Guantanamo
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">"This American Life" Episode</div>Here's the page for the episode: <a href="http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=331" target="_blank">http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=331</a>
Transcript: <a href="http://www.thislife.org/extras/radio/310_transcript.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.thislife.org/extras/radio/310_transcript.pdf</a>
and mp3: <a href="http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/special/310_bonus.mp3" target="_blank">http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/special/310_bonus.mp3</a>
Here's a summary.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The right of habeas corpus has been a part of our country's legal tradition longer than we've actually been a country. It means that our government has to explain why it's holding a person in custody. But now, the war on terror has nixed many of the rules we used to think of as fundamental. At Guantanamo Bay, our government initially claimed that prisoners should not be covered by habeas—or even by the Geneva Conventions—because they're the most fearsome enemies we have. But is that true? Is it a camp full of terrorists, or a camp full of our mistakes?
Prologue.
Joseph Margulies, a lawyer for one of the detainees at Guantanamo, explains how the detention facility there was created to be an ideal interrogation facility. Any possible comfort, such as water or natural light, is entirely controlled by the interrogators. (3 minutes)
Act One.There's No U.S. in Habeas.
Jack Hitt explains how President's Bush's War on Terror changed the rules for prisoners of war, and how it is that under those rules, it'd be possible that someone whose classified file declares that they pose no threat to the United States, could still be locked up indefinitely — potentially forever! — at Guantanamo. (24 minutes). Clarification: When Seton Hall Professor Baher Azmy discusses the classified file of his client, Murat Kurnaz, in this act, he is referring to information that had previously been made public and published in the Washington Post. That material has subsequently been reclassified.
Act Two. September 11th, 1660.
Habeas Corpus began in England. Recently, 175 members of the British Parliament filed a "friend of the court" brief in one of the Supreme Court cases on habeas and Guantanamo, apparently the first time that's happened in Supreme Court history. In their brief, the members of Parliament warn about the danger of suspending habeas: "During the British Civll War, the British created their own version of Guantanamo Bay and dispatched undesirable prisoners to garrisons off the mainland, beyond the reach of habeas corpus relief." In London, reporter Jon Ronson, author of Them, goes in search of what happened. (6 minutes)
Act Three. We Interrogate the Detainees.
Although over two hundred prisoners from the U.S. Facility at Guantanamo Bay have been released, few of them have ever been interviewed on radio or television in America. Jack Hitt conducts rare and surprising interviews with two former Guantanamo detainees about life in Guantanamo. (20 minutes)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Transcript: <a href="http://www.thislife.org/extras/radio/310_transcript.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.thislife.org/extras/radio/310_transcript.pdf</a>
and mp3: <a href="http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/special/310_bonus.mp3" target="_blank">http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/special/310_bonus.mp3</a>
Here's a summary.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The right of habeas corpus has been a part of our country's legal tradition longer than we've actually been a country. It means that our government has to explain why it's holding a person in custody. But now, the war on terror has nixed many of the rules we used to think of as fundamental. At Guantanamo Bay, our government initially claimed that prisoners should not be covered by habeas—or even by the Geneva Conventions—because they're the most fearsome enemies we have. But is that true? Is it a camp full of terrorists, or a camp full of our mistakes?
Prologue.
Joseph Margulies, a lawyer for one of the detainees at Guantanamo, explains how the detention facility there was created to be an ideal interrogation facility. Any possible comfort, such as water or natural light, is entirely controlled by the interrogators. (3 minutes)
Act One.There's No U.S. in Habeas.
Jack Hitt explains how President's Bush's War on Terror changed the rules for prisoners of war, and how it is that under those rules, it'd be possible that someone whose classified file declares that they pose no threat to the United States, could still be locked up indefinitely — potentially forever! — at Guantanamo. (24 minutes). Clarification: When Seton Hall Professor Baher Azmy discusses the classified file of his client, Murat Kurnaz, in this act, he is referring to information that had previously been made public and published in the Washington Post. That material has subsequently been reclassified.
Act Two. September 11th, 1660.
Habeas Corpus began in England. Recently, 175 members of the British Parliament filed a "friend of the court" brief in one of the Supreme Court cases on habeas and Guantanamo, apparently the first time that's happened in Supreme Court history. In their brief, the members of Parliament warn about the danger of suspending habeas: "During the British Civll War, the British created their own version of Guantanamo Bay and dispatched undesirable prisoners to garrisons off the mainland, beyond the reach of habeas corpus relief." In London, reporter Jon Ronson, author of Them, goes in search of what happened. (6 minutes)
Act Three. We Interrogate the Detainees.
Although over two hundred prisoners from the U.S. Facility at Guantanamo Bay have been released, few of them have ever been interviewed on radio or television in America. Jack Hitt conducts rare and surprising interviews with two former Guantanamo detainees about life in Guantanamo. (20 minutes)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Oh the terrible, terrible irony.
Max
Why don't we stop our own government from doing something this horrible.
Everything goes back to 9/11. Once the truth about that is exposed they wont be able to get away with that they can today.
The whole concept that middle eastern terrorists are genuine threat is false and the war of terror is a fraud.
Wow, you seriously think 9/11 was caused by the American government? You're a ###### retard.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and you're a very special kid.
Everything goes back to 9/11. Once the truth about that is exposed they wont be able to get away with that they can today.
The whole concept that middle eastern terrorists are genuine threat is false and the war of terror is a fraud.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you think is the truth?
I think rapier was assuming you are pointing at the US government because that's what a lot of people who deny that 9/11 was caused by arab terrorists claim. If you want to have a real discusion you should state your beliefs. Leaving them so vague is going to cause people to make assumptions, correct or not.
We're imprisoning and torturing innocent people to save face. That should be enough of a scandal.
I think rapier was assuming you are pointing at the US government because that's what a lot of people who deny that 9/11 was caused by arab terrorists claim. If you want to have a real discusion you should state your beliefs. Leaving them so vague is going to cause people to make assumptions, correct or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
all discussion on this is pointless because theres so much ish lying around, classified files no one has access to et cetera. who knows what your government / cia has been up to these last decades. conspiracy theories are valid because stuff like this unearths years after the action, its a web of lies
and even if it isnt, nothing justifies such hostile assaults on unorthodoxy as weve seen in this thread <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
also, more on thread: i might be wrong about this because i havent studied americans enough, but from what i have seen it seems like you consider yourself victims of some kind. why?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But can we be SURE that they're innocent? What if they're not? Isn't it better to leave them imprisoned, just in case? Isn't it better to imprison YOU, just in case? I mean, you're obviously a sympathiser.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no need to physically imprison anyone, just make sure people dont escape (leave) from where they are and you maintain control over them. let them keep their illusion of freedom
I know that there is enough reasonable doubt about the official story that further investigation is required.
I don't know for sure who was behind it, but the concept that people working inside the government were not involved on any level shouldn't be discounted. Its interesting how black and white rapier makes it. Either you think 'terrorists' did it or you think the 'government' did it, its a little more complicated than that.
Is it not valid to believe that the whole thing is so highly suspicious than it should not be used as an excuse to wage wars?
Look at what Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI said last year when asked why Bid Laden wasn't part featured on their 'Most Wanted' list: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet they used 9/11 as an excuse to make the rules up as they go along. This topic is just another example of it. You cant just dismiss this as 'just 9/11 discussion', its the root of the problem.
You should be blaming the CIA, who is responsible for intelligence of people in foreign countries, but you're not even American. You clearly already display a remarkable ignorance of the functions of our most high profile agencies, so why even include you in on the discussion?
Government negligence or a clash of bureaucracy may have been "indirectly responsible" for causing 9/11. But the truth is that a bunch of non-American residents that arrived from foreign countries (mostly from Saudi Arabia) hijacked 4 planes, crashed 2 in the World Trade Center towers, 1 in the Pentagon, and 1 in the ground due to the valiant efforts of those onboard. To say that the government colluded with the terrorists is absurd. To say that the government's intelligence agencies might have looked over a few red flags is more reasonable.
But here's the thing: reform of the intelligence agencies to better deal with a terrorist threat was dealt with in the form of the PATRIOT act, something that a lot of Europeans (and Americans alike) derided as the end of personal freedoms for citizens of the US.
The fact is that all this bullish I'm hearing is coming from where it should least matter: Europe. Americans criticizing the American government is fine. European criticism of the American government on domestic affairs is both laughable and highly misinformed.
I work in security. From what has been released, the intel community had more than a "few" red flags. They had everything save for an engraved invitation to pick these guys up.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But here's the thing: reform of the intelligence agencies to better deal with a terrorist threat was dealt with in the form of the PATRIOT act, something that a lot of Europeans (and Americans alike) derided as the end of personal freedoms for citizens of the US.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean the Tap Everyone's Phone and Arrest Random People to Torture and Interrogate (to Fight the Terrorists) Act?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The fact is that all this bullish I'm hearing is coming from where it should least matter: Europe. Americans criticizing the American government is fine. European criticism of the American government on domestic affairs is both laughable and highly misinformed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Black Mage
1800 Engel Rd.
McCollum Hall, Room ----.
Lawrence, Kansas.
66045-3821.
The issue here is how we deal with it. Terrorism is really the enemy here, the problem is that we the west, (and we Americans especially) are igniting the furor of Islamic radicals even more.
We are not responsible for 9/11, but we are responsible for how we treat the world around us. We're dealing with a different culture here, which is not possible to understand while thinking on our own terms. We must understand that our treatment of prisoners, torturing them like if morals didn't apply to foreigners, feeds the hatred of those seeking to retaliate against us.
Torturing people is a danger to the western way of thinking and living in so many ways.
The fact is that all this bullish I'm hearing is coming from where it should least matter: Europe. Americans criticizing the American government is fine. European criticism of the American government on domestic affairs is both laughable and highly misinformed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I'm Irish, we've had 25 years of terrorism. I've noticed that many, if not all, Americans I've met during the past few years (lived with them aswell) on my travels around Europe Have actually been quite surprised how much we know about "domestic" affairs in the US, like Guantanamo.
This is a very dark period in American history, and the fact that the current US president is so unpopular that his supporters have to resort to a "well f**k what the world thinks" attitute is quite disturbing. Secret Saddam style prisons do not help the situation.
The world will leave the U.S. alone once the U.S. leaves the world alone.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We tried that before, after about 20 years people came screaming back asking for help, then we got sucker punched and a few thousand Americans were killed with no provocation. The world expects us to leave it alone until they need help, then they come crying to us wanting our money, resources, and military to bail them out, but not wanting us to help ourselves out in any way. You can take that chip off your shoulder now.
Besides the marines in Lebanon (which we pulled out after a truck bomb killed over 200 of them) and Gulf War 1, military presence in the Middle East was at an all time low. I suppose we should start blaming the French and the British, whose policies in the Middle East were far more brutal than when we succeeded them.
Ever since WWII, the United States had a substantial political and economic stake in the Middle East, but which superpower or great power DIDN'T?
You know what happened before American intervention in Kosovo? We had actually planned on going in even in 1991. But of course the Europeans had to try first. You know what our Secretary of State said at the time? "They will screw it up, and this will teach them a lesson." It was only AFTER the United States intervened did some semblance of peace form.
Hour of Europe my ######. Europe always answers in multiple voices EXCEPT when they unite to denounce the United States. The entire identity of the European Union rests solely on how the rest of Europe is superior to the United States, denouncing our policies, sneering at our leaders, aggressively painting our culture as a bunch of gun-crazed, hypocritical, avaricious cowboy sheriffs.
Yet when something bad happens in the world, everybody looks at the United States for something. Anything. Because nobody else has the guts, determination or ability to act. When the 2004 tsunami hit, 2 CVBGs were the first to arrive and help the survivors. Rwanda's massacre? Yeah, WHERE WAS THE US? Darfur? SAVE THEM, USA. Apparently everybody wants the United States to help, but only when they tell us to, effectively telling us how to conduct our foreign policy.
Until the rest of the world gets their act together, you'll see American diplomatic primacy stick around a while longer. Western Europe would not be the way it is today had we not directly subsidized their defense. When the Soviet Union was still around, we were effectively the security lender of the last resort. At least in the Cold War, your governments figured that the T-55s and 72s on the other side of the wall were a bigger problem than American intervention. When they put up the Wall, the Bonn government huddled under the American security umbrella even more eagerly.
Apparently when the world needs the US, they are more than willing to lick American boots and kiss American ######. But when they have nothing to fear, in a split second they'll be ridiculing us behind our back.
Ah... I love the smell of whoop-###### in the evening.