http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_abuse
2007-01-02 23:35:06 · 7 answers · asked by kissmy 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
it is on top stories on yahoo right now.
2007-01-02 23:56:11 · update #1
Number of people kidnapped, held and tortured at Guantanamo who have been convicted of "terrorism": zero.
Number of people kidnapped, held and tortured at Guantanamo who have been released without charge after more than three years of confinement: at least fifty.
So much for "the worst of the worst".
.
2007-01-03 06:47:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The harshness of interrogation tactics is a definite subject for debate. While prisoners should be treated humanely in accordance with internationally accepted standards, not all things reported are inhumane. Take for example wrapping a detainee in an Israeli flag. While this might impose a form of mental torture on a suspect, it is in no way a physical abuse. We must allow interrogators some latitude, but we must also protect against actual physical torture. The problem is that groups like the ACLU deem every interrogation tactic torture in order to serve their agenda. We must protect basic human rights and punish those who violate them, or run the risk of becoming worse than what we are fighting, but at the same time we must also accept that while some may find the tactics disturbing they are not all inhumane and some extreme methods are necessary to serve our interests.
2007-01-03 08:04:40 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It just is. It does not violate the Geneva conventions, which have a strict and exacting definition of what "torture" means. These techniques to not rise to the level of "torture".
As for the use of "so-called" to describe the illegal combatants there, that's opinion, not fact. The truth is the inmates have gone through several boards of inquiry that determined their status there. They are there because they deserve to be there.
Because they are illegal combatants, they do not have the protections afforded normal POWs, and are open to aggressive interrogation techniques.
Actually, per Geneva, they could have been shot on the spot as spies, like the Americans did to Nazi partisans in Germany after the war ended.
2007-01-03 08:10:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
regerugged-the article was posted January 3, 2007.
As for the contents of the story? Our military is doing what it has to do to keep us safe. Do I like it? No. I liked some dudes flying into our buildings even less. You can't clean a toilet out without getting your hands a little dirty.
2007-01-03 07:54:34 · answer #4 · answered by kelly24592 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I feel like it's old news that is continually brought up again and agin. I personally don't care what happens to the terrorists that they're keeping at Guantanamo. At least they aren't killing Americans. Call me when a bunch of hooded Americans saw one of their heads off with a rusty bayonet like they did to Nick Berg.
2007-01-03 07:42:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I did not find a date on the article. I am skeptical of anything I get on the internet, from any source. It is too easily doctored.
I think the US should do whatever is necessary to win the war against terrorists. Anything the US does to extract information from terrorists is all right with me.
2007-01-03 07:42:17 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I say who cares. They deserve to be treated badly and any American that sides with them is a terrorist sympathizer. Why do we worry about how we are treating prisoners? Do they worry about how they kill us? I dont think so.
2007-01-03 07:45:04 · answer #7 · answered by bildymooner 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋