How far will the U.S.A go?

[Airhog]

Even loyal Britain can no longer tolerate America's abuse of human rights at Camp X-Ray


_
By Neil Mackay

_

IN the seemingly perpetual war against terrorism, fought in the name of democracy and freedom, it was inevitable that America's hypocrisy in flouting the rule of law and the human rights of the detainees in Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay would sooner or later prove to be the sticking point for US allies.

Held without charge; denied the protection of the Geneva Convention by their American military captors; refused the right to legal counsel; facing trial in secret by military tribunal with no right to appeal and subsequent execution -- the unjust behaviour of the Bush administration is a step too far for its Western allies. With nine Britons held at Camp X-Ray, the UK has eventually cracked and openly criticised the US for the gross abuses perpetrated against the 680 alleged terror suspects held in the sweltering wire mesh and wood cages on Cuba.

UK foreign minister Baroness Symons has made it clear that the rule of law must apply to these men -- no matter what offences they may have carried out. 'America has decided that they want to be the detaining power and that they want to hold the trials there. It is up to us to have a very vigorous discussion with the US about securing a fair trial for the individuals involved. It now behoves the government to vigorously pursue issues about access to lawyers, standards of evidence and any appeals procedures.'

Roger Godsiff, the Labour MP who represents the British detainee Moazzam Begg, described military tribunals as 'totally unacceptable', adding: 'It would be very wrong of us not to put these people on trial in a proper court of law. We are upholders of civilised values and we can't devalue those by not allowing people access to a proper legal system .'

Neil Durkin of Amnesty International said it was impossible for the detainees to get a fair trial. 'It is being done outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, without the protection of the US constitution. They will have no entitlement to lawyers ... It's irregular, improper and concerning.' President Bush ruled on Thursday -- the Fourth of July -- that the first six detainees (including two Britons) should face a military tribunal rather than a proper legal court.

Those who support such a system claim that the US is at war with terrorists who don't fight by the rules, and that enemy aliens can't be afforded the protection of the US judicial system -- the US courts refuse to exercise their jurisdiction as Camp X-Ray is beyond US shores. Nor are they treated like prisoners of war, despite many being caught on the battlefield.

Colonel Will Gunn, the chief military defence lawyer appointed to the military tribunal system, says he will push for proceedings to be as open as possible. He says the US will be judged internationally on the fairness of the trials. The overseer of the tribunals is US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the most sabre-rattling of the hawks in Team Bush.

The Bush administration is ignoring all protests about its attack on the judicial process. The American Bar Association pointed out US hypocrisy by reminding the administration that America has condemned other countries for using military tribunals in the past. They are also worried that the media -- a recognised watchdog which ensures a public and fair trial -- will not be allowed to witness the proceedings.

Nor does Bush seem to care that his government's actions in Guantanamo will damage US relations with allies like Britain and ruin what's left of America's image in the Arab world. Little attention is paid to the fact that holding secret trials undermines American claims that they are fighting the war on terror to preserve US values of liberty.

There have been at least 28 suicides at Camp X-Ray so far. The Americans claim that those held there are the 'hardest of the hardcore', but senior defence officials have said off-the-record that 10% are probably innocent. All were subjected to CIA and MI5 interrogations, and are only allowed out of their cages to shower for five minutes and exercise for 10 minutes once a week. More than 40 detainees have been released, all of whom were in the wrong place at the wrong time, including two farmers in their mid-70s.

Camp X-Ray is the tip of the iceberg of US abuses against modern concepts of justice. At a CIA interrogation centre at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan alleged al-Qaeda members are subjected to 'stress and duress' techniques; aka, 'torture-lite'. They are kept kneeling for hours, in black hoods or spray-painted goggles, bound and deprived of sleep. Two captives died after beatings at Bagram and painkillers are apparently withheld from injured prisoners. One national security official told the Washington Post: 'If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job.' Bagram is off-limits to the Red Cross.

The total number of those 'missing' through the US prosecution of the war on terror could be as high as 15,000. The US has also sent prisoners to countries like Morocco, which routinely use torture, for interrogation. Against this charge sheet , the US government is arrogantly dismissive. Ultra-hardline US attorney general John Ashcroft -- a committed Christian -- hisses venom at civil liberties campaigners, saying: 'To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain silent in the face of evil.'

06 July 2003

[Airhog]

And one more from the same paper.

The first letters from Briton facing the death penalty at Camp X-Ray


_
By Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot

_

THEY are the first letters to see the outside world from the 21st century's Devil's Island -- the US military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

These 10 letters in neat, cramped handwriting from Moazzam Begg to his family back home in suburban Birmingham tell exactly what life is like inside the world's most feared prison -- Camp X-Ray.

Begg, who is 35, has been detained without charge since January 2001, has faced gruelling interrogations, been denied access to lawyers, confined in brutal conditions and now awaits a military tribunal which could well result in a short trip to a custom-built death house for execution.

On Thursday, 4 July (American Independence Day and the day before Begg's birthday), President Bush ordered that Begg and five other men, including another Briton -- Feroz Abbasi, 23, from London -- would be the first detainees to face military tribunals.

Washington is now facing international criticism over its use of military tribunals which are held in secret and presided over by high-ranking US soldiers. There is no guaranteed right to appeal.

Detainees are kept in wood and steel mesh cages, partially exposed to the elements. The world was shocked when the first pictures of Camp X-Ray emerged, showing detainees bound hand and foot and wearing blacked-out goggles. Some were stretchered into the camp, which has been labelled degrading and inhuman.

Begg, detainee number JJJEEHH 160, says in his letters that he mostly writes at night, 'which is usually when I cannot sleep because of thinking and worrying all the time, and the heat and the bright lights'. He has four children by his Palestinian wife, Sally. His youngest son Ibrahim was born while he was in custody.

In one letter to his wife, Begg writes: 'These past few weeks have been more depressing than usual, especially since the birth of our son ... time is dragging on so slowly ... I still don't know what will happen with me, where I will go and when -- even after all this time. There is nothing here to do to occupy time, except read the Koran .

'There are many rules here which do not make the wait any easier. The food has been the same for five and half months and most of the time I am hungry. I miss your cooking so much.'

Under what appear to be the black lines of a US military censor's pen can be read the words: 'I realise I am paying a big price for all the times I have been ungrateful in general and to you in particular.' The letter then ends: 'The most difficult thing in my life is being away from you and the kids, and being patient. I miss you and love you so much.'

Begg's father, Azmat, insists his son is not a terrorist. Ironically, Begg, who owned a bookshop in Birmingham, spent his formative years at a Jewish school and still has many Jewish friends. According to Azmat, a retired bank manager, his son was moved by the plight of the Afghani people and in 2001 travelled to Kabul with his family to start a school for basic education and provide water pumps.

When the allied attack on Afghanistan began in October 2001, Begg and his family moved to Islamabad in Pakistan for safety. It was there that he was seized in January 2002 by Pakistani police and CIA officers, bundled into a back of a car and taken back to Kabul, where he was held in a windowless cellar at Bagram airbase for nearly a year. His family insist it's a case of mistaken identity. Intelligence agents targeted Begg because his name appears on a photo-copy of a money transfer found in an al-Qaeda training camp.

Begg maintains his innocence in his letters home, saying: 'I believe that there has been a gross violation of my human rights, particularly to that right of freedom and innocence until proven guilty. After all this time I still don't know what crime I am supposed to have committed, for which not only I, but my wife and children should continually suffer for as a result.

'I am in a state of desperation and am beginning to lose the fight against depression and hopelessness .'

All of Begg's letters show that he rarely gets correspondence from his family, although he writes to them regularly. He continually blames 'the system' for preventing him getting details about his legal status, his family and the outside world. One letter begins: 'I wrote to mum in July. I am not entirely surprised if you never received it, or even if you will get this one -- but here goes anyway.'

In that letter he writes : 'I am afraid that I spend much time sleeping -- often getting bored from just sitting or lying down.' To counter the boredom, he reads the Koran, saying: 'I am also trying to to memorise the whole of the largest chapter.'

Although he appears reluctant to worry his family, he does write about some of the more unpleasant aspects of life in Camp X-Ray. 'The camel spider is the only 10-legged spider in the world, and, I believe, it is not an arachnid (technically not a spider). But it grows to bigger than the human hand-size, moves like a race-car and has a bite that causes flesh to decay if untreated. In the summer there were plenty here, running into cells and climbing over people; one person was bitten and had to be treated. Apart from that there is the usual melee of scorpions, beetles, mice and other insects.'

Another letter states: 'My routine is extremely mono-tonous ... Conversation with others is severely restricted but I do talk often to the guards.'

In the same letter, however, he shows that he still has a sense of humour in a sly side-swipe at his US captors: 'I had a discussion recently with someone about the USA's contribution to civilisation (after talking about Ancient Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China). I pondered for many hours, then came up with the answer: peanut butter (both smooth and crunchy) ... I have that every now and then and it tastes fairly good!'

Another letter describes how he has been given books to read, including the biography of Malcolm X, Black Hawk Down (the story of America's botched military involvement in Somalia), Churchill's life and books on the US Civil War, Vietnam and the War of Independence -- 'which', Begg adds sarcastically, 'they won by sheer luck'.

Other letters are more poig-nant, with Begg asking his brothers to care for his wife and children -- who are now back in Britain -- and ensure they do well at school. 'Please help them in whatever way you can ... Don't let my children want for anything due to any financial problems.

'This is the hardest test I have had to face in my life,' he tells his father, 'and I hope I have not caused you too much distress, but I will pass this test by the will of Allah and your prayers.'

His last letter in January this year ends: 'I don't know what is going on about my case, but I think it won't be resolved any time shortly. I am mostly kept in the dark and nobody seems to know. Please write back.'

Begg's father Azmat, who proudly recounts the fact that all his family served in the British army, says his grandchildren are distraught at their father's disappearance.

Azmat and the rest of the family have been refused visas to travel to America in order to ask questions about their son's case. He also accused the Foreign Office of failing to help.

' I feel now he will comply with whatever he is told,' said Azmat. 'In his most recent letter he said that he will 'make a decision which will affect the entire family'. We cannot guess what he means, but I am afraid he could do anything -- he has nothing in him left.'

06 July 2003

[CAsterling]

Oh so the left wing, we hate human right abuses being done by America, but support them by little nations as the little nations are expressing their right to freedom idiots are getting some media exposure over here.....what a bunch of cretins.

Anything coming out of a British Labour politicians mouth I treat with contempt until there is overwhelming evidence that they actually have some facts correct.....and so far I haven't been proved wrong very often.

As you may guess, I having nothing but the highest respect of this bunch of self serving buttholes.

[Fritz]

very credible with no links

[Airhog]

Dont shoot the messenger folks. But I have read from several sources that they do plan to try people in a military tribunal. Now isnt that just wrong?

[Fritz]

no

[Franklinnoble]

I agree - they're war criminals, and if they're not U.S. Citizens, they deserve no protection under our constitution.

This sends a clear message to terrorists - we use the kid gloves on our own, but when a foreign enemy f*cks with us, the gloves are off.

[illinifan999]

Exactly.

[CamEdwards]

lemme guess... this came from the guardian?

[CamEdwards]

Damn, I was wrong. Looks like Mackay writes for the Sunday Herald .

However, a google search of his name turned up his articles at

Common Dreams , which describes itself as "Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community".

I'll take it with a heaping handful of salt, thanks.

[ice4277]

I think I have yet to see a fairly-balanced article relating to terrorism/Iraq posted or referenced on this messageboard.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
lemme guess... this came from the guardian?

You know me too well CamEdwards

[Airhog]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
I agree - they're war criminals, and if they're not U.S. Citizens, they deserve no protection under our constitution.

This sends a clear message to terrorists - we use the kid gloves on our own, but when a foreign enemy f*cks with us, the gloves are off.

But dont these terrorists deserve protection under international law?

If they are war criminals shouldnt they deserve protection under the geneva conventions?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Airhog
But dont these terrorists deserve protection under international law?

If they are war criminals shouldnt they deserve protection under the geneva conventions?

As far as I'm aware, al Quaida has never subscribed to the Geneva convention of international law, so I'm pretty sure they've opted out of any rights they might have otherwise had under it.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
As far as I'm aware, al Quaida has never subscribed to the Geneva convention of international law, so I'm pretty sure they've opted out of any rights they might have otherwise had under it.

Bingo.

TroyF

[Airhog]

So if I form a club, lets say the Freedom fighters, and I dont subscribe to the Geneva convention then I waive my rights?

I thought the Geneva convention applied to everyone? I thought it was the members that agree to the terms of the convention that are supposed to uphold the laws set forth within it, not the other way around?

[CamEdwards]

The Geneva Convention applies to prisoners of war. These aren't prisoners of war. They're enemy combatants. What nationality they hold is irrelevant when it comes to the Geneva convention, because we're not at war with England, Afghanistan, etc. We're at war with Al-Queda.

[Airhog]

Hmmm, and what is the difference between an enemy combatant and a prisoner of war?

It seems to me like the only real difference is that the definition of a prisioner of war states that it is a captured enemy from another nation that you are at war with.

Webster didnt have a definition of enemy combatant. so I just used enemy and combatant.

My definition would be an a hostile force or military adversary that is ready to engage in combat or is engaged in combat.

I also think that it is very debatable as to how you determine if someone is a enemy combatant, or a prisoner of war.

[Fritz]

Airhog (all)

The problem here is that these folks are members of an organization that is somewhere between organized crime, and a hostile nation. They don't fit into an established box.

For those that pay attention, these are fascinating times, because we are in the middle of a paradigm shift that people will study in 100 years.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by Fritz
Airhog (all)

The problem here is that these folks are members of an organization that is somewhere between organized crime, and a hostile nation. They don't fit into an established box.

For those that pay attention, these are fascinating times, because we are in the middle of a paradigm shift that people will study in 100 years.

Well now that you have made an appearance this discussion is complete


And hopefully we will be around another 100 years so that we may be studied

[EagleFan]

I thought this was going to be a poll about the Women's World Cup. I think they can repeat.

[MIJB#19]

According to the American goverment only non-Americans can be war criminals.
The USA threatend to invade my country if (for example) Bill Clinton was put into the jail next to Slobodan Milosevic.

Why would the USA while not recognizing their own war criminals as war criminals, be the judge to decide wheter foreign war criminals are war criminals?

PS. This is not an attempt to sound anti-American, this is an attempt ask a serious question.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Fritz
Airhog (all)

The problem here is that these folks are members of an organization that is somewhere between organized crime, and a hostile nation. They don't fit into an established box.

For those that pay attention, these are fascinating times, because we are in the middle of a paradigm shift that people will study in 100 years.

Well even if this is the case I call bullshit on the alleged treatment if it's truly happening.

We don't tread organized criminals OR hostile nationals this way but muslims are fair game? There's NO category that the USA has ever treated this way and IF, and it's a big if, we're treating them this way, then there's no justification for it.

I really think we are better than that and if we aren't then fuck us. I'm glad that I still have faith that wiser minds than are exhibited in this thread are in control no matter how much I disagree with them.

I hope this is bullshit.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by MIJB#19
According to the American goverment only non-Americans can be war criminals.
The USA threatend to invade my country if (for example) Bill Clinton was put into the jail next to Slobodan Milosevic.

Why would the USA while not recognizing their own war criminals as war criminals, be the judge to decide wheter foreign war criminals are war criminals?

We do handle "domestic" war criminals, but "crimes" are treated as a breach of military law if they are commited by a soldier, and civil law if they are by a civilian.

[Jon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
I agree - they're war criminals, and if they're not U.S. Citizens, they deserve no protection under our constitution.

This sends a clear message to terrorists - we use the kid gloves on our own, but when a foreign enemy f*cks with us, the gloves are off.

Actually, the constitution makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens for purposes of constitutional rights, only "people" vs. "non-people." But, this is really moot since it only applies to actions taken on American soil. That's why they detained them at Camp X-ray -- Federal courts have repeatedly held that Guantanamo is not considered American soil for purposes of jurisprudence.

[albionmoonlight]

Jon is right. Even illegal aliens are "persons" for purposes of the Federal Constitution.

I do not know about Guantanamo, but everyone seems to say that it is outside of U.S. jurisdiction, so I assume that it must be.

[KWhit]

I have no idea if the conditions are as bad at camp X-Ray as these articles make it sound, but I do think it is a mistake to deny these people the rights that we claim to hold dear.

I don't care what you call them - POWs or Enemy Combatants - but they are people and some of them may not even be terrorists (there are cases of mistaken identity all the time).

It looks like we're hypocritical. The way it looks to me is that we're taking advantage of a wierd loophole so we can avoid the Geneva convention. Whether we're technically at war with these people's country of citizenship shouldn't matter - they are prisoners of war (in the casual definition of that phrase - not the specific, "legal" definition).

Let's face it, the US should have the moral high-ground here. It was us who were brutally attacked for all the world to see. The world was completely behind us after 9/11. But we have not used that support well at all. And camp X-Ray turns many countries' opinions against us.

The US should be the leader in human rights. I believe the future will judge the way we're handling this to be a mistake.

[Airhog]

And this question still deserves to be answered, How can we try them under a military tribunal? I just dont see these people as war criminals, even if they are terrorists.

[Fritz]

What would you call them?

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Fritz
What would you call them?

I think the correct PC term is militarily challenged combatant personell.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Axxon
I think the correct PC term is militarily challenged combatant personell.

I think R. Lee Ermey would say they are in a world of shit.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Fritz
I think R. Lee Ermey would say they are in a world of shit.

And the US is the shovel???

[CamEdwards]

I would say that the mere fact these folks are still alive gives us the moral high ground over those who flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I would say that the mere fact these folks are still alive gives us the moral high ground over those who flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.

I'd say moral high ground should be made of sterner stuff. What you are suggesting is that we are merely keeping score so we can appear to have the moral high ground. Huge difference.

As I've been rail on about lately; don't claim moral bullshit when you're merely being self preservatory. It insults the truly moral.

Oh, and I'd take a quick death over being tortured and abused but still alive any day so that too is bullshit IF we're doing what the article says.

[CamEdwards]

No, I'm not suggesting we keep score... I'm just saying when you want to hold the moral high ground over terrorists, you don't have to stand very high.

I've always held that these people shouldn't be held without charges forever, by the way. I just happen to believe that this article is full of shit when it comes to abuses. Just a couple of months ago (and I don't have the link, but I posted it here at one point) a human rights organization visited Camp X-Ray and found no evidence of abuse. In fact, it's interesting that the article referenced by Airhog talks about prisoners being kept in cages. The article I remember talked about prisoners having the freedom to worship, and the p.a. system calling them to prayer five times a day. You'd think if we were truly trying to mentally break these people, we'd deny them access to their religion.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
No, I'm not suggesting we keep score... I'm just saying when you want to hold the moral high ground over terrorists, you don't have to stand very high.

I've always held that these people shouldn't be held without charges forever, by the way. I just happen to believe that this article is full of shit when it comes to abuses. Just a couple of months ago (and I don't have the link, but I posted it here at one point) a human rights organization visited Camp X-Ray and found no evidence of abuse. In fact, it's interesting that the article referenced by Airhog talks about prisoners being kept in cages. The article I remember talked about prisoners having the freedom to worship, and the p.a. system calling them to prayer five times a day. You'd think if we were truly trying to mentally break these people, we'd deny them access to their religion.

I agree that the article is most likely bs but there still is that place in my mind where I realize that with power comes the potential for powerful abuses and we've treated some folks pretty poorly in our history when we felt we needed to in order to insure our safety as a nation.

I guess I'm saying I really WANT to believe that we're above the allegations but I don't know. Like Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men" interestingly enough also in Gitmo, "you can't handle the truth." I can see how this could easily apply and then it's up to the individual which is more important, their morals or their safety.

I'd say morals for me but I'm betting that the government need be made of sterner stuff. Who knows, but I can't really see the need to do this kind of thing at this time so I doubt it is seriously occuring.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by Fritz
What would you call them?

They are criminals, yes

Here is websters definition of a war crime



One entry found for war crime.
Main Entry: war crime
Function: noun
Date: 1906
: a crime (as genocide or maltreatment of prisoners) committed during or in connection with war -- usually used in plural
- war criminal noun


Using this definition I could not call them war criminals. Personally I would call the prisoners of war.




And for those of you that need some more convincing, this comes straight from the bbc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...ay/default.stm

[condors]

i thought this was about world cup 2006 i am not sure we will get to the elimination stage

[Senator]

To answer the threads question.

As far as we have to go.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Senator
To answer the threads question.

As far as we have to go.

I feel we've gone past that already but I'm in absolutely no position to debate the issue with you as you are in the field so to speak and I'm just a guy with an opinion. Let me just add that I appreciate what you're doing and don't be offended when I say sincerely "better you than me."

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Airhog
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...ay/default.stm

When the prisoners arrived at Camp X-Ray they were wearing blindfolds, ear muffs and face masks, which US authorities say were necessary for security and their wellbeing during transit.
However, human rights groups described these measures as ‘sensory deprivation’, raising fears that the level of restraint was unnecessary and inhumane.

US authorities say these measures are used only in transit, and are not a feature of routine life.

Human rights groups are very soft when it comes to many things. ‘Sensory deprivation’ is indeed a no-no (for POWS), but this has to do with using deprivation as a means to harass the prisoners.

The prisoners are being detained in temporary open-sided wire cells until a permanent facility has been constructed.
Sized 1.8m by 2.4m, these have been described as 'kennels' and 'cages' by critics and dubbed 'a scandal' by a Human Rights Watch spokesman.

The prisoners are not shackled when they are inside their cells. But when they are moved around the camp, for showers or exercise, they are restrained at a 'level appropriate for the person' - which may include hand and leg shackles.

Go look at the image. 7-8 foot high, 7-8 foot long, about 5 foot wide. This is not little box. While you might feel short changed at club med, this is a reasonable solution for a prisoner.

Each prisoner has been given:

US army standard-issue 2cm-thick foam sleeping mat
One blanket
Two buckets (one for water, one for waste)
A one quart flask
Two orange boiler suits
A pair of flip-flops
Two bath towels (one for washing, one for use as a prayer mat)
A washcloth
Toothpaste
Soap
Shampoo
A copy of the Koran

So they get a soldiers bed, a place to crap, two sets of clothes, footware, personal hygene items, and something for their religious needs (assuming they can read). This looks okay to me.

Meals


Prisoners are served three meals a day, all of which are "culturally appropriate":

Breakfast - typically bread, cream cheese, an orange, a pastry, a roll, a bottle of water

Lunch - typically a box of cereal, two cereal bars, a packet of peanuts, one packet of crisps, one packet of raisins, a bottle of water

Evening meal - typically white rice, red beans, a banana, bread, a bottle of water

What! No lobster tail! While this not Mariott catering, it is adequate.

Do these folks eat meat?

Regime

Breakfast followed by 'shower opportunity and personal time'

Doctor visits to address any medical issues

Lunch

Exercise period

Mail call - pens and paper are provided, letters may be written under supervision, pens are collected afterwards

Evening meal

break my heart, no TV time.

-------

From the BBC report, things sound A-Okay

[Senator]

All I can tell you is be VERY cautious about everything you read. From whichever camp you read it. Follow the sources and make your best guess based on the intelligence you have. 9 times out of 10, that is the correct answer. I read so much drivel from all sides that is so far from the truth it would make a persons head spin.

[sachmo71]

As long as they are protecting my family, I will turn a blind eye to almost anything. What else can I do?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Senator
I read so much drivel from all sides that is so far from the truth it would make a persons head spin.

Should I expect a complete rotation (360 degrees)? Today some things have made my head go 94 deg., but that would be more of a twist.

[Senator]

Linda Blair would have nothing on you.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by sachmo71
As long as they are protecting my family, I will turn a blind eye to almost anything. What else can I do?

You could take a more philosophical view such as:

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his own soul?",- Matthew 16:26

Which is how I would feel if I were the torturer. My soul is too valuable for that. I don't expect a country to do that though so while I don't exactly turn a blind eye, I don't expect morality either. It's a big bad world out there and nobody is any different really. We're just stronger.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon
You could take a more philosophical view such as:

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his own soul?",- Matthew 16:26

Which is how I would feel if I were the torturer. My soul is too valuable for that. I don't expect a country to do that though so while I don't exactly turn a blind eye, I don't expect morality either. It's a big bad world out there and nobody is any different really. We're just stronger.

Perhaps you should quote the two verses prior to that one, just to put it in its true context:

M't:16:24: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
M't:16:25: For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
M't:16:26: For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Jesus is telling us to give up all of our own earthly, selfish interests and follow him. It's good scripture, but not directly relevant to the argument as to whether or not the U.S. is mistreating terrorist prisoners or if said prisoners are entitled to the same rights as domestic criminals.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Perhaps you should quote the two verses prior to that one, just to put it in its true context:

M't:16:24: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
M't:16:25: For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
M't:16:26: For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Jesus is telling us to give up all of our own earthly, selfish interests and follow him. It's good scripture, but not directly relevant to the argument as to whether or not the U.S. is mistreating terrorist prisoners or if said prisoners are entitled to the same rights as domestic criminals.

Well, since Jesus also said :

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)

and in your quote he says give up your earthy self interests ( and what is clinging to life when heaven beckons? ) and follow him, I surely can see the relevance to the question I answered which was "what can I do." Since this is essentially a religious war one COULD abide by the teachings of one's religious diety I would imagine. Isn't that a viable option?

[sachmo71]

I don't really put too much stock in the Good Book. I put a lot of stock in my family. If the government deems it necessary to lock foreign nationals up to keep my family safe, then I accept it. I'm not going to pretend that I know more about the world situation than the government. They have their reasons for doing what they are doing, and I don't think it's for fun. If I start worrying about the morality of it all, it will only hurt more.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by sachmo71
I don't really put too much stock in the Good Book. I put a lot of stock in my family. If the government deems it necessary to lock foreign nationals up to keep my family safe, then I accept it. I'm not going to pretend that I know more about the world situation than the government. They have their reasons for doing what they are doing, and I don't think it's for fun. If I start worrying about the morality of it all, it will only hurt more.

Well I did say you could not that you necessarily should.