More human rights violations

[surfingsimon]

i am no maniac. i exaggerated when i said i would willingly torture them however i genuinely do not feel that they deserve our sympathy, or the right to be recognised under international laws.

they are terrorists first and foremost, not humans. you say that "we have no right to complain when terrorists do the same to us" terrorists do not do the same to us - they kill us, indiscriminately they kill innocent civilians, the west is not guilty of this. we are not imprisoning innocent civilians, we are acting against the second largest threat we face in the contemporary world.
(the larger threat being global climate change)

[Pussycat]

They are not terrorsits, they are suspected terrorists. Many have been released which would not have happened if they had had a case for prosecution. There is no excuse for detaining people against their will with no trial first. They are breaking international laws and making a mockery of their fight for freedom and justice. There is no excuse for holding someone because they were found in Afgahnistan with a UK passport. If they had been guilty then they should be treated with the decency that western countries would demand of their captured prisoners of war. Being a terrorist does not make you an animal, they are humans. It would only be right for their victims then to see them sentenced and punished but they are not even given that satisfaction. Instead they have to know that the real terrorists might not even have been caught and their punishments instead inflicted on innocent people. I'm sure that makes them feel better. Or not.

America is supposed to be a civillised westernised country. It is therfore not supposed to act in the ways that other countries do which are condemned for it (often by America). These men are suspected terrorists, some have now been released as innocent civilians. They were locked up for two years with no outside communication allowed. How would you feel had that been your brother or your father? These people were innocent, the Americans have admitted that and the British courts have confirmed it.

[oddly familiar]

i am very worried by all the people who are saying that the prisoners are all guilty etc. This is unproven!
But, i am even more worried by the people who say that because these people are terrorists (whether they are or not) they are no longer human.

If we take the hypothetical position that every single detainee at Guantanamo bay is guilty of terrorism (this is hypothetical because as yet, this is unproven), then the veiwpoint of some people is that we should afford them no human rights, as they are no longer worthy of them.
However the point is that if WE, the supposedly civilised and lawful countries ignore the precepts placed down in our own laws simply because we were attacked, then we are no better than those we are fighting. We become lawless and our positions are as untenable as the terrorists we are defending ourselves against.

The moral leg we have to stand upon is that we are upholding the values of peace, decency toward fellow humans and the principle of universal human rights as applicable to everyone on the planet. We are fighting to prevent terrorists from ignoring these again and again by killing again and again.
Terrorists do not beleive in these rights; including the most important - everybody has a right to life. If we do not fight for and uphold these values ourselves, how can we justify what we are doing?
"Oh we are keeping these people prisoner because they attacked us; we are not going to give them a trial which our own laws say they must have. We will not afford them any human rights just cos they didnt give us any either."

This means that because terrorists dont respect fundamental human rights, we shouldn't either?? If this 'war on terror' is to have any moral high ground, which surely it must, then we must remain above their level.
We DONT kill people because they annoy us. Terrorists do.
We DONT treat people as lesser than us despite what they have done/what views they hold - terrorists do.
Its kind of like that free speech thing - "i dont like what you're saying but i would die to defend your right to say it". Well, very similar in this case - we must say: "I dont like your actions, but i will use the laws that i live by to judge you, and it shall be fairly done".
It is the only moral thing to do.

The only way we can remain better than terrorists is to uphold international law, the geneva convention and the universal declaration of human rights. If we dont then we are no better than them - we simply become two animals fighting each other in the dirt - tit for tat. "Youre mean to me so i'll be mean to you." And to me, Guantanamo bay seems awfully like that.

We must, must, must be better than terrorists, or else what the hell is it all for? If we turn into them, then afterwards we'll replace them with ourselves, and nothing will be any better than it was before

edit: sense and grammar

[surfingsimon]

reply to above
your post amusingly reads like a terrorist version of animal farm, (if deliberate then really rather well done and if accidental then good none the less) and contains some good points, however...

morality and human rights never have been and can never be universal. they are applied only to those whom we chose to grant the right of enjoyment. Criminal prisoners in the west are denied the basic right of freedom - this is because by committing a crime they place themselves out with the law and therefore forfeit their right to enjoy its protection. by targeting civilians terrorists do the same and legitimate our 'mistreatment' of them.

you will counter that the guantanamo animals have not even been given a fair trial, true perhaps. Simply because we cannot prove that they have committed an act of terrorism does not prove them innocent nor does it mean that they will not in the future. ANY foreigner who was found in Afghanistan without being sponsored by a government or some NGO has to be presumed guilty before innocent, especially if they are young, Muslim and impressionable, as are most of the foreign detainees at guantanamo. If they are innocent then why were they in Afghanistan in the first place?

you contend that we risk becoming no better than the terrorists. this is fundamentally and totally wrong. we will never descent to their level, that is because whilst they seek to take civilian lives, we seek to annihilate them to protect civilian lives.

[oddly familiar]

i wish it had been intentional... ah well never mind.

i dont claim to have any answers - this definately isnt an easy issue to deal with at all.

All im worried about is people seeming to say that we should lose our own standards when dealing with something we hate - its our ability to still do the right thing even when its difficult that is what makes us better people. (thats a horrible phrase; 'better people'; but i cant think of a better way to put it: 'honourable' maybe??? i dunno)

and this is definately very difficult at this time. But just because they are in the wrong means we should mistreat them? do you think so? i think we should treat them the same as we treat any other prisoner, that is what i meant. When i say that, i simply mean the conditions in which they are kept, and that they should at least have access to a lawyer.

i dont like this idea of them being kept because they might commit acts of terrorism in the future, for two reasons:
1) if it can apply to those prisoners - why cant our governments lock us up too... if we didnt vote for them for example? They could justify it by saying its because we are suspected of terrorism and might commit acts of terrorism in the future. Its very very easy to end up in a dictatorship if you give the wrong people too much power. Of course i dont think that any of our leaders really do want to be dictators, but once the precendent is there whats to stop others from acting that way in the future, if those were people who wished to be dictators. that puts us on a slippery slope.

2) Have you seen minority report? that seems kind of similar - locking people up for thigs they might do in the future. Sounds awfully similar, except in this case we dont have telepaths to look into the future to tell if those people would have committed a crime or not, all we have is simple human suspicion. What you said about our own laws robbing people of their right to freedom, these laws have evolved over centuries - they work and are tied into our moral principles (eg murder is wrong). So how are we able to ignore one of their main ideas - people are innocent until proven guilty. How can you ignore that but still say that law has the right to take peoples freedom away? You cant pick and choose which of the principles of our own laws we will follow - the point i was trying to make was that we must follow ALL our own laws in order to make our fight against terrorism justified. We are justified to seek justice for acts committed against us, however if we dont follow the laws, and ALL of them, we become global vigilantes. At which point its a case of - 'im bigger and stronger than you so i will tell you what to do and kill you if i want to'.

I can see the supposed wisdom of keeping people you're fairly sure are terrorists locked up so they cant go off and terrorise again.
But, if you have enough evidence to be able to be fairly sure of this, why not try for conviction? Theres no reason.

[harmless loony]

I'm young and a Muslim - does that mean I should be locked up? It's stupid, irrational and daft statements like that which cause more harm then good.

Your logic surfingsimon is total whack. Tim Mcvey killed lots of people in the Oklahoma bombing so under your logic we should lock up white christian males too - just in case more of them may decide to kill people.

There are 1.6 million Muslims in the Uk - I know why don't we just lock them all up just in case they might possibly maybe commit an act of terrorism. Oh and not forgetting, why don't we lock up white Austrian males because they decide to follow in Hitler's footsteps?

[Nature's Metropolis]

Thankyou harmless loony for thinking straight. I'm disgusted by almost every sentence written by surfingsimon. Why does he think they're called 'human rights' if he doesn't think they apply to all humans? And all 'young impressionable Muslims' who were in Afghanistan at the time should be locked up, 'just in case'???! One of the suspects they're holding in Guantanamo was actually in Afghanistan setting up a school with his family, who now don't know if they'll ever see him again. He's accused of planning to fly (note, not even actually flying) a plane full of anthrax over London. He studied Law at university and doesn't even know the first thing about planes.
It is people like you, surfingsimon, who should be locked up.

[surfingsimon]

harmless loony and nature's mucus you’re both asses. you may be young, Muslim and impressionable but you were not found in Afghanistan in close proximity to al-Qaeda fighters - so i don’t think you should be locked up. Other than for being fucking stupid and missing the point.

'loony' (my isnt that an appropriate name!) - you assert that young austrian males who follow Hitler's footsteps shouldnt be locked up - does that mean you would feel fine if they started killing off all the remaining German Jews?

'nature's mucus' - i didnt say lock up all young impressionable muslims who were in afghanistan - that would be half the population of the country. i said lock up foreigners who were so dedicated to the tarrorist cause that they travelled over there to fight for al-qaeda. as for that shit about the guy who studied law at oxford id like to see some evidence... till then i beleive you just made that up - or even worse you believe it!

oddly familiar
you seem to have far more sense. i will talk to you.

I couldn’t agree with you more about the conditions the detainees are being kept in, there is no need to cause unnecessary suffering and i think that this is infact counterproductive as it further demonizes America in the eyes of the average Muslim.

i like your 'point 2' but first...
i think that point 1 you make is a little naive - we are now so fundamentally democratic (most every 'western' country - other than Italy!) that the situation you describe is very extreme and I doubt would come to pass. There are however issues about a government becoming more and more authoritarian on the level of security and thereby infringing on our liberties (this can be seen in extra airport security etc) and that is why I think we have to take the fight to the terrorists in every possible way so that no further ‘security’ measures are necessary.

POINT 2
I can't really think of a comeback to this. You make a good point and make it well. I agree with you that a Minority Report type future is undesirable in the extreme, however I really do think (or at least really hope) that the detainees have a reasonable level of suspicion hanging over them and are more or less certainly guilty. Why then have they not been given a trial? Who can say, I guess the Americans must have their reasons.

[oddly familiar]

Im afraid that im a little sceptical about the idea that America has good reasons for keeping them detained, other than that they are afraid that these people will go off and commit terrorist acts if they are set free. this would be easy to prevent, maybe by either putting them into the legal system. Bringing someone to trial can take ages, so why not at least start convictions in a legal manner - it'll keep them confined but also be legal, and will give the innocents a chance to prove themsleves, and the guilty will then be in a prison.

Another option is to let them go and keep an eye on them. This isnt legal i dont think (then again, it might be, i dont know) but spying on them would be secret, and thus better PR for the american government. so what reasons can there be for the american govt not to do either of these?
Reasons i can think of that the americans are keeping them are to:

-Firstly to try and gain intelligence through interrogations, which would have to cease if the prisoners were either released or placed into real normal prisons, because then the prisoners would have a right to silence or something wouldnt they? (i dont know the ins and outs of the american legal system but i think the fifth amendment would allow the prisoners to excercise a right to silence)

- Secondly, its to scare other potential (or real) terrorists - "See what we'll do to you if we catch you - you'll never get out - so dont rely on our famously fair legal system to get you a finite sentence if we do catch you".

Edit: capitalisation and putting it in readable paragraphs

[harmless loony]

ah surfing simon - haven't got an argument so you resort to personal attacks. My my my doesn't that make your argument sound intelligent - not!

I as a young Muslim have also travelled to many foreign countries - so now you're saying that I should not be allowed to leave the country - just in case I might commit a terrorist activity.

Never at any point in my argument did i advocate killing German Jews. What I said in my post was that you cannot justify locking up people based on their faith, age, nationality, etc, just because they may possibly commit a crime.

[surfingsimon]

get a grip you idiot. i said no such thing - i did say that you shouldnt be allowed to bugger off to afghanistan to help al queda kill my relatives and indeed your own

[Nature's Metropolis]

Funnily enough I'm not Muslim. I am however very amused that you automatically asumed I was simply because I did not hold your slightly strange point of view and agreed wholeheartedly with the very sensible and decent point of view of someone who is Muslim. Goes to prove the mindset of some people and their tendency to categorise. As for the prolific swearing and highly amusing but extremely childish name-calling, I'll let them speak for themselves.

Now, to rise above simply sniping, I'll just comment on the lack of informed posting. The use of phrases such as 'at least I really hope', 'more or less certainly' and 'who knows' hardly instill confidence in the veracity of the points being made. I am alarmed at such a trusting attitude towards the American government. If, as oddly familiar suggests, these people are being retained to avoid further crimes and to facilitate questioning, both these tactics are still against human rights without a trial. When will you see the injustice of it all? It exasperates me.

[harmless loony]

But what if I went to Afghanistan to visit my friends (as I have many there)?

How would you or anyone else know the reason for me going there? What to you would count as proof of my reason for being there? Or what if i decided I wanted to go over there and hand some aid out - again what would count as proof?

I'm not going there to fight with al qaida terrorists - just to see some friends - but under your assertions so far, a young muslim, with a foreign passport, being in afghanistan must be detained by the Americans because they may be there to fight with al qaida.

And just another few points - if the people held in Guantanamo were so guilty, why have they been released?

Secondly, why were there children as young as ten years old held in the camp? And before you start the "they got a better education blah blah blah" let me point out that the ends do not justify the means.

What right does any country have to take out 10 year old children from their home country and send them half way across the world and then 2 years later release them without so much as an apology to the families who sat around with no idea what had happened to their child?

Oh and another thing, under your rules, the Hiroshima bombers were also terrorists (innocent people killed just so the Americans could make a point to the Japanese and get revenge) - this means that technically, the Japanese have a right to detain American men in a detention camp, deprive them of all human rights, just in case they may in the future decide to drop another bomb on Japan.

[hurrah]

hurrah for oddly familiar

[surfingsimon]

first of all, my apologies for the name calling and general pettiness. calling you "f*%ing stupid" was bang out of order. sorry.
i was being a little over enthusiastic and i hope that you believe me that it was in total jest and not at all serious.

the points then, one by one:-
nature's metropolis - (1) i did not assume you were Muslim, it was obvious to me you were not. you interpret my posts too literally. (2) you say that my looseness of expression('i really hope so' etc) is hardly reassuring - well on your part im still waiting for evidence of that oxford student you talked about. (3) you are skeptical of my trust of the American government and of my 'slightly strange' point of view. should you not be more open to the 'official line' and not immediately discredit it? i dont wish to expand this discussion but it is generally accepted that the Vietnam war was extremely badly reported and that in retrospect the US government was usually accurate and that both the US and international media and NGOs were both sensationalist and often blatantly inaccurate and biased against the US. this shows that the liberal and humanitarian side of the story is not always the correct one - it is much easier for a journalist to make his name by exposing and sensationalizing American brutalities than trying to defend a position which to the uninformed appears indefensible.

harmless loony - about visiting friends in Afghanistan - you forget that in the buildup to the war in Afghanistan (see UNSC resolution 1368 para. 3 and subsequent follow-up resolutions) there was ample warning that conflict was imminent. once military action commenced those in the country had plenty time to get out or at least contact relatives/firensd/uk government to explain why they were in afghanistan. the foreign office had a travel restriction warning and any individual going over ignoring this ran the risks of being found over there and inevitable suspicion as to their motives for deliberately going into a conflict zone. as for "going to hand some aid out" - i made specific allowances for this when i excluded those sponsored by a government or NGO(non-governmental organization - i.e. Oxfam etc) anyone handing out aid would only be doing so as part of a NGO effort and not simply as an individual - if they claim this then its a blatant lie.

as for keeping the 10 year olds in guantanamo, i was unaware they were doing so. i will not as you suggest make the argument "getting a better education etc" - i will say that there is absolutely no defense for holding them there at all, if indeed it is true they are being held. any kids of that age found fighting should be taken into care, shown forgiveness, compassion and un-brainwashed, not kept in conditions that will only cement their western haltered.

last point - the Hiroshima bombers were not terrorists - they committed this state sanctioned act of murder because they were, ultimately, fighting to protect lives, the Hiroshima argument is really a whole other topic as it then requires that we start to discuss the laws of war and the moral and strategic implications of the bombs themselves. however the situation is fundamentally different.


again sincere apologies for name calling in what has otherwise been a rational and informative discussion.

[Pussycat]

[s]surfingsimon wrote on 23:24, 17th Mar 2004:
in what has otherwise been a rational and informative discussion.


You must be joking. When you look at both sides of the argument in a rational manner then perhaps this will be a rational discussion. Until then you are refusing to believe what some people say just because they are not American. Those people were released (both in the UK and Afgahnistan), they were innocent - not even the American government is disputing that fact. The argument is then this:

What right do the Americans have to hold people in appaling conditions restricting them of their rights without a trial of any kind? Why are there innocent civilians locked up in there or that have been locked up in there (which has been proven by the many releases - at such a time no terrorist would ever be released).

But really this argument has come full circle and I suspect many do not have the time to spell something so simple out to someone who is determined not to listen or think for themselves. Read all the posts by Paulette and that will be all the education anyone reading this thread needs.

[Nature's Metropolis]

Apology appreciated and accepted.

1) I am still unclear on why my literal interpretation of your posts should preclude me from being Muslim.

2)I never mentioned Oxford univeristy in my post. I am entirely ignorant of the institution from which he gained his Law degree, but entirely persuaded he does have one. From your assumption of Oxford I surmise that you too have heard this report, however accurate it is. And

3) As regards said accuracy of reports: I attempt at all times not to take the 'offical line' as you term it. I try to be open minded about these things, and thus read others' opinions on sites such as this one, however well or ill informed they may be. I consider this to be more of a moral debate than an inquiry into the the reliability of factual evidence.

Back to the point. You have not said, and perhaps it is irrelevant, whether you are American or not. I'm not going to assume anything. If you were, however, the recurring sense I get of your concern about Al Quaida killing your relatives would be completely understandable following the September 11th attack. I would be the first to be worried if I thought London was about to be attacked (which is definitely not unlikely), and the mysterious bombs in Spain were a little too close to home for my liking.

Yet I believe that by holding prisoners in such conditions in Guantanamo Bay we are increasing the likelihood of such attacks and exacerbating the very problem which their incarceration sets out to solve. The Americans are trying to eliminate terrorism, an almost thankless and impossible task. There will always be people out there who support their cause and by denying the suspects human rights and a fair trial they are making these people resent Americans and probably Britons as well (I don't want to use the term 'the West'), even more. Did we ever think about the reason behind the September 11th attack which started all this off in the first place??

[surfingsimon]

who is surfingsimon?
it may surprise you that i am not American! i am French/Scottish and according to political compass (go visit this great site http://www.politicalcompass.org/) i am bang on exactly in the centre - on both axes i.e. right to left and authoritarian to libertarian. some might say that indicates politically balanced views.

i again apologise for my less than serious posts (frankly disgraceful) which i now realise have diminished the credibility of my argument - however i have given this topic long and considered thought and i do not believe that the outcry over the detainees is justified. What is justified is the outcry over the CONDITIONS THEY ARE BEING HELD UNDER as these are barbaric and detrimental in may ways. However this is a separate issue from detaining them without trial which in my view is justified.

For now its late and my eyes are getting sleepy – ill expand tomorrow morning. Nite all.