thrown on you, having some criminal slime threaten to saw your head off, and after enduring weeks of verbal/physical abuse, you just might spit back at some POS that spit at you too.

As far as the Mohammed bear, that was a very stupid thing to do. We all know the outcome of insulting Islam.

One evangelical guy has named a stuffed pig "Mohammed" in protest of the attack on the woman. I wonder what will happen to him? If anyone named a stuffed animal "Jesus", I can guarantee no/not many Christians would care.

Strange, the commander at Abu Ghraib disagrees.

Janis Karpinski, the commander of Abu Ghraib demoted for her lack of insight regarding the abuse, estimated later that 90% of detainees in the prison were innocent.[6]

As does the Defense department statistics

A new and statistical report, authored and released by Seton Hall Law Professor Mark Denbeaux and attorney Joshua Denbeaux, counsel to two of the detainees at Guantanamo, contains the first objective analysis of the background of those held at Guantanamo. The report is based entirely on data supplied by the Defense Department, and is intended to provide "a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation."

The report, available here (pdf (http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf)), finds that fewer than half of the 517 detainees whose histories were reviewed have been accused of hostile acts.

Ah so you support a system where people are randomly picked up and detained for 5-6 years without charge. And even 250 days of a hunger strike is not sufficient to allow the case to be brought to trial. Pictures of torture taken by guards are an exaggeration.

The Sudanese really should learn how the western justice system works.

Standard operating procedure (http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/chapter_1/index.html)

Ok, let me ask you..if you have the information. Of what percentage of the current detainee population in gitmo is or has been held for 5-6 years...tortured and/or starving themselves?

Ok, let me ask you..if you have the information. Of what percentage of the current detainee population in gitmo is or has been held for 5-6 years...tortured and/or starving themselves?

Thats irrelevant. They are illegally detained by the government of the USA.

Holding them without charge or trial is a crime.

So the 54 year old teacher is going home in 15 days

She was in a Third World country with a military dictatorship and Islamic fundies calling for her execution, but a trial was conducted and after 15 days for a non-crime she will go home.

Now everyone who reads a newspaper knows that prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo were "simply rounded up" are ignored and left to protest and commit passive suicide for how many YEARS now? The treatment of suspected terrorists and the treatment of someone suspected of giving a Teddy Bear the wrong name are hardly comparable situations.

The treatment of suspected terrorists and the treatment of someone suspected of giving a Teddy Bear the wrong name are hardly comparable situations.

Are they suspected terrorists? How do you know?

What would you say, if the Sudanese had kidnapped and held your son for 5 years without charge or trial?

What if this was you?

Al Laithi's detainee ID number is 287. He was born on October 28, 1956 in Shubrakass Egypt.[1]

Prior to the Invasion of Afghanistan Al Laithi was teaching English and Arabic at Kabul University.

During his stay at Camp Delta Al Laithi was rendered a paraplegic.[2] Al Laithi says shortly after his arrival in Cuba, during a beating administered in the prison hospital, a guard threw him on the floor, and stomped on his back. He says he has been in constant pain ever since.

Al Laithi says the beating crushed two of his vertebrae, confining him to a wheelchair. He says he believes that the prison authorities denied him medical care that would have prevented him being crippled.

Al Laithi is one of the small percentage of Guantanamo detainees who, during his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, was determined not to have been an "enemy combatant" after all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al_Laithi

Thats irrelevant. They are illegally detained by the government of the USA.

Holding them without charge or trial is a crime.

Not at the moment it isnt a crime. And their innocence will be determined at their trials or beforehand (in some cases). As someone stated before...we dont just randomly pick up people to detain...it just doesnt happen anymore. There is usually some reason. Considering that I dont know the circumstances as to why each and every person at gitmo was considered a terrorist suspect, I cant address any instance specifically.

Not at the moment it isnt a crime. And their innocence will be determined at their trials or beforehand (in some cases). As someone stated before...we dont just randomly pick up people to detain...it just doesnt happen anymore. There is usually some reason. Considering that I dont know the circumstances as to why each and every person at gitmo was considered a terrorist suspect, I cant address any instance specifically.

Please address the example I gave above, repeated here. It is a specific instance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al_Laithi

Al Laithi's detainee ID number is 287. He was born on October 28, 1956 in Shubrakass Egypt.[1]

Prior to the Invasion of Afghanistan Al Laithi was teaching English and Arabic at Kabul University.

During his stay at Camp Delta Al Laithi was rendered a paraplegic.[2] Al Laithi says shortly after his arrival in Cuba, during a beating administered in the prison hospital, a guard threw him on the floor, and stomped on his back. He says he has been in constant pain ever since.

Al Laithi says the beating crushed two of his vertebrae, confining him to a wheelchair. He says he believes that the prison authorities denied him medical care that would have prevented him being crippled.

Al Laithi is one of the small percentage of Guantanamo detainees who, during his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, was determined not to have been an "enemy combatant" after all.

Is this a crime?

Are they suspected terrorists? How do you know?I guess I don't. Not 100%. But that's what the facility was created for, isn't it? What's the point of rounding up random people and holding them? It's counter productive.

What would you say, if the Sudanese had kidnapped and held your son for 5 years without charge or trial?I'd say it's time to invade the Sudanese.

I guess I don't. Not 100%. But that's what the facility was created for, isn't it? What's the point of rounding up random people and holding them? It's counter productive.
I'd say it's time to invade the Sudanese.

So what is your opinion about the people being held there?

And why are Americans silent and laid back about this?

Would they be silent if it was Americans being held?

Please address the example I gave above, repeated here. It is a specific instance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al_Laithi



Is this a crime?

Ok, I have read about it and an address it. He was not randomly picked up and detained. There were reasons, as stated on the wiki page you gave me that he was sent to gitmo to confirm his innocence. As for his injury..who can say? Its his word and the soldiers at gitmo's word. Either could be right and without evidence to the contrary, I would have to accept those at gitmo's word. I do know that lawsuits abusers arent confined to only the US. Everyone wants to be in the US....everyone wants to easy money that CAN come from living here compared to their home countries, and Im sure the news about how easy it is to get money from using our justice system is not only confined to our borders.

Ok, I have read about it and an address it. He was not randomly picked up and detained. There were reasons, as stated on the wiki page you gave me that he was sent to gitmo to confirm his innocence. As for his injury..who can say? Its his word and the soldiers at gitmo's word. Either could be right and without evidence to the contrary, I would have to accept those at gitmo's word. I do know that lawsuits abusers arent confined to only the US. Everyone wants to be in the US....everyone wants to easy money that CAN come from living here compared to their home countries, and Im sure the news about how easy it is to get money from using our justice system is not only confined to our borders.

Considering he was a lecturer in a university, was innocent, was detained and has been found innocent, who is responsible? And you think paraplegia is a "way to get easy money"? Are you completely nuts?

And for numbers upto 2005:

The USA has detained approximately 70,000 people outside United States sovereign territory since 11 September 2001. More than 10,000 are believed to remain in direct US custody, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and undisclosed locations. An unknown number of those, who were in the direct custody of the USA but transferred to the custody of other governments, are believed to remain in the custody of those governments (including Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

Still others are believed to be held without charge or trial in other countries at the behest of the USA or with its knowledge and access. These countries include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen. They are believed to number in the hundreds, possibly thousands.

To date, no-one held outside the sovereign territory of the USA has been tried or convicted of any criminal offence. Four people have been charged and are awaiting trial by military commission in Guantánamo Bay.

According to official figures -- compiled by the Associated Press news agency based on information received from the US military, navy, CIA and Justice Department -- more than 100 people have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least 27 of the deaths were the result of suspected or confirmed homicides, according to the US Army in March 2005 (United States Army Criminal Investigation Command press release, 25 March 2005).

http://news.amnesty.org/pages/usa-faq-news-eng

So what is your opinion about the people being held there? How can I know? I've heard some things, like the story you posted, that sound bad. Are they true? Are they isolated incidents? Unless I had access to all the files of the detainee's, how can I say they're being held unjustly?

We're at war. POW's are held until the cessation of hostilities, without a trial. And these guys are worse than POW's. They're "unlawful combatants"
And why are Americans silent and laid back about this?Because we're at war and are wllling to give the military the benefit of the doubt during wartime.
Would they be silent if it was Americans being held?
Of course not.

Who is responsible for what? Detaining him? You are saying that he did nothing wrong, and as for terrorist related activities..he didnt. He did however commit acts which gave way to suspicion that he may have ties to terrorism. Those proved to be unjustified. Im sure if he cries enough he will get some sort of monetary compensation for his trouble whereas if al-qaeda detained a US citizen, the only compensation they get is their head cut off and a tape of it sent to al-jazeera. And dont get me started with Al-Jazeera...

Their headquarters should be nuked...that's all I will say.

How can I know? I've heard some things, like the story you posted, that sound bad. Are they true? Are they isolated incidents? Unless I had access to all the files of the detainee's, how can I say they're being held unjustly?

We're at war. POW's are held until the cessation of hostilities, without a trial. And these guys are worse than POW's. They're "unlawful combatants"
Because we're at war and are wllling to give the military the benefit of the doubt during wartime.
Of course not.

And being "at war" with an idea gives you the right to detain people and do what you like with them, I suppose.

And you think the ME is full of barbarians.:rolleyes:

Who is responsible for what? Detaining him? You are saying that he did nothing wrong, and as for terrorist related activities..he didnt. He did however commit acts which gave way to suspicion that he may have ties to terrorism. Those proved to be unjustified. Im sure if he cries enough he will get some sort of monetary compensation for his trouble whereas if al-qaeda detained a US citizen, the only compensation they get is their head cut off and a tape of it sent to al-jazeera. And dont get me started with Al-Jazeera...

Their headquarters should be nuked...that's all I will say.

And yet the US is the one illegally holding people.

And whining about injustice.

Pretentious and hypocritical barbarians.

And yet the US is the one illegally holding people.

And whining about injustice.

Barbarians.

And yet you say nothing about the continued and increasing atrocities commited by those terrorist groups we are trying to stop? :confused:

You sir...have your priorities mixed up I think.

And yet you say nothing about the continued and increasing atrocities commited by those terrorist groups we are trying to stop? :confused:

You sir...have your priorities mixed up I think.

Maybe one day you will look under the bed and discover the monsters were all yours.

And being "at war" with an idea gives you the right to detain people and do what you like with them, I suppose.

And you think the ME is full of barbarians.:rolleyes:
It may be called a war on "terror", which is a pretty stupid name. But it's really a war on Islamic extremism.

Regardless, we have troops in Iraq and Afganistan. Are they there fighting an idea?

And yet the US is the one illegally holding people.

And whining about injustice.

Pretentious and hypocritical barbarians.
Says the women from the nation that needed to pass a special law a few years ago to make it clear that it's not right to drive people from their homes, steal their property, make them eat shit, and strip them naked and parade them through the streets.

Says the women from the nation that needed to pass a special law a few years ago to make it clear that it's not right to drive people from their homes, steal their property, make them eat shit, and strip them naked and parade them through the streets.

We should learn from you, no doubt.

Look Ma! I did this!

http://ch.indymedia.org/images/2004/05/22916.jpg

It may be called a war on "terror", which is a pretty stupid name. But it's really a war on Islamic extremism.

Regardless, we have troops in Iraq and Afganistan. Are they there fighting an idea?

Do they know why they are there?

I certainly do not.

The treatment of suspected terrorists and the treatment of someone suspected of giving a Teddy Bear the wrong name are hardly comparable situations.

This case has brought one thing to light. Sudan is a country many would consider to be behind and even primitive at times. We consider their legal system to be archaic and backwards. However they tried the teacher and sentenced her within days, while the US has been hanging on to the detainees without charging them, without trials or right to legal recourse. In that, they are not comparable at all. In that, Sudan is a lot more advanced than the US has been towards its detainees.

Do they know why they are there?

I certainly do not.

We are fairly priviledged in this country..we really are. Success up to an extent is really dependant on how motivated we are to succeed. So with that being said...do you believe that under-developed or politically immature countries (ie, military or religiously controlled) should be allowed the same opportunity for success that we have? or do you believe we, as a country, should worry more about ourselves and leave them to their own devices...whether they succeed or fail?

this has nothing to do with the thread really..but I am interested in your response to this.

We are fairly priviledged in this country..we really are. Success up to an extent is really dependant on how motivated we are to succeed. So with that being said...do you believe that under-developed or politically immature countries (ie, military or religiously controlled) should be allowed the same opportunity for success that we have? or do you believe we, as a country, should worry more about ourselves and leave them to their own devices...whether they succeed or fail?

this has nothing to do with the thread really..but I am interested in your response to this.


I think you should be allowed to kill/torture/starve anyone you want so as to ensure you continue to live a privileged life.

This case has brought one thing to light. Sudan is a country many would consider to be behind and even primitive at times. We consider their legal system to be archaic and backwards. However they tried the teacher and sentenced her within days, while the US has been hanging on to the detainees without charging them, without trials or right to legal recourse. In that, they are not comparable at all. In that, Sudan is a lot more advanced than the US has been towards its detainees.

I am sure it didnt take anymore than a day during the salem witch trials to see if the alledged witch burned at the stake so as to be considered innocent or not. Does this make them anymore advanced than we are today?

I think you should be allowed to kill/torture/starve anyone you want so as to ensure you continue to live a privileged life.

This wasnt the question. :shrug:

Did you not understand why I asked that and I should rephrase or ?

This wasnt the question. :shrug:

Did you not understand why I asked that and I should rephrase or ?

It does not matter how you ask it. The answer is the one I have given.

I would say it makes us just as savage as they were back then. Or do you think throwing a person into a body of water and seeing if they floated or sunk is a good way to determine guilt or innocence? Do you think we would judge them better, with hindsight, if they held the so called 'witches' for 5+ years without charge or trial? I hate to think how future generations will judge us and the US in how it dealt with its detainees and how we, the rest of the West, sat back and did nothing. Will we be held just as unreasonable and just as rabid as we judge those who committed the genocide against those they deemed to be 'witches'?

At least they, even in their savagery, charged their hapless victims. The US has not even seen fit to do that.

It does not matter how you ask it. The answer is the one I have given.

Then I take that as you didnt understand the question because the response isnt even in the realm of the subject of it.

I will simplify it a little bit.

Some people believe that we shouldnt be a world police..that we should never interfere (as they call it) with the affairs of other countries to the point of we should even pull out of every country that we currently have troops. Do you hold to these same beliefs?

Then I take that as you didnt understand the question because the response isnt even in the realm of the subject of it.

I will simplify it a little bit.

Some people believe that we shouldnt be a world police..that we should never interfere (as they call it) with the affairs of other countries to the point of we should even pull out of every country that we currently have troops. Do you hold to these same beliefs?

Depends on what you consider policing.

This?

http://reidreport.com/images/iraqabuse4.jpg

Or this?

http://reidreport.com/images/iraqabuse7.jpg

Or this?

http://reidreport.com/images/iraqabuse10.jpg

I would say it makes us just as savage as they were back then. Or do you think throwing a person into a body of water and seeing if they floated or sunk is a good way to determine guilt or innocence? Do you think we would judge them better, with hindsight, if they held the so called 'witches' for 5+ years without charge or trial? I hate to think how future generations will judge us and the US in how it dealt with its detainees and how we, the rest of the West, sat back and did nothing. Will we be held just as unreasonable and just as rabid as we judge those who committed the genocide against those they deemed to be 'witches'?

At least they, even in their savagery, charged their hapless victims. The US has not even seen fit to do that.

You do know that it is not the conventional justice system as we know it during wartime right? Different rules apply...

You do know that it is not the conventional justice system as we know it during wartime right? Different rules apply...

So you support Nazi behaviour in concentration camps then?

Depends on what you consider policing.

This?



I do not know any of them or the conditions of when, why and how those images were taken. Nor do I know if any of the soldiers have been brought up on charges due to any action taken in any of those pictures so I cannot comment on them in respect outside of saying if those were infact malicious or negligent acts..then they are wrong. On the same note, I can not say if those acts are commonplace or if they are isolated incidents....and niether can you. :shrug:

So you support Nazi behaviour in concentration camps then?

Yes, of course. Lets start marching people into ovens and gas chambers immediately and lets not stop till we kill 6 million or so. :bugeye:

I do not know any of them or the conditions of when, why and how those images were taken. Nor do I know if any of the soldiers have been brought up on charges due to any action taken in any of those pictures so I cannot comment on them in respect outside of saying if those were infact malicious or negligent acts..then they are wrong. On the same note, I can not say if those acts are commonplace or if they are isolated incidents....and niether can you. :shrug:

Because no one knows.

What we do know however is that some 70,000 people are not allowed to tell their story.

Yes, of course. Lets start marching people into ovens and gas chambers immediately. :bugeye:

Ah, well, now it makes sense. Obviously if you think any atrocity is alright during war, a few people becoming paraplegic, eating feces or dying during interrogation is small change. Even if they have never been formally charged or brought to trial.

Because no one knows.

What we do know however is that some 70,000 people are not allowed to tell their story.

What do you mean 70k? Didnt you just post an article which stated we only have about 10k left? What do you propose we did to the other 60,000 so as to make them not come forward and tell their "story" of being held at gitmo?

Ah, well, now it makes sense. Obviously if you think any atrocity is alright during war, a few people becoming paraplegic, eating feces or dying during interrogation is small change. Even if they have never been formally charged or brought to trial.

You couldnt tell that I was trying to show you how silly your comparison of gitmo and the genocide of about 6 million jews were?

What do you mean 70k? Didnt you just post an article which stated we only have about 10k left? What do you propose we did to the other 60,000 so as to make them not come forward and tell their "story" of being held at gitmo?

I suggest you go back and read everything.

You couldnt tell that I was trying to show you how silly your comparison of gitmo and the genocide of about 6 million jews were?

A million have died in Iraq, gawd knows how many in Afghanistan. 70,000 illegally kept in US detention centers and abroad.

How many does a genocide make?

A million have died in Iraq, gawd knows how many in Afghanistan. 70,000 illegally kept in US detention centers and abroad.

How many does a genocide make?

Now you are going far outside the realm of reality. You cannot in your right mind think that our goal in iraq is genocide. Your arguments are ignorant, immature and uneducated and I refuse to debate them with you anymore until you grow up a bit.

peace.

Now you are going far outside the realm of reality. You cannot in your right mind think that our goal in iraq is genocide. Your arguments are ignorant, immature and uneducated and I refuse to debate them with you anymore until you grow up a bit.

peace.

Yeah, you keep on swallowing. Open wide, buster. And give thanks that you have the freedom to torture at will.

And a million dead people don't count because you are so f*cking privileged.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679

Now you are going far outside the realm of reality. You cannot in your right mind think that our goal in iraq is genocide. Your arguments are ignorant, immature and uneducated and I refuse to debate them with you anymore until you grow up a bit.

peace.

This is not a good way of responding to someone who has been providing valid sources.

This is not a good way of responding to someone who has been providing valid sources.

A valid source for what? That we are commiting genocide? That Gitmo is even in ANY way comparable to the concentration camps? I was more than willing to continue the debate until then....

A valid source for what? That we are commiting genocide? That Gitmo is even in ANY way comparable to the concentration camps? I was more than willing to continue the debate until then....

Genocide? You said her arguments are "immature, uneducated, ignorant". That is what I was responding to, and I don't think she argued that it was a genocide, she said,

A million have died in Iraq, gawd knows how many in Afghanistan. 70,000 illegally kept in US detention centers and abroad.

How many does a genocide make?

Basically bringing attention to how severe of a situation it is. The term genocide is not important.

Technically I do not think it is a genocide as a genocide seems to be defined mostly on intention to eliminate a specific group, rather than numbers of a group killed. Because technically we are probably just treating them as inhuman, valueless, rather than directly trying eliminate the people.

Here is a site that I think exaggerates the numbers but the liberals like it so I will post it for your convenience.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

That site has flawed counting, and does not count indirect deaths. People who die as a result of a hospital being unavailable rather than dying directly from the bomb that hit the hospital are not counted in that site.

Here is a quote from the article on page I was talking about only 10k of the 70k remaining with us.

"More than 10,000 are believed to remain in direct US custody"

So what is keeping the other 60k from telling their stories? NOTHING.

That site has flawed counting, and does not count indirect deaths. People who die as a result of a hospital being unavailable rather than dying directly from the bomb that hit the hospital are not counted in that site.

So are you saying their margin of error is +- 900k?

Well it was a few years ago that the lancet study said it was over 650,000.

Yes, their website is way off, and has been for a long time. I think Bush used it as a reference once.

Here is a site that I think exaggerates the numbers but the liberals like it so I will post it for your convenience.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Many polls have shown that death rates are undercounted from 70-90%. We don;t do body counts anyway.

Here is a quote from the article on page I was talking about only 10k of the 70k remaining with us.

"More than 10,000 are believed to remain in direct US custody"

So what is keeping the other 60k from telling their stories? NOTHING.

Except being in indirect custody. Duh!:rolleyes:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/

I think your source may have done a low estimate on those, it didn't mention Uzbekistan.

edit: regarding the indirectly held detainees.

I think your source may have done a low estimate on those, it didn't mention Uzbekistan.

edit: regarding the indirectly held detainees.

So now we are responsible for detainees held by their own countries?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/

The mainstream media are continuing to use figures provided by the website Iraq Body Count (IBC) to sell the public a number for total post-invasion deaths of Iraqis that is perhaps 5-10% of the true death toll.

As we recently reported, only a handful of media outlets covered a new ORB poll revealing that 1.2 million Iraqis had been murdered since the 2003 invasion.

http://www.countercurrents.org/lens051007.htm

So now we are responsible for detainees held by their own countries?

Who is responsible for detainees sent by the US to other locations?

So now we are responsible for detainees held by their own countries?

They are being paid by us to hold them. We are getting them to do it to circumvent responsibility for the legality, among other reasons.

The IBC only records violent deaths that get officially reported.

A large portion of the deaths are not violent. The lancet study looks at the total increase of death rate due to all factors that have changed since Iraq rather than just direct combat deaths.

And I believe it has been known for sometime that a large portion of deaths in Iraq do not actually get officially reported.

The IBC only records violent deaths that get officially reported.

A large portion of the deaths are not violent. The lancet study looks at the total increase of death rate due to all factors that have changed since Iraq rather than just direct combat deaths.

And I believe it has been known for sometime that a large portion of deaths in Iraq do not actually get officially reported.

And yet you accept it as 1.2 million (according to them) murders. shame.

The IBC only records violent deaths that get officially reported.

A large portion of the deaths are not violent. The lancet study looks at the total increase of death rate due to all factors that have changed since Iraq rather than just direct combat deaths.

And I believe it has been known for sometime that a large portion of deaths in Iraq do not actually get officially reported.

Another factor is that most Iraqis bury their own dead. so when we have 40,000 dead but 500,000 widows, it is not difficult to see the extent of undercounting

City officials in the Iraqi city of Najaf were recently quoted on Middle East Online stating that 40,000 unidentified bodies have been buried in that city since the start of the conflict. When speaking to the Rotarians in a speech covered on C-SPAN on September 5th, H.E. Samir Sumaida’ie, the Iraqi Ambassador to the US, stated that there were 500,000 new widows in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton Commission similarly found that the Pentagon under-counted violent incidents by a factor of 10.

And yet you accept it as 1.2 million (according to them) murders. shame.I'd reply but I don't know what your reasoning is.

You do know that it is not the conventional justice system as we know it during wartime right? Different rules apply...

And you do know that you are not even following the justice system at all. Hence why the detainees in Gitmo are kept off American soil. You are not even following the rules under the Geneva Convention, which dictates the rules of keeping POW's. But the US has decided to be a bit sneaky in that regard, by not recognising them as POW's. Hence, they have absolutely no status whatsoever. Tell me, where exactly does that apply in the rules of conflict?

I wonder what the reaction of the US would have been if their soldiers were captured in combat and then held for 5 years without charge and without any rights at all.:rolleyes: But then, that would not be acceptable, now would it? After all, the US is, well, the US. And 'they' are 'they'.. As sandy said "POS", and thus, do not deserve any rights. You said it yourself. You are lucky to be so privileged. Shame the same does not apply to anyone you decide to detain without charge, trial or right to counsel, whether guilty or innocent.

Didnt you just post an article which stated we only have about 10k left?
"Only 10k left"? Is that meant to be some kind of joke?

You cannot in your right mind think that our goal in iraq is genocide.
Your goal may not have been... well not directly anyway. I'll give you a hint... sanctions..

So now we are responsible for detainees held by their own countries?
You are responsible when you force them to sign an agreement to never disclose any details of their stay in Gitmo, and any breach of said agreement could result in their being further incarcerated or sued. Get it now?

They are being paid by us to hold them. We are getting them to do it to circumvent responsibility for the legality, among other reasons.

Another quote from that first article.

"An unknown number of those, who were in the direct custody of the USA but transferred to the custody of other governments, are believed to remain in the custody of those governments (including Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia)."

And how do you equate this to the other 60,000? You guys are killing me here. You arent just guessing are you?

My question was ok..maybe we had 70k at one time, but there are only a little over 10,000 left in gitmo..and you know what..lets take a high estimate and say 10k are held in other countries for the reasons you state. So 50,000 are kept from tell their stories of torture and abuse in gitmo? I dont think so.

I'd reply but I don't know what your reasoning is.

Well, you did just quote without editing the earlier alledged 650k deaths as "murders"..am I to assume you do not think this correct?

You don't think much, looks like.

Another quote from that first article.

"An unknown number of those, who were in the direct custody of the USA but transferred to the custody of other governments, are believed to remain in the custody of those governments (including Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia)."

And how do you equate this to the other 60,000? You guys are killing me here. You arent just guessing are you?

My question was ok..maybe we had 70k at one time, but there are only a little over 10,000 left in gitmo..and you know what..lets take a high estimate and say 10k are held in other countries for the reasons you state. So 50,000 are kept from tell their stories of torture and abuse in gitmo? I dont think so.

What is your methodology for the "high estimate"...? I don't see your basis.

And you do know that you are not even following the justice system at all. Hence why the detainees in Gitmo are kept off American soil. You are not even following the rules under the Geneva Convention, which dictates the rules of keeping POW's. But the US has decided to be a bit sneaky in that regard, by not recognising them as POW's. Hence, they have absolutely no status whatsoever. Tell me, where exactly does that apply in the rules of conflict?

I wonder what the reaction of the US would have been if their soldiers were captured in combat and then held for 5 years without charge and without any rights at all.:rolleyes: But then, that would not be acceptable, now would it? After all, the US is, well, the US. And 'they' are 'they'.. As sandy said "POS", and thus, do not deserve any rights. You said it yourself. You are lucky to be so privileged. Shame the same does not apply to anyone you decide to detain without charge, trial or right to counsel, whether guilty or innocent.


"Only 10k left"? Is that meant to be some kind of joke?


Your goal may not have been... well not directly anyway. I'll give you a hint... sanctions..


You are responsible when you force them to sign an agreement to never disclose any details of their stay in Gitmo, and any breach of said agreement could result in their being further incarcerated or sued. Get it now?

Nah, they dont hold you..they just saw your head off with a butcher knife on live television. :mad:

On the 10k..hey..Im just going by what was posted. If you have a problem with that number, take it up with he who posted it.

and ROFL at you also thinking it is genocide and on the gitmo NDA. more guessing...:rolleyes:

Well, you did just quote without editing the earlier alledged 650k deaths as "murders"..am I to assume you do not think this correct?

Oh. You do not think it is fair to call non-combat deaths murders?

I never called them murders, I don't think, but it is still awful. Just because we did not murder them doesn't make it OK to play a significant hand in their death.

What is your methodology for the "high estimate"...? I don't see your basis.

And for numbers upto 2005:

The USA has detained approximately 70,000 people outside United States sovereign territory since 11 September 2001. More than 10,000 are believed to remain in direct US custody, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and undisclosed locations. An unknown number of those, who were in the direct custody of the USA but transferred to the custody of other governments, are believed to remain in the custody of those governments (including Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

Still others are believed to be held without charge or trial in other countries at the behest of the USA or with its knowledge and access. These countries include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen. They are believed to number in the hundreds, possibly thousands.

To date, no-one held outside the sovereign territory of the USA has been tried or convicted of any criminal offence. Four people have been charged and are awaiting trial by military commission in Guantánamo Bay.

According to official figures -- compiled by the Associated Press news agency based on information received from the US military, navy, CIA and Justice Department -- more than 100 people have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least 27 of the deaths were the result of suspected or confirmed homicides, according to the US Army in March 2005 (United States Army Criminal Investigation Command press release, 25 March 2005).


----------------------------------------------------

my estimate is because there are no numbers stating how many are in "indirect" custody so I was giving the benefit of the doubt.

Oh. You do not think it is fair to call non-combat deaths murders?

I never called them murders, I don't think, but it is still awful. Just because we did not murder them doesn't make it OK to play a significant hand in their death.

First, I think their estimate on deaths is BS. If they can find a way to troll around baghdad streets and poll almost 1500 families to come up with their estimates...how can they say a reporter there in the middle of it everyday cannot? Did they just happen to be there on a day when over a 1000 a day WASNT being killed?

The latest I could find

Estimates of the total number of Iraqi detainees vary, but most Iraqis believe the number is more than 50,000. According to Iraqi sources, as well as the U.S. military, the vast majority of detainees are Sunni Arabs from the western areas of Iraq. Most of them are detained without any charge or court warrant.
Sifton said Human Rights Watch and other human rights organisations "have concerns about a 50 percent increase in detainees because it is 50 percent more people at risk of having been arbitrarily detained or, worse, of being handed over to Iraqi officers who might subject them to torture."

Sifton added that there are no reliable numbers provided by the Iraqi government on the number of detainees, and that the U.S. military will not provide the numbers either.


http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/iraq/000629.php

First, I think their estimate on deaths is BS. If they can find a way to troll around baghdad streets and poll almost 1500 families to come up with their estimates...how can they say a reporter there in the middle of it everyday cannot? Did they just happen to be there on a day when over a 1000 a day WASNT being killed?

Reporters are embedded with the army. They basically rely on the troops (ie the US for their information).

my estimate is because there are no numbers stating how many are in "indirect" custody so I was giving the benefit of the doubt.

No reason to make up completely random numbers.

Such a bloodbath over there...somehow ORB found a way to cruise around Iraq polling their civilians...

Maybe they called em?

Such a bloodbath over there...somehow ORB found a way to cruise around Iraq polling their civilians...

Maybe they called em?

Perhaps you are unaware that these are epidemiologists with publications in science journals who do this as part of their job on a regular basis.

Or are you one of those who believes the government over the science?

No reason to make up completely random numbers.

We agree on this. So...maybe its 1...maybe its 100,000...

Without numbers, how can we state its a problem?

Nah, they dont hold you..they just saw your head off with a butcher knife on live television.
Just because you do it behind closed doors, does not make you any better.

On the 10k..hey..Im just going by what was posted. If you have a problem with that number, take it up with he who posted it.
Oh I don't have a problem with the figure. I would imagine it is probably a lot more than that. I do however have a problem with the "only".

and ROFL at you also thinking it is genocide and on the gitmo NDA. more guessing..
Actually no. It is basically a requirement that must be met upon their release. No signing.. no release. It's not a guess pet. It is a sad reality.

And you should read the definition of genocide and read it well.

Perhaps you are unaware that these are epidemiologists for respected science journals who do this as part of their job on a regular basis.

Or are you one of those who believes the government over the science?

You mean like those people that call me to see if watch and enjoy certain cable channels?

I put no stock in polls..never will.

Thats irrelevant. They are illegally detained by the government of the USA.

Holding them without charge or trial is a crime.
Thats only if they are US citizens.

Bush signed a military order on November 13, 2001 suspending habeas corpus for non-citizens labeled as enemy combatants.

You mean like those people that call me to see if watch and enjoy certain cable channels?

I put no stock in polls..never will.

I did not realise they publish studies on cable channels in science journals.

Nevertheless, the fact that previous studies have shown that media reports undercount war killings by 80% and the fact that several independent polls are supporting this view, is a good indication, don;t you think?

And the polls are about people dying violently in your family, not cable channels.

Unless to you they are of similar importance and levity.

Just because you do it behind closed doors, does not make you any better.


Oh I don't have a problem with the figure. I would imagine it is probably a lot more than that. I do however have a problem with the "only".


Actually no. It is basically a requirement that must be met upon their release. No signing.. no release. It's not a guess pet. It is a sad reality.

And you should read the definition of genocide and read it well.

You are telling me that you cant see the difference between sawing someones head off on video and sending it to the news and the piddly shit that happens at gitmo? By definition they may seem alike...in reality, they are FAR different. This is a sick example..I know..but it kind of shows the difference. It is the difference between raping an adult and raping a child. I would personally saw a child rapists head off, bash their skull open and feed their brain to a pack of rabid rottweilers if given the chance whereas jailtime (all be it for a long time) is sufficient for someone who rapes an adult.

You are telling me that you cant see the difference between sawing someones head off on video and sending it to the news and the piddly shit that happens at gitmo? By definition they may seem alike...in reality, they are FAR different. This is a sick example..I know..but it kind of shows the difference. It is the difference between raping an adult and raping a child. I would personally saw a child rapists head off, bash their skull open and feed their brain to a pack of rabid rottweilers if given the chance whereas jailtime (all be it for a long time) is sufficient for someone who rapes an adult.

Example of the "piddly" stuff that happens to our prisoners in other countries.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm

(Scroll down a little).

you mean like this definition of genocide?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Example of the "piddly" stuff that happens to our prisoners in other countries.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm

(Scroll down a little).

He wasnt a prisoner of ours...

He wasnt a prisoner of ours...

I think he is an example of ours, most likely. Or do they treat our "extraordinary renditions" better? In any case, I have heard that some of the torture done on him has been done to our prisoners...boiling people alive...

So you support Nazi behavior in concentration camps then?
When we start rounding up Muslims and shoving them into ovens that comparison might have some validity. Until then, it's typical hyperbole.

So the 54 year old teacher is going home in 15 days

She was in a Third World country with a military dictatorship and Islamic fundies calling for her execution, but a trial was conducted and after 15 days for a non-crime she will go home.

Now everyone who reads a newspaper knows that prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo were "simply rounded up" are ignored and left to protest and commit passive suicide for how many YEARS now?


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2956428.ece

Anyone know or care whats happening to them?

Why isn't this plastered over the media and blogs?

Where is the pressure on the government to act?

And how many bears did they name? :mad:

When we start rounding up Muslims and shoving them into ovens that comparison might have some validity. Until then, it's typical hyperbole.

I don't think she was comparing the two madant.

Reality check:

The detainees at Gitmo were, most of them, captured by local Afghan militia and other tribal forces, and turned over to the US for bounty money - often days later, and after abuse. Many of the ones captured by the US directly were Taliban soldiers, openly bearing arms and captured during combat.

They were all tortured, except possibly the children and the very old, through stress positions etc.

Some were more severly tortured.

None were handled according to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions or any subsequent relevant treaty.

Few were captured under accurately known circumstances, and most appear to be innocent of any "terrorism" connection whatsoever.

- - - - -
The Iraq Body Count definitely underestimates the US civilian kill in Iraq - it says so, right on its web page. Its methods are designed to produce an underestimate that provides a floor underneath all accurate estimates. There is no honest way to describe it as an "exaggeration" of the US civilian kill in Iraq. When the IBC was set up, it was designed to provide a denial-proof count of a fraction of the US civilian kill, to compare with the absurdly low propaganda estimates being released from various sources, and given legitimacy by the authority of those sources. At the time, and still, accurate info was not available from the US military.
- - - -
I do not know any of them or the conditions of when, why and how those images were taken. Nor do I know if any of the soldiers have been brought up on charges due to any action taken in any of those pictures so I cannot comment on them in respect outside of saying if those were infact malicious or negligent acts..then they are wrong. On the same note, I can not say if those acts are commonplace or if they are isolated incidents....and niether can you. If you are an American, you need not form opinions in such ignorance. You have many sources of information about those photos, the charges resulting from them, the circumstances of the prison, etc. You can learn, for example, that the acts depicted were common and took place over several months at Abu Ghraib, that they were embedded in a policy of abuse associated with deliberately adopted interrogation procedures familiar to quite high levels of command, that they took place in other prisons besides Abu Ghraib, that they were common knowledge among hundreds of US military personnel and various contractors (as well as hundreds of Iraqis, of course), and that only the soldiers directly connected with the photographic evidence and their immediate supervisors have been charged or disciplined.
Are they suspected terrorists? How do you know? ”

I guess I don't. Not 100%. But that's what the facility was created for, isn't it? What's the point of rounding up random people and holding them? It's counter productive. It establishes your power to round up people and severely abuse them for years with impunity. Lots of governments have found that very productive, and worth doing.

That would account for the otherwise mysterious failure of the US administration to even bother screening the inmates for terrorist connections, and the adoption of interrogation methods almost useless for obtaining reliable info and completely inadmissable at any trial, but very well suited for obtaining confessions and intimidating a subject population, in the time-honored way of torture prisons everywhere.

I don't think she was comparing the two madant.

If she didnt mean to compare the two then she wouldnt have.:bugeye:

I think he is an example of ours, most likely. Or do they treat our "extraordinary renditions" better? In any case, I have heard that some of the torture done on him has been done to our prisoners...boiling people alive...

Well, considering that we have a more direct interaction with the prisoners that we supposedly ask them to keep for us...I would have to assume that although waterboarding does happen once in a while..boiling people alive? There has never been any evidence that we have been directly involved in or complacent to any activities to the extent of boiling people alive.

Reality check:

The detainees at Gitmo were, most of them, captured by local Afghan militia and other tribal forces, and turned over to the US for bounty money - often days later, and after abuse. Many of the ones captured by the US directly were Taliban soldiers, openly bearing arms and captured during combat.

They were all tortured, except possibly the children and the very old, through stress positions etc.

Some were more severly tortured.

None were handled according to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions or any subsequent relevant treaty.

Few were captured under accurately known circumstances, and most appear to be innocent of any "terrorism" connection whatsoever.

- - - - -
The Iraq Body Count definitely underestimates the US civilian kill in Iraq - it says so, right on its web page. Its methods are designed to produce an underestimate that provides a floor underneath all accurate estimates. There is no honest way to describe it as an "exaggeration" of the US civilian kill in Iraq. When the IBC was set up, it was designed to provide a denial-proof count of a fraction of the US civilian kill, to compare with the absurdly low propaganda estimates being released from various sources, and given legitimacy by the authority of those sources. At the time, and still, accurate info was not available from the US military.
- - - -
If you are an American, you need not form opinions in such ignorance. You have many sources of information about those photos, the charges resulting from them, the circumstances of the prison, etc. You can learn, for example, that the acts depicted were common and took place over several months at Abu Ghraib, that they were embedded in a policy of abuse associated with deliberately adopted interrogation procedures familiar to quite high levels of command, that they took place in other prisons besides Abu Ghraib, that they were common knowledge among hundreds of US military personnel and various contractors (as well as hundreds of Iraqis, of course), and that only the soldiers directly connected with the photographic evidence and their immediate supervisors have been charged or disciplined.
It establishes your power to round up people and severely abuse them for years with impunity. Lots of governments have found that very productive, and worth doing.

That would account for the otherwise mysterious failure of the US administration to even bother screening the inmates for terrorist connections, and the adoption of interrogation methods almost useless for obtaining reliable info and completely inadmissable at any trial, but very well suited for obtaining confessions and intimidating a subject population, in the time-honored way of torture prisons everywhere.

Its pretty obvious to me that you have never been in the military and have no knowledge therein or you would know that what is shown in those images can never...ever...EVER...be policy. And I am full aware that those who do that are punished accordingly, but their punishments are only told to the public as a courtesy..they dont HAVE to tell you or keep you in the loop whatsoever.

You, as others have done beforehand and will continue to do till time ends, only pick and choose information from websites that suit your needs at the time. You have lost the ability to think for yourself. I can probably find a website that show that Clinton has 3 boobs but should I believe it because I found it on the internet?

Well, considering that we have a more direct interaction with the prisoners that we supposedly ask them to keep for us...I would have to assume that although waterboarding does happen once in a while..boiling people alive? There has never been any evidence that we have been directly involved in or complacent to any activities to the extent of boiling people alive.

Then why are we sending them to a place like Uzbekistan?

Then why are we sending them to a place like Uzbekistan?

That is a question you will have to ask them.