Outsourcing Torture

I`ll Again Say..

Welcome to the REAL reality....

...........

There is a saying in URDU......Jis Ki Laathi, Us Ki Bhains!!! and it`s so true.

saminshah:
``dost-mitter bhai i thaught you close to my age.means somthing 25 to 28.so i always reply to your post like simply``to dost-mitter````

...that was a big compliment. You can continue to call me as you did before:-)

to dost-mitter ji
dost-mitter bhai i thaught you close to my age.means somthing 25 to 28.so i always reply to your post like simply
``to dost-mitter``

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

romair #114 i dont have the time to go over the legal aspects of this case, and so will grant you are correct in everything you say.

However, laws exist within a political context. And geneva conventions dont last too long in any war, let alone a prolonged, existential struggle with a hidden enemy which is what the US is faced with after 9/11.

Here an extract from a letter may be useful to read:

``War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace...(and yet) You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war.``

These words were written by the head of a conquering army that had devasted everything in its path, in response to an appeal for peace by the city fathers.

The city was Atlanta, Georgia, and the writer was General Sherman and the time was 1864, and soon after he wrote this letter Atlanta was burnt to the ground.

The islamist terrorists and even more so their supporters are no less to blame for the War against Terrorism as the southern generals were when they fired the first shots at fort sumter. And the much ballyhooed ``suffering`` of muslims has been nowhere close to the suffering that the people of Atlanta and other southern cities suffered. And history is full of suffering of innocent people brought about by war. In WWII, hitler sought war and reaped a whirlwind. 3 million germans died in the first 4 years of the war, and 9 million (mostly innocent women and children and other civilians) died when war was brought home to germany. virtually every single german woman from 6 to 60 left alive in eastern prussia was then raped by the russians, 3 million of them. and these were russians fighting a defensive war!! (a jihad, as these islamist bas!tards would put it). i am not even talking of the targetting of civilians as a deliberate strategy (as the japanese did in china, as the islamist terrorists are doing today). who cries for these people today? go back further in history and it gets worse.

Just be glad that muslims are not subject to anything close to the suffering that innocent people have suffered when caught in the cross-fires of war. While the suffering of any individual (even a guilty one, let alone an innocent one) is something terrible, it makes it all the more important for us to stop idle chauvinism and finger pointing, and realize that anyone who seeks war and violence (as the islamist extremists have been blaring through their loudspeakers for years they want) is responsible for bringing about these terrible situations.

The above-mentioned letter from Sherman then goes on to say: ``They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.``

Something to remember too, i think, for every pakistani who sympathizes with those who think it is OK to engage in violence to redress perceived wrongs done to them.

dost mittar #111 the distinction between afghan and nonafghan fighters would certainly be a rough first cut at separating foreign trouble makers from domestic afghans as you say. i am not sure what percentage of afghans are at gitmo, but i assume there are some albeit a small minority. clearly the US must have some good reason for holding on to these afghans, given that there is a substantial cost to that.

i would have been more concerned with any pows being held if (a) WWIII (aka the War against Terrorism) was not an ugly reality today, with innocent people being routinely killed in countries across the world; and/or (b) if the US was a closed society - in fact the US is a vibrant democracy where cases like this syrian-canadian are not merely reported, but reported in depth with emphasis on the human aspect. and even as we speak, the case of the prisoners at gitmo is being brought before the US supreme court.

thus, while in no way downplaying the suffering the syrian went through, the fact is that he is now a free man and his story has been sympathetically reported in major US newspapers.

Induson #110: ``When people start equating people with AK47s in shalwar kameez from Pakistan, Saudi, and others fighting in Kundoz, a clearly foreign country for them,with uniformed POWs one can only wonder.``

Please read my last reply. Would be interested in your comment on the following:

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Afghans in shalwar kameez, Arabs in Shalwar Kameez, Americans in Shalwar Kameez, Pakistanis in Shawar Kameez - all heavily recruited and financed by the US govt.). Was the USA financing all this fighting, outside the Geneva Convention? Should the Soviets have had a right to torture Americans, since the USA was financing and even fighting in this war.

What do you consider a legitimate uniform? And do you know what the Geneva convention considers a legitimate uniform? Suppose India did not have an Army. If tomorrow Pakistan attacks Delhi, should the citizens of Delhi first stitch uniforms and then fight? Or are the allowed to protect their city, while wearing their everyday clothes?

Incidently, since you have yourself brought in Geneva Convention as an argument, according to the GC, whether a POW is a soldier or not has to be decided by an international tribunal. Not by the USA. Tomorrow the USA could come and catch you and send you to G. Bay, if it is the authority which decided who falls under G. Conv. and who does not.

Even when a person blew up an Oklahoma building, he was not sent to Guantonomo Bay. The alleged 20th hijacker hasn`t been sent to Guantonomo Bay. One would assume these two are bigger criminals or alleged criminals than the people in Guantonomo Bay.

Following is a letter from the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, and from Amnesty Interanationl, regarding this issue. So anyone who believes in Human Rights should take it seriously:

``U.S. Officials Misstate Geneva Convention Requirements

---

January 28, 2002

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
National Security Advisor
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Ms. Rice,

We write concerning the legal status of the Guantanamo detainees. Our views reflect Human Rights Watch`s experience of over twenty years in applying the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to armed conflicts around the world. We write to address several arguments advanced for not applying Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, which, as you know, requires the establishment of a ``competent tribunal`` to determine individually whether each detainee is entitled to prisoner-of-war status should any doubt arise regarding their status. Below we set forth each of the arguments offered for ignoring Article 5 as well as Human Rights Watch`s response.

---

we hope the U.S. government will agree to establish the ``competent tribunal`` required by Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention for the purpose of determining case by case whether each detainee in Guantanamo is entitled to prisoner-of-war status.
Kenneth Roth
Executive Director Human Rights Watch

---

Argument: The Geneva Conventions do not apply to a war against terrorism.

HRW Response: The U.S. government could have pursued terrorist suspects by traditional law enforcement means, in which case the Geneva Conventions indeed would not apply. But since the U.S. government engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan - by bombing and undertaking other military operations - the Geneva Conventions clearly do apply to that conflict. By their terms, the Geneva Conventions apply to ``all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties.`` Both the United States and Afghanistan are High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Conventions.......

Respectfully,

Kenneth Roth
Executive Director


Full text at: http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us012802-ltr.htm

---

Following is one of the many statements on this issue by Amnesty International:

``The Guantánamo Scandal Continues
AI Index: AMR 51/078/2003
Publish date: 29 May 2003

By dismissing Amnesty International`s concerns about the hundreds of detainees held in the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay as ``without merit``, the White House is at the same time rejecting much wider international disquiet, Amnesty International said today.

``Since the transfers to Guantánamo began 17 months ago, numerous international, regional and national bodies, including governments and courts, have expressed deep concern about the situation of the detainees,`` Amnesty International said.

``Is that opinion all without merit?``

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the European Parliament, are among those who have voiced concern and called for remedies. The High Court in the United Kingdom has referred to the Guantánamo situation as ``objectionable`` and in ``apparent contravention of fundamental principles recognized by international law``.

Full text at (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2003/usa05292003.html)

tahmad #107: Prisoners, under no circumstances, should be mistreated. It is inhumane. Anyone believing in human rights would agree.

``most of the prisoners at camp gitmore are non-afghans - arabs, pakistanis, and a sprinkling of other nations (brits, aussies). they came to afghanistan with a view to fighting ``for islam`` (as they flattered themselves into thinking). They were not ``fighting for their country`` as you say.``

Many of the people who came into Afghanistan, to fight the Soviets, were, ``non-afghans - arabs, pakistanis, and a sprinkling of other nations (brits, aussies). they came to afghanistan with a view to fighting ``for islam.`` Interestingly, they were heavily recruited by the USA, with Zbegnew Brezhensky, leading the charge.

Based on your logic, those guys should have all been locked up in Guantonomo Bay. Infact, if the information provided by my Army friends is accurate, there were American soldiers fighting and training them, in Afghanistan. Sylvestor Stallone, made a succesful Rambo film on it. And there was a James Bond movie on it also. All were big hits.

The USA generally goes into to countries to, ``assist`` the soldiers of that country in fighting. That is what it did in Vietnam. So based on your logic, the Americans could be treated outside the Geneva Conventions in Vietnam. As well as in the First Gulf War, when they went in to assist Kuwait, which had been invaded.

These are all double standards. And I don`t think the prisoners in Guantonomo Bay are non-afghans. Even the US govt. doesn`t say they are all non-afghans. So that is a false theory.

``also note that individuals fighting out of uniform also place themselves largely beyond the pale of geneva conventions. ``

This is an interesting argument. Have you read the Geneva Convenations on the treatment of prisoners of war. Or are you just making it up? Could you explain where your uniform argument, comes into play? Following is how it describes POWs:

``. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.`` (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

All the soldiers need is a fixed distinctive sign, like a flag. The USA itself, was refering to them as a Taliban militia. People have to be able to afford uniforms to wear them. All the Mujahideen warfare agaisnt Soviets was out of uniform. Once again, American soldiers were themselves out of uniform, when the assisted the Afghans against the Soviets. Which army in Afghanistan wears a uniform? Did the Northern Alliance wear a uniform? And what is a uniform? Is Shalwar Kameez a uniform?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

tahmed, stuka, arjun_m, Induson:
You people would have had a point if the US had separated Afghans from other prisoners. But no distinction has been made.
...and a distinction needs to be made between militants being trained for illegal jihadi activities in other countries and those merely assisting the de jure and de facto govt of Afghanistan in defending its country.

Thanks guys for clarifying the point that did not need any clarification. When people start equating people with AK47s in shalwar kameez from Pakistan, Saudi, and others fighting in Kundoz, a clearly foreign country for them,with uniformed POWs one can only wonder. I can understand Romair`s logic(if that can be called a logic) but how can DM condemn the killings of civilians by infilterated shalwar kamez brigades in Jammu & Kashmir with a straight face? If Pakistanis have the right to fight for Afghans they have the right to fight for Kashmiris too.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

dost mittar #103 most of the prisoners at camp gitmore are non-afghans - arabs, pakistanis, and a sprinkling of other nations (brits, aussies). they came to afghanistan with a view to fighting ``for islam`` (as they flattered themselves into thinking). They were not ``fighting for their country`` as you say.

also note that individuals fighting out of uniform also place themselves largely beyond the pale of geneva conventions.

also note that in many ways the prisoners at camp gitmore are getting better treatment than the average man in the street in india or pakistan. the teenagers among them (and there are some) are kept in separate quarters from the adults; the live in comfortable rooms that are equipped with TVs and have ocean-front views; they receive basic schooling (and better schooling than anything they could have hoped for). all prisoners (including adults) are allowed to observe say their community prayers (with maulvis, or muslim chaplains as the americans call them, provided). the red cross as well as embassy staff from their respective countries also visit and talk to the prisoners.