UK captives tell of ill treatment

Originally posted by pavil
Just a simple question, were any of the people that are in Gitmo captured in full military uniform, clearly marking them as members of a Nation's armed forces? It's a yes or no question by the way.

Do I not get an "I don't know" option? I don't know the specifics of every single detainee in Gitmo. Neither do you for that matter.

Originally posted by cavscout
Those in Gitmo were ACTUALY FIGHTING coalition forces. No matter if the war is right or wrong, you have to see the difference.

That is incorrect. Have you not heard of the civilians who were kidnapped and sent to Gitmo for things as varied as mistaken identity to having the audacity of carrying a mobile phone charger onto an aeroplane. They have since been released may I add, but not after undergoing the interrogation/mistreatment I outlined earlier.

So no, I don't see the difference here. Any way, have you never heard of universal human rights? You might not have noticed that I've reserved my judgement in the Iranian case, that is I haven't condoned nor condemned it. Why? Because whilst I do not believe the soldiers were mistreated I am not convinced they were actually captured in clearly defined Iranian territorial waters.

Originally posted by cavscout
The prisoners at Gitmo have openly engaged coalition forces in warfare.

Big difference.

Again, not all in Gitmo are guilty of anything other than mistaken identity, being the subject of a vendetta by local villagers who gave the US "information" against them, or carrying a mobile phone charger. Since all the aforementioned cases were treated to the same US mistreatment in Guantanamo Bay your post holds to water as there is no difference.

But lets play devil's advocate here for a moment. Let's say every single prisoner in Guantanamo Bay was caught fighting coalition forces. Does that some how allow for their mistreatment? We don't allow the mistreatment of serial killers, child molesters, drug dealers etc. in our prisons, so why should we allow it in this case?

Originally posted by IAF101
ITs ridiculous to say GITMO is the same thing as what IRAN has done. The people in Gitmo are terrorist and their collaborators, while Iran captured British soldiers, do you consider both of them to be the same thing ?

Ignoring the assumption that universal declaration of human rights carried a caveat of "this doesn't apply to terrorists" for a moment, you do realize that the Taliban was in charge of Afghanistan whether you like it or not. They constituted a government and a defence force and were legally allowed to defend their country from invasion from Allied forces.

I back up the fact that they were a government by citing the occasions whereby the US government invited the Taliban to the United States in 2000 to try to broker a natural gas pipeline through their country and to the Bush administration demanding from the Taliban that they give up Osama Bin Laden. If you're the United States government you do not negotiate trade access with terrorists and you don't make demands of terrorists whilst threatening entire nations; you do so with governments, of which the Taliban was.

All of which is irrelevant, may I add, since the United States is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Next...

[edit on 7/4/07 by subz]

Off topic,

How do you quote different people in the same post?

Originally posted by subz
Let's say every single prisoner in Guantanamo Bay was caught fighting coalition forces. Does that some how allow for their mistreatment?

Like I said, I don’t condone the detaining of anyone at Gitmo. I didn’t choose sides here, both are wrong. I simply pointed out that I believe you were wrong as well. This isn’t an us vs. them thing, it is an objective thought thing.

Next...

Well you only addressed a small percentage of the arguments against your position. How about talking about the others before asking for more.



OFF TOPIC: Selfless, you made 5 posts within an hour, interrupted by no one. That is generally considered poor form. There is an edit button you can use. Not an attack on you, just FYI.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by cavscout]

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
BINGO! Finally, someone here has got the friggin point.

Abu Ghraib happened. It violated all sorts of laws and conventions. It was universally condemned. Even in the U.S.

The Iranians did to the UK captives what the US has constantly been condemned for doing in Gitmo. Where is the condemnation, eh?

Lets not be hypocritical here. If people are going to condemn the US for psychologically abusing and mistreating the prisoners at Gitmo, then by the same reasoning, Iran should be condemned for its behavior.

No,
No one is saying isolation and interrogation in GITMO is wrong.
They are saying nude pyramids, use of dogs, religous methods, and all that crap is wrong.
ISOLATION and interrogatin is whats NESSECARY. its no evasive, it doesnt INJURE you. Thats how you interrogate..
If what Iran did is mistreatment, then you'd better go and sue your police units, your jails and all that.
Because Isolation, and interrogation is not mistreatment.

No one has yet been able to prove where those soliders were.
IRan had every right to detain them, IF They were in Iranian waters.
Once again, neither the british nor iranians have PROVEN where they were, so no one can definitivley say, Iran or Britain was in the wrong.

So they were isolated?.. big friggen deal.
Thats would be in my mind a normal operatnig procedure for ANYONE.
Police even isolate you if your in a group.

Mistreatment?
If being isolated and interrogated is mistreatment, you'd better not step outside.
someone might swear at you.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Inannamute
Spot on with your post on page 4
Way above vote.

Iran are not peace prize makers,
But you'd be STUPID, not to be researching nuclear weapons at a time like this.
Nuclear weapons have proven to be the best defense, and when the US is on a ME Crusuade, and a squarley looking at you.. you'd be preparing.

Mistreatment, some of you really need to wake up a bit.
What the Iranians did to the british is very very far from mistreatment.

And infinate, in all respects I think Gitmo has a very big place in this thread.

Some people, SOME ... regarding the interrogations at GITMO to be nessecary and legitimate.
MOST think they are haneous.

But the US Does probably 99.9% of the time at Gitmo, what Iran did to these people.

Isolation, and interrogation.
Psychological tactics.

They are basics of interrogation.


If people are really using this as 'another' reason to hate Iran, then you might as well put on a suit, and go knocking on wolfowitz's, cheney's and bush's door. Because they'd love to study how easily you were duped, and sucked into the 'lets hate iran' catergory.

I don't need another reason to dislike Iran. Yes I realize that 1979 was a long time ago but that doesn't lessen he significance of their actions against the several hundred American citizens that they held hostage
Oh and maybe the daily "Death to America" chants and vowing to destroy the United States. All of those are legitimate reasons for my dislike of the Iranian leaders.
One final point is this, the people that were taken by Iran THIS TIME were British not Americans. So quit comparing their treatment to Gitmo or Abu Graib, these are American facilities British have nothing to do with either.
I completely lost the respect of the current Administration in allowing and then condoning the torture of people at both of those facilities.
Bush not only breaks laws, he admits to breaking them while thumbing his nose about it.
He actually believes he is above the law and so far hes gotten away with it. Something SHOULD be done to him NOW but if they dont do it NOW they damn well better do it after he leaves office.


[edit on 7-4-2007 by Kr0n0s]

Originally posted by cavscout
Like I said, I don’t condone the detaining of anyone at Gitmo. I didn’t choose sides here, both are wrong. I simply pointed out that I believe you were wrong as well. This isn’t an us vs. them thing, it is an objective thought thing.

Thats basically what I wrote on page 6. I outlined the conditions whereby I believe criticism of the Iranian's would be valid. I don't think I could be any more objective with that post if I tried.

I never once said the Iranians could mistreat the British because the Americans did. I said I don't believe the treatment the British received constituted ill-treatment.

If the Iranians water-boarded the British I'd be in the front-row of the chorus condemning the Iranian government.

Originally posted by cavscout
Well you only addressed a small percentage of the arguments against your position. How about talking about the others before asking for more.

I answered the ones that I knew I could answer, or that I believed were not answered previously.

Originally posted by selfless
How do you quote different people in the same post?

There's numerous ways you could go about this. My favourite way is to click "quote" on all the posts you want to quote, opening them up in separate windows then copying and pasting them into one reply window as needed.

Or you could simply copy the quote code and replace the name as needed. You'll see the syntax for the quote code by clicking quote on any post. Replacing ( and ) with [ and ], it's as follows:

(quote)(i)Originally posted by whoever(/i)
text here text here text here text here(/quote)

The whole world treats each other bad.

Arguing over single countries is a circular debate that wll eventually lead to war and hatred.

When everyone can be nice together, just as they are mean together, then we can stop worrying about what waters belong to who and we can move on to bigger and better things, like how we're going to survive this petty border squabbling that is rampant all over the world.

Divide and conquer = Divided, thus conquered. While divided there will never be peace.

The least that can be said about the Iranian and Britain situation is : at least we are all treated equally.

Treat others as you would want to be treated, huh America? "One Nation" Under "God": An invitation for isolation and war

[edit on 7-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
The whole world treats each other bad.

Arguing over single countries is a circular debate that wll eventually lead to war and hatred.
[...]

Treat others as you would want to be treated, huh America? "One Nation" Under "God": An invitation for isolation and war

Did you just tell everyone to stop talking about individual countries and take a shot at America in the same post? Either I misunderstood or you went from 0 to hypocrite at an alarming speed.

But on to the topic at hand (henceforth my comments do not apply to the quote above)... The only thing that I find even somewhat surprising about all of this is that the soldiers weren't treated worse. As far as being captured by hostile forces goes, these soldiers came out pretty well. Certainly it wasn't a fun jaunt through Happytown, but neither was it Hell on Earth. Frankly, I'm already sick of anyone who is trying to spin the story in either direction. Some jackasses in boats came and grabbed these folks, played some mean mind games, dressed them up in suits, and shipped them back home. I mean, give me that over a decade in a bamboo cage any time.


/tn.

Not a shot at America, only a consequential implication for such actions, and that goes for any and all countries or people that wish to divide or make themselves superior than others.

Some -jackasses- playing Queen and King under veils of "president" took over our world and rule our daily lives with an uranium bullet and nuclear warheads.

Meanwhile they use the pawn citizens to fight their wars for "God" etc. and play propaganda on television to brainwash the populas into thinking that war and destruction of its own species is okay.

Have a beauty full day.

This is why I stay away from these topics, there isn't anything getting done besides propaganda vs. opinion mutating into a lovely and well cooked insult pie

[edit on 7-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

The Iranians are not silly either.

They knew if they going to release the soldiers they will tell a story
(with this case to support their innocence) that would be to an advantage to their strategies/agenda.
And on the other hand, they don’t want to look stupid either.

This does not matter if they where or where not in Iranian waters.

In my opinion, the British can count themselves very lucky to be released.

Dead soldiers don’t talk...


[edit on 7-4-2007 by frozen_snowman]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
This is why I stay away from these topics, there isn't anything getting done besides propaganda vs. opinion mutating into a lovely and well cooked insult pie

The main point was that you appeared to be saying that we shouldn't be talking about individual countries. Then you immediately began talking about individual countries. I think that's hypocritical, and saying so isn't cooking an "insult pie" -- it is stating an observation.

/tn.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

The least that can be said about the Iranian and Britain situation is : at least we are all treated equally.

Here It was being stated that even though we see each other as divided, we are still together and we refelect each other. We all treat each other equally bad because of this division and aim at world superiority, instead of becoming aware that we are the world observing its self.

Treat others as you would want to be treated, huh America? "One Nation" Under "God": An invitation for isolation and war

Here it was being presented that having a signature of "One Nation" Under "God" is a creation of isolation and an invitation for war. There are many Gods in the world and there are many nations, there are also many worlds. How about "The people of Earth", or "The people of Existence"?

I apologize if I was not clear the first time, it is my responsibility to be.

Maybe our conversation is now taking away from the thread, we can continue in u2u's if you'd like, thank you for your patience

[edit on 7-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

OK guys, I understand that it's easy to pick at members that supported or denied what happened at Gitmo et. all. but find this to be bad, that's not the topic though. Let's keep to it please.

Seems no matter what a MOD says, other members are ignoring his request......


I find that ignorant and disrespectfull to other members and also to the MODS on here....

As stated before this thread is not about Gitmo, it is about thse 15 service personell and the way they were treated, by the Iranians.........

And I'm surprised you didn't get a warning for your comments.

No I am suprised half of them on this thread, have not had warnings yet, they have turned this thread into anotherUS V Iran bashing thread....

[edit on 7-4-2007 by spencerjohnstone]

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by Flighty

I've said before that if it had've been 15 male sailors then the whole thing would've been handled differently from the word go.

Huh?

Women can be as though as any male.

That statement is just very much sexist and ignorant.

But that's just my opinion.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by selfless]

I actually meant in the way that they can be exploited mate.
I didn' t find my comment sexist (I'm a female) nor ignorant.

For those that are justifying what happens at Gitmo because the prisoners are terrorists, why should that make a difference? A soldier can instill terror just like a terrorist can, it's just that he wears a nicer uniform and he's on your side. So whether it is a terrorist or a soldier who is captured, they should expect whatever treatment they get.
That's obviously with the argument of 'were Iran allowed to capture them' aside. But I don't think that just because someone has a uniform they should expect better treatment that someone who doesn't.

I'd say that the sailors were lucky to come out able to smile about it.

And also to the newspaper which called them wimps for not fighting back and cooperating, because US marines would have had a good old fight... it's not being wimpish, it's called being clever. They're still alive, which is a good thing btw.

there weren't american soldiers fresh from torturing terrorist suspecta at gunatanimo
they weren't even combat troops engaged in hostilities
they were sailors engaged in routine patrols in a nations waters who they were not at war with
and they were kidnapped by a foreign nation with obvious hostile intent

Geneva Convention
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

they were illegally seized
illegally held
illegally subjected to abuse both mental and physical
now anyone who did this in the west would be subject to a war crimes trial for committing an atrocity under the Geneva convention
its a bit sickening to hear some of you posters standing up for the iranian side because of guantanimo and other such places
ask yourself
how many iranians were at guantanimo and how many british troops were guarding them

so by standing up for Iran you are in effect saying
"hey its ok for anyone to use any justification for anything even when its not related"
and that quite frankly is a load of crap
like I should come round and smack your mother in the mouth because my sister once got slapped by an ex boyfriend when he was drunk
get real

Originally posted by Marduk
like I should come round and smack your mother in the mouth because my sister once got slapped by an ex boyfriend when he was drunk
get real

In fact, as Human beings we have a tendancy to emulate what we are subject to, even if it is not "direct". So your scenerio holds truth where you think it doesn't. If you are beat by your father, chances are you are going to grow up and be abusive to random others, and that is the story of the world and its military systems.

That is the problem with the world and its military. When they can all sit down for a cup of tea together, then we have a real news story to talk about. As far as abusing each other, it seems like standard military procedure, so I don't see why any one is surprised.

I'd be surprised when they start giving each other hugs and flowers for entering "their" waters and/or territory, now that would be a news story.


***MILITARY TURNS PEACEFULL***

[edit on 7-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by Togetic

Why is that relevant here? No one here is defending Abu Ghirab. Don't we have an obligation to condemn these kinds of practices no matter where they happen?

I hope you're not giving Iran a pass here. No one gave the US a pass about their indiscretions, rightfully so.

BINGO! Finally, someone here has got the friggin point.

No, it's you guys who didn't get the point marg was trying to make.

She or he was saying that if you think what happened to the British soldiers were mistreatment then you have no idea what mistreatment really is.

Then what should be done? Everyone complains about this but never offers an answer, and frankly it makes it impossible to have any semblance of a conversation.

Originally posted by subz
That is incorrect. Have you not heard of the civilians who were kidnapped and sent to Gitmo for things as varied as mistaken identity to having the audacity of carrying a mobile phone charger onto an aeroplane. They have since been released may I add, but not after undergoing the interrogation/mistreatment I outlined earlier.

I haven't heard this; is there supporting documentation?

So no, I don't see the difference here. Any way, have you never heard of universal human rights? You might not have noticed that I've reserved my judgement in the Iranian case, that is I haven't condoned nor condemned it. Why? Because whilst I do not believe the soldiers were mistreated I am not convinced they were actually captured in clearly defined Iranian territorial waters.

Why, if those rights are universal, does it matter if they were captured in this place or that? I don't understand.

Originally posted by cavscout
The prisoners at Gitmo have openly engaged coalition forces in warfare.

Big difference.

Again, not all in Gitmo are guilty of anything other than mistaken identity, being the subject of a vendetta by local villagers who gave the US "information" against them, or carrying a mobile phone charger. Since all the aforementioned cases were treated to the same US mistreatment in Guantanamo Bay your post holds to water as there is no difference.

I haven't heard anything like this; is there supporting documentation? I'm not willing to rule anything out, but on a topic this sensitive proof is an important commodity.

I back up the fact that they were a government by citing the occasions whereby the US government invited the Taliban to the United States in 2000 to try to broker a natural gas pipeline through their country and to the Bush administration demanding from the Taliban that they give up Osama Bin Laden. If you're the United States government you do not negotiate trade access with terrorists and you don't make demands of terrorists whilst threatening entire nations; you do so with governments, of which the Taliban was.

All of which is irrelevant, may I add, since the United States is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Next...

[edit on 7/4/07 by subz]

While you have decent points, the attitude brought to this discussion by all sides is not constructive. I hope I am not also guilty of it.

[edit on 4/7/2007 by Togetic]

[edit on 4/7/2007 by Togetic]