Guantanamo hell

[Martz]

Guantanamo hell

What are peoples opinions about the USA holding 600+ people from around the world for well over a year now, who have not been charged and refused basic human rights and legal aid. The 2 Brits amungst them have apparently been ruled out of facing the death penalty this morning, although I don't know how reliable the source is. But everyone else from countries less privilleged than the UK (in forms of favours owed by the US) is still fucked.

They will not receive a fair trial, as they have no legal advice, will be tried under a millitary rules rather than civilian rules. And they will pay the ultimate price.

Through my basic education, I can only make links with the past to Hitler, concentration camps, lack of human rights and degrading conditions. The War on Terror? A nice name to wrap the whole thing up in. A bold statement I know, but why the hell has the US got any rights to detain people from out of their duristiction, indefinetly?

These people are being used as scape goats for Sept 11th, which was the perfect crisis for the US goverment to gain more control over areas of the World economy. They were given a reason or excuse to go to war, and kick arse around the world. This reason or excuse was that 1000s of people had been killed in the WTC, yet they have given themselves a set of tools to detain forever anyone they see fit, without trial or jury. As I said in past threads regarding the US just as the War on Iraq was being justified by 2 goverments around the world, the domination of oil was their key target. Not the fact they want to steal the oil, but I wonder how much oil has been exported from Iraq and surrounding countries since I posted my thread? My guess based on a quick scan of google and from the BBC news archives confirms that the sanctions and grip the US and UK imposed on Iraq:

Before the first Gulf War, Iraq was producing about 3.5m barrels a day. This is down to about 2.8m due to sanctions but pushing it back beyond the original levels to about 6m-7m barrels a day will take about a year since the supply infrastructure will have to be improved and the Ministry of Oil reorganised. Iraq is believed to have assets of more than 200bn barrels, compared with about 260bn barrels in Saudi Arabia.
...
Reeve believes oil prices will suffer a sharp slump in the second half of 2003 and next year to average only $19 a barrel. That could hurt a lot of Middle East producers, some two-thirds of arab states.
The implications are far-reaching, both politically and economically. Government spending could be hard hit and in countries such as Saudi Arabia, where about 95% of people are employed by the government, living standards could fall sharply. Economic adjustments could be harsh.

And also don't forget this little nugget of information too:

The US's emergency reserve was last used in September 2000, when low stockpiles boosted prices to $37.80 a barrel.

I don't know if anyone else will say that Opec set the prices of oil, but obviously with tactics like this the price that Opec sets relates to the state of world and middle easten economys. The US is influcening the price of oil, making people buy American rather than Middle Easten, a nice butt fu**ing method they picked up from their corporate ways.

My main point though is that we vote for these pricks to be ripping the world to bits, causing massive indirect suffering to millions of people. And then we all go and vote for them to do it again next year because, well either we think politics is bollocks, or would like to pay a penny less tax that last year. These are war crimes in progress, huge long turds spouted by the goverment to cover it up, and sucked to a shiney point by the media (Sky, ITV, CNN, NBC, Fox, and all news papers), which most of Joe public slurp down for breakfast, blaming anyone who comes into the limelight and can be scapegoated.

The UK is as much to blame as the US for all of this. Our goverment doesn't raise their voices about matters like this. They would rather be singing badly in Oriental places rather than go and do some good humaitarian work for the 100's of poor sods who have been locked up for over a year with god knows what happening to them. I can't imagine it would be breakfast in bed and Sky TV though (like our prisons)? Who the hell knows, and I certainly do not trust a word which is echo'ed from Bush or Blairs mouths anymore.

Oh, and one last thing. Why the hell were we in such a rush to go to war? We couldn't wait for anything. We couldn't wait for reports from the UK inspectors. We couldn't wait for their work to be finished and be conclusive. It had to be immediate action, right now.

Now the smoke has cleared, the bodies have been burried and the blood washed off the streets (by the US soliders who now occupy Iraq, again another little reference to Hilter - didn't he also occupy countries?), now everything is clean and the goverments say war is over... why are we waiting? The Prime Minister says we should wait for the WMD to be found, if they are indeed there and the intelligence is accurate.

Bush has also scapegoated someone who included inaccurate intelligence in his speech. And? Bush - you were wrong in what you said - admit it, don't blame someone else. Bush should be held ultimately responsible for things we says, or the country does. The blame shouldn't go down the line to some Senior official who is nearing retirement, it should be Bush's neck on the line. Basically, he can get away with anything by passing the blame down the line. Hilter also did this, indirectly, by allowing his immediate subbordinates control of their own domains. Any actions taken were not his own directly, so therefore wasn't responsible. However he was held accountable in the end.

Will Bush be for his War on Terror? His Terrible War Crimes imo.

 

[Cutter]

A bold statement I know, but why the hell has the US got any rights to detain people from out of their duristiction, indefinetly?

I can't say for certain, but I imagine they think that the cold blooded murder of some ~ 4000 American & Foreign Citizens on American soil gives them the right. Whether they actually have this right or not is a moot point. Unfortunately for those who disagree, "might is always right".

Oh, and one last thing. Why the hell were we in such a rush to go to war? We couldn't wait for anything. We couldn't wait for reports from the UK inspectors. We couldn't wait for their work to be finished and be conclusive. It had to be immediate action, right now.

That's an easy one to answer. We're now, what, halfway through Labour's second term in office, and some 5/6 years into Labour government in the UK. And what has this actually delivered to all the people who voted for them hoping for a better Britain? Sod fucking all.

1. The hospitals are in a worse state than under the Tories. Old ladies die of cancer on trolleys in hospital corridors, while political shitbags like Donald Dewar are rushed into private NHS wards with no expense spared after minor heart flutters. Sure, he died later, but that's beside the point.

2. The railways? Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but people are still dying in mega crashes under Labour. And as for the way they've mismanaged the public finances to set up white elephants to manage the railways, well...

3. The years since 1997 have seen the single biggest removal of civil liberties from UK citizens in recent times, to say nothing of consolidation of unaccountable centralised rule by the executive. Ironic then that Tony Blair talks of liberating Iraq, and bringing freedom & democracy to Iraq, while doing his damndest to remove it from UK citizens.

4. Taxes are going up and up, initially with promises of vast improvements to public services. Now, years later, people have less dosh in their pockets, and public services are worse than ever.

etc etc.

Now, problem for Blair & Co. is that the public are (slowly) starting to realise what a gigantic ride they are being taken for. And, in time honoured fashion, what better thing to distract attention from failings at home than a nice little war abroad? After all, it worked for Margaret Thatcher.

Alas, while her little war was to protect UK citizens on UK soil from a foreign aggressor and as such legal under international law, Blair & Pals have basically invaded a sovereign nation in contravention of International law, and my goodness, isn't the shit starting to hit the fan now...

Not that I'm a cynic or anything you understand...

 

[Ice]

just a few days ago they let some prisoners out there that have been hold there for MORE THAN A YEAR and have been found to be not guilty.

only thing you need to do to is ask yourself how you would feel when you had to be there for such a long time, then they say "sorry", bring you back to your origin and give you a few bucks.

if it was me and i would not have been a terrorist before, after that i would probably become one.

guantanamo is a disgrace to human rights imo (as quite alot of US military actions of the last few years are, but this is probably the wrong place to discuss that).

 

[dog]

I can't see how it comes as an surprise to anyone that the US is breaking international human rights. After all the US have repeatedly refused to back various international regulations on these issues.

They claim they are at war, but since when can you wage a war without declaring it against a nation? A war on terroism? More likely yet a easy way to enforce world politics on a fragmented world, unable to do anything about the economical, moral and political police force that is the US Army.

Hail the New World, so much better than the Old.

 

[ProPain]

They will not receive a fair trial, as they have no legal advice, will be tried under a millitary rules rather than civilian rules. And they will pay the ultimate price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The usa considers these people as warcriminals and thats why they won't get civilian justice. The reason they are releasing and judging them so slow is because there are some topseat militia/terrorists leaders in that camp and the usa fears that if they will be released that they will be leading these groups against the usa. Also when they are released from the camp, they won't be free men they will still have to go to civilian court.

Personally i agree that it is a scandal that these people are so ill treated, but on the other hand i agree that the usa should take all measures to prevent further terroristic actions. At least treat them well and make sure they are medically ok.

 

[«)Fîrë$±ørm(»]

Personally i agree that it is a scandal that these people are so ill treated, but on the other hand i agree that the usa should take all measures to prevent further terroristic actions. At least treat them well and make sure they are medically ok.

i agree but ffs its the wrong way
USA always acts in their own interest and they dont bother about double standards
its also always been the policy of the USA to support the enemy of their enemy today which results in getting fucked by their former favorite tomorrow...
"war on terrorism" lmao
like martz said its just an excuse to kick ass all over the world imo

 

[Spirit]

Not made up my mind on the guantanamo situation, however I don't think you can really make comparisons between the USA and Hitler.

More so you should be making comparisons between England in WW2 and the USA. England invaded Germany in WW2 to liberate them from an evil dictator and save the neighbouring countries - likewise the USA have invaded Iraq to save them from an evil dictator who was killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Weapons of mass destructions aside, look at the horrors Sadam was inflicting on his own people - mass graves, uncountable stories of people disappearing forever etc. Sadam is the one comparible to Hitler, not Bush. Admittedly the USA had their own interests at heart too, but they invaded Irag for the 'greater good', as did England in WW2. Hitler however, most certainly did not.

Likewise Hitler put people he knew we innocent in concentration camps and killed them in cold blood. The USA are only imprisoning people suspected of mass murder. I'm not condoning what they are doing, or saying I think they are justified in using Guantanamo in the manor they do, just that Hitler's acts were far, far worse and not comparable in any way to anything the USA has done in the last couple of years.

 

[Martz]

I've been thinking about my (pre 8am post) comments about Hitler, and I thought it a bit extreme in my own mind.

I don't care what the stats say, how the press report it, or how the terminology is set out: what I see is INNOCENT people that have been inprisoned for huge lengths of time, covered in secrecy and political spin, and not given their basic human rights. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty by a court, and most probably a civil court. They are not being held in the US.

Facts.

My comparisson to Hilter lacked time and proper thought. However I feel that the Bush administration is very similar in having some of the same intentions as Hilter or any other dictator hell bent on dominating the world. The definition of discrimination has changed from race/colour/religion to wealth/class/background. Hilter didn't put people in death concentration camps, his suborindates of each domain did on their own accord where they needed too. Hilter didn't care what they did, he got into power and noticiably changed things for the better for the German people. He created false economy, employing Germans to build the autobarns and as many Germans as possible back into work, creating the heiaracy and class systems by stealing from others and giving to his own. The dead bodies were a byproduct of the desire to dominate and look after his own. And he attempted this over how many years? 5? 10 years? I need help on this fact, The History Channel cant teach me everything. The US and the UK has been after those oilfields for decades, and now has suceeded in causing massive amounts of pain to the people who live there, so they can go capture another 600 people and put them in prison, indefinietly.

And Sadam has done bad things, so I am told. And I agree with you on that. But I think that the greater good wasn't for Iraq, it's people or the region though. It was for the greater good of the United States, it's economics, it's dominant position in the oil market, and it's own people.

 

[Cutter]

Of course, you have to laugh. I mean, in 50 or so years, all the oil everywhere will be all used up anyway.

Do you see America deploying alternative means of electricity generation, or propulsion for cars/planes/etc on the scale needed to avert the massive transportation disaster this presages? (hint: this is a rhetorical question.)

So, barring some amazing breakthrough in (especially portable) energy generation, they're going to be stuck with a whole bunch of useless internal combustion vehicles taking up space...

 

[Martz]

Of course, you have to laugh. I mean, in 50 or so years, all the oil everywhere will be all used up anyway.

Do you see America deploying alternative means of electricity generation, or propulsion for cars/planes/etc on the scale needed to avert the massive transportation disaster this presages? (hint: this is a rhetorical question.)

So, barring some amazing breakthrough in (especially portable) energy generation, they're going to be stuck with a whole bunch of useless internal combustion vehicles taking up space...

I'd still like to add to your rhetorical question tho and bring to others peoples attention, that out of all the oil refiners out there, Esso - aka ExxonMobil, the largest out of them all in both profit and amount of oil processed. However they are the only major oil company that doesn't invest in finding renewable energy resources. They just mine the stuff out of the ground, sell it on. And when it has run out they'll probably file for banrupcy, pay off all their share holders and big cheese with silly amounts of money and leave it in debt to be cleared by the goverment.

If the Bush administration is fuled by oil, and the oil companies don't give a fuck about mankind after the oil has run out - why should they care about 600+ ppl being jailed so they can get easier access to the remaining oil fields? They don't, and neither does Joe Public. Because this is the War on Terror they are supporting (or War & sanctions on-any-country with Oil).

 

[Alf Roberts]

The Bush administration isnt fuelled by oil...its simply fuelled by the `goal' of maintaining its (the US) position at the top of the global tree...the same `goal' all American administrations have had in modern times. Basically its greed. The US is just as aggressive in the global trade markets as it is militarily.

The US targetted Iraq to fill the void of falling out with Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis...Saudis who were tired of seeing their country bled dry of its black blood whilst millions of their population live in poverty.
Whats the chances of another incident of Sept 11th magnitude happening in the future with Iraqis making up the `terrorists'? Put ur house on it.

The United States of America is the best advert against Capitalism u can get. They simply do not give a fuck who they tread on.

 

[Cutter]

The Bush administration isnt fuelled by oil...its simply fuelled by the `goal' of maintaining its (the US) position at the top of the global tree...the same `goal' all American administrations have had in modern times. Basically its greed. The US is just as aggressive in the global trade markets as it is militarily.

The US targetted Iraq to fill the void of falling out with Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis...Saudis who were tired of seeing their country bled dry of its black blood whilst millions of their population live in poverty.
Whats the chances of another incident of Sept 11th magnitude happening in the future with Iraqis making up the `terrorists'? Put ur house on it.

The United States of America is the best advert against Capitalism u can get. They simply do not give a fuck who they tread on.

Please do a bit of research on what you're actually talking about if you're presenting your post as fact, as you are doing. Otherwise, you should mark it as opinion.

The USA may buy Saudi oil, but you seem to be conveniently ignoring the existence of all those shit rich Saudi oil princes, who are the real cause of poverty of the people in Saudi arabia. To say nothing of the brutalist regime they control and run, the subjugation of women in their society, and so on. America may buy their oil, but they have grown rich on selling it, and, like any group onto a good thing, are obviously trying to protect their position any way they can.

However much you hate America, killing thousands of innocent civilians to make a point is something that will not win any group any friends, or make anyone see them as anything other than murdering swine.

I've provided a nice set of links to relevant articles from known "left-wing" / communist / anti-American / etc sites (because that's what you'll probably prefer) for you to read up and consider before you post again.

Have a nice day.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,602854,00.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zeroes/House_Saud.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE29Ak04.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4553603,00.html

 

[Alf Roberts]

Please do a bit of research on what you're actually talking about if you're presenting your post as fact, as you are doing.

Where have i stated its `fact'? Of course its my opinion...any1 with any common sense can see that. I also dont see u pulling up others with regards to this `fact' or `opinion' issue...

The USA may buy Saudi oil, but you seem to be conveniently ignoring the existence of all those shit rich Saudi oil princes.

Not at all. The existance of a corrupt and at times brutal Saudi government doesnt let the US off the hook in all this...or maybe ur just convienently blind to it.

Also I think u'll find that the oil contracts that the US has in place with the Saudis mean that they are the only 1's allowed to buy it.

Btw did u know that reconstruction contracts were signed up by US companies before the war on Iraq even began? Companies with board members in Bushes inner circle...

I've provided a nice set of links to relevant articles from known "left-wing" / communist / anti-American / etc sites (because that's what you'll probably prefer) for you to read up and consider before you post again.

Drop the attitude eh

 

[Spirit]

Not at all. The existance of a corrupt and at times brutal Saudi government doesnt let the US off the hook in all this...or maybe ur just convienently blind to it.

Actually I have to agree with Thur on that point - although I'm not condoning anything in how the USA go about the deals, the fact still remains that oil countries as a whole earn a shit load of money out of the oil deals. However, this money all goes into the pockets of the billionaire oil barons instead of going towards aleviating poverty etc in the rest of the country. This is not the USA's fault, it's purely down to cash management within the oil bearing countries themselves.

 

[Gen76]

humanrights for 100$ Bob.

 

[Alf Roberts]

Actually I have to agree with Thur on that point - although I'm not condoning anything in how the USA go about the deals, the fact still remains that oil countries as a whole earn a shit load of money out of the oil deals. However, this money all goes into the pockets of the billionaire oil barons instead of going towards aleviating poverty etc in the rest of the country. This is not the USA's fault, it's purely down to cash management within the oil bearing countries themselves.

So its ok whoever the US deals with and the manner in which they deal with them? It doesnt matter that they are happy to line the pockets of a cruel dictatorship as long as they get what they want? I disagree. I think the US being the globes dominent power by a considerable margin, has an obligation to set good moral standards...something it could easily do without denting its development & growth.
Lets not be under any illusion here, due to the US's trading agreements with the Saudi leadership they actually prop up that administration. Infact they (US) prefer to deal with scum cos theyre easier to manage...well until that scum stops rolling over for them then they suddenly become `evil lands harbouring terrorists' of course...which in turn gives them an excuse to manufacture `regime changes' to install more puppets.

 

[Spirit]

although I'm not condoning anything in how the USA go about the deals,

You seem to have missed this particular sentence Mr Roberts

As I said, I do not approve of the manor in which the US conduct their side of the deal, however the main problem is the dictatorship in the oil bearing countries, and the results of the deals they make is merely a side issue. If the "cruel dictators" weren't in charge then the USA could continue as they are without causing any harm.

Also, the USA cannot operate without oil. If they were to lose their supply the country would go into an economical crisis. They do not have a choice whether to buy the oil or not, regardless of the indirect affects of them buying it - they have to have it, and there isn't anywhere else they can buy it from.

The problem is caused by the dictators running the oil fields, not the people who buy it off them, and the solution is not to stop buying the oil and therefore cutting all the country's income, but to remove the dictators from power and let the rest of the population feel some of the benfit of being a rich country as well.

 

[Alf Roberts]

however the main problem is the dictatorship in the oil bearing countries

...and u miss my point Mr Spirit

What if its the US that is actually keeping the dictatorship going in oil rich countries? U say its not Americas fault that the Saudi oil fat cats cream off the profits. Is it still not Americas fault when they actively encourage such unscrupulous regimes? Where do u think the Saudi authorities get all their military hardware that they use to keep a firm grip on their country?

U say u dont condone what the US does with regards to some of its international dealings yet ur words suggest that u think its ok for it to deal with whoever.

Also, the USA cannot operate without oil. If they were to lose their supply the country would go into an economical crisis. They do not have a choice whether to buy the oil or not, regardless of the indirect affects of them buying it - they have to have it, and there isn't anywhere else they can buy it from.

U seem to suggest that the oil guzzling glutonous pig that is the US has a given right to demand an unfair proportion of the Worlds natural resources cos its grown too big!! LOL

U say they dont have a choice...rubbish, of course they have a choice. They can either carry on living above their means at the expence of other nations or they can slow their own development down to a more global friendly level. Well we all know which option they've chosen and will always choose cos theyve got the military & economic muscle to do so.

The problem is caused by the dictators running the oil fields, not the people who buy it off them, and the solution is not to stop buying the oil and therefore cutting all the country's income, but to remove the dictators from power and let the rest of the population feel some of the benfit of being a rich country as well.

Well u tell me why the US hasnt removed the Saudi regime then. Theyve done it in Iraq (under the guise of saving the Iraqi ppl) so why not in Saudi Arabia? They were both oppressive cruel dictatorships but the thing that separated them was that the US was in control of 1 but not the other.
U say that `The problem is caused by the dictators running the oil fields'...well from what i see i'd say its the US thats running those fields wherever those fields may be.

 

[Spirit]

U seem to suggest that the oil guzzling glutonous pig that is the US has a given right to demand an unfair proportion of the Worlds natural resources cos its grown too big!! LOL

As I implied by saying I don't condone the US's attitude I do not think it's ok, however the US is what it is and no amount of saying it is wrong will change that. Yes it was fundamentally wrong for a country to become so reliant on natural resources but they have, and to change that would (I dare not say 'will' in the hope that it actually may happen) take decades. In the mean time the middle eastern countries want to sell their oil, and the US want to buy it. With that in mind it seems everyone is happy to enter into a mutually beneficial deal. Until you look at the cash management within those middle eastern countries, and you see the proceeds are lining the pockets of a few very rich individuals instead of being put towards improving the country as a whole. The US may be indirectly supporting what they are doing, but in the short term they have no choice, rome wasn't built in a day and neither will the US become environmentally efficient overnight! For now they need that oil, therefore have to buy it off those countries who can supply it.

Well u tell me why the US hasnt removed the Saudi regime then. Theyve done it in Iraq (under the guise of saving the Iraqi ppl) so why not in Saudi Arabia? They were both oppressive cruel dictatorships but the thing that separated them was that the US was in control of 1 but not the other.

Because the Saudi regime, however greedy and selfish they may be, are not breaking any international laws. Saving the Iraqy people was not a guise - it was a necessary and humane thing to do and I fully support the fact that Sadam has been taken out of power. He slaughered hundreds of thousands of innocent people and therefore had to go. What I don't support is the American's profiting out of being the ones to do so - the profit from the oil should now be spread across Iraq as a whole and should be managed by a democratic goverment, not by the US. That way the oil deals could continue as before, just that the fat cats have been removed and Iraq as a whole benefits from the profits.

There is no evidence of such crimes against humanity in Saudi. Yes they may be equally as guilty of being seriously selfish with the cash, however unfortunately that isn't an crime... As far as I know they do not slaughter innocenent people and therefore no other country has a right to go and tell them what to do with their money...

 

[Alf Roberts]

Yes it was fundamentally wrong for a country to become so reliant on natural resources but they have

No its fine for countries to become relient on natural resources. The problems arise when countries rely on other countries share of those natural resources. The US takes about 2/3's of the Worlds daily oil production and they are showing signs of being prepared to do anything to maintain such an intake. Now no matter how u dress that up its not right.

Because the Saudi regime, however greedy and selfish they may be, are not breaking any international laws.

And Iraq was? The main argument for the case against Iraq for breaking international laws was its manufacture of WMD...and we all know what a load of shite that was/is...and besides, whos the biggest breaker of international laws? Have a guess...Infact the actual war to take Iraq was against International Law.

Iraq wasnt taken to uphold international law...or to fight global terrorism...or to save the Iraqi ppl. It was about good 'ol fashion power & money. Its as simple as that.