Thread: Religious Rights are being respected at Gitmo

Originally Posted by HOKUM

The Smile was more sarcastic, but yes they were caught fighting american troops (who were invading their country) and are too dangerous to release.

That's funny. I always thought Saudis were from Saudi Arabia, Pakistanis from Pakistan, Kuwaitis from Kuwait, etc., etc.

I ran across this article today and thought it to be a good read.

Washington Times
June 6, 2005
Pg. 20

Amnesty Astray

By Michael O'Hanlon

Irene Khan, secretary general of the world-famous Amnesty International organization, recently gave a speech describing the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay as "the gulag of our times, entrenching the notion that people can be detained without any recourse to the law."

U.S. officials fired back, with President Bush describing the charges as "absurd," Vice President Dick Cheney saying they "offended" him, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld calling them "reprehensible," and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers describing them as "totally irresponsible."

As a former Amnesty International activist and volunteer, and a frequent critic of this administration, I find it necessary to say there is no reasonable basis for the Amnesty charge against the United States. Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers are totally in the right, and it is a good they rebutted Amnesty publicly and forcefully.

There are three main problems with Mrs. Khan's allegations:

(1) On the merits, they are wrong.

(2) They foster unwarranted anger against the United States and its friends and allies -- that is, they risk aiding jihadism.

(3) They do a disservice to Amnesty and the dedicated people who work there, and most importantly of all to the crucial mission Amnesty seeks to serve in the world.

On the first point, the merits of the argument, few Americans need convincing that whatever our wrongs at Guantanamo, they do not begin to compare in scale or severity to the gulags of the Soviet Union. The latter incarcerated millions, often for many years or decades, mistreated prisoners systematically as a matter of policy, and killed off many tens of thousands.

Gitmo and other controversial U.S. facilities in recent years have held a few thousand prisoners at a time, of which several dozen have been mistreated and perhaps several hundred held too long. The mistreatment has clearly been inexcusable, and the excessive detentions regrettable. But these have been neither enormous nor intentional acts of the state.

This is not to defend the Bush administration's handling of all prisoners taken during the war on terror. To my mind, the administration made an enormous mistake in suggesting Geneva convention standards would not be applied to the detainees, and in refusing to set up an independent review to ensure fair treatment of prisoners as well as prompt attention to their cases. Even if the number of individuals abused has been very small, the perception we care less for Muslims than for other peoples has cost us hugely in the war on terror. And it was largely preventable through smarter policy.

And Amnesty officials have been right, and within their proper realm of expertise, to critique the administration harshly on these specific points (as in their excellent annual report, well worth reading). But specific tough criticisms are one thing; analogies to Stalin quite another.

Second, the implications of Mrs. Khan's charge for the war on terror are extremely counterproductive. From the madrassas of Pakistan to the streets of Cairo to the radical mosques of Yemen, jihadists whip up hatred of the West by taking statements like Mrs. Khan's and portraying them as fact.

When Americans come to Muslims' aid, as in the Bosnia and Kosovo and Iraq wars, their motives are impugned or their efforts forgotten. When we make mistakes, as we admittedly often do, the errors are magnified and portrayed as deliberate policy. This vicious cycle of misinformation, which engenders more hatred and radicalism, helps explain why the global jihadist movement remains so strong today. We do not need more of this dynamic. We need less.

Finally, Mrs. Khan's words hurt Amnesty, its employees -- and most of all, those voiceless and powerless and mistreated individuals around the world that Amnesty was created to assist. The egregiously ludicrous exaggeration of the Amnesty leader taints the organization's reputation for integrity, fairness and commitment to its core mission.

That many Amnesty personnel may share Mrs. Khan's dislike for the Bush administration does not justify violating longstanding Amnesty traditions of focusing on facts, and on promoting human rights, accurately and soberly. Doing so does not require dispassion; Amnesty is at its best when pulling no punches and tirelessly holding all officials around the world, including in the West, to the highest standards. But it does require dispassionate analysis, and most of all fairness.

It is not too late. Mrs. Khan should formally retract her remarks and apologize for them. If she insists on using the same occasion to repeat her specific critiques of American policy, and specifying ways in which the U.S. can better honor the ideals on which its nation is based, so be it. I hope she does.

But the first priority must be to make amends for what was unquestionably a most egregious and unfortunate mistake.

Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

It is not too late. Mrs. Khan should formally retract her remarks and apologize for them.

Don't hold your breath:

On "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace asked William Schulz, director of Amnesty International USA, if he stood by the description of the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military prison.

Schulz responded by saying, "Clearly, this is not an exact or a literal analogy, and the secretary general has acknowledged that."

"In size and in duration, there are not similarities between U.S. detention facilities and the gulag," Schulz said. "People are not being starved in those facilities. They're not being subjected to forced labor."

Schulz maintained that some similarities did exist, saying the United States keeps a network of prisons worldwide, "many of them secret prisons into which people are being literally disappeared." In some cases, he said, prisoners are being tortured and killed.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/...s-gitmo06.html

Originally Posted by SloMax

Urine accidently splashed the koran when a guard pissed into a ventilation shaft... what a joke!

This is what makes one lose credibility.

The guy pissed and so he pissed.

He pissed on the Koran. Wrong thing to do. If he was so convinced that it was the correct thing to do, let him face the consequence rather having to cover up for his stupidity.

He is not the Bald Eagle of the US i.e. a national icon. He should be kicked in the pants. Period. Case over.

Originally Posted by Ray

This is what makes one lose credibility.

The guy pissed and so he pissed.

He pissed on the Koran. Wrong thing to do. If he was so convinced that it was the correct thing to do, let him face the consequence rather having to cover up for his stupidity.

I think we need a little more then the fact that the story is unlikely to allege that there is a cover up. This guard’s story has been investigated and found to be truthful. In addition, he reported the incident himself. If you're going to contend that everyone here is lying, you need solid evidence for that.

Leader,

Just a question.

Does one urinate near a vent?

Are urinals or commodes constructed in the US next to air vents, so close that it pulls in the urine droplets?

Do air vents of the urinal/ commode lead into places where there are people so that they get a good waft of the foul smell?

I thought air vents are more scientifically designed and are not at the urine release level.

And anyway, the air vent if at the urine release level and close to the urine release anatomy, it would atomise the urine and none at the other end would know if it was urine since it would be so small a droplet that it would not be seen even if settled.

Do correct me if I am wrong since I do not know the US toilet configuration.

I am not being odd, I really what to know. My toilets air vent is higher than the shower and much higher than the commode.

Now if I urinated in the open and there was a high wind and some bloke was praying with his Koran in hand, then there would be good reason for a blast of my urine.

Originally Posted by Ray

Leader,

Just a question.

Does one urinate near a vent?

Are urinals or commodes constructed in the US next to air vents, so close that it pulls in the urine droplets?

Do air vents of the urinal/ commode lead into places where there are people so that they get a good waft of the foul smell?

I thought air vents are more scientifically designed and are not at the urine release level.

And anyway, the air vent if at the urine release level and close to the urine release anatomy, it would atomise the urine and none at the other end would know if it was urine since it would be so small a droplet that it would not be seen even if settled.

Do correct me if I am wrong since I do not know the US toilet configuration.

I am not be odd, I really what to know. My toilets air vent is higher than the shower and much higher than the commode.

Sir,
Without more information, all we can do is speculate. My guess is that it was the night shift, he was being lazy, and either didn't want to walk to a latrine or didn't want to use a honey bucket that always carries a sweet fragrance when it bakes in the sun. So, he stepped outside, found a spot where either female or leader eyes couldn't ambush him in the act of indiscipline and heeded the call of nature, not realizing that urine, wind, and air vents don't mix well. We'll have to wait and see if more info is released on this.

Originally Posted by Ray

Leader,

Just a question.

Does one urinate near a vent?

Are urinals or commodes constructed in the US next to air vents, so close that it pulls in the urine droplets?

Do air vents of the urinal/ commode lead into places where there are people so that they get a good waft of the foul smell?

I thought air vents are more scientifically designed and are not at the urine release level.

And anyway, the air vent if at the urine release level and close to the urine release anatomy, it would atomise the urine and none at the other end would know if it was urine since it would be so small a droplet that it would not be seen even if settled.

Do correct me if I am wrong since I do not know the US toilet configuration.

I am not being odd, I really what to know. My toilets air vent is higher than the shower and much higher than the commode.

Now if I urinated in the open and there was a high wind and some bloke was praying with his Koran in hand, then there would be good reason for a blast of my urine.

The fact is that people have investigated his story and found it to be truthful. All you or I know about this case is the result of news reports which were written by people who themselves have never been to gitmo. In the absence of evidence, I'm willing to take it on faith that US military investigators aren't lying. Without evidence, I guess you're willing to believe the opposite. There is really nothing more to say.

Leader,

Thanks.

Shek,

Very possible. Makes sense. I wish that type of a clear statement is given so that imagination is not used to reconstruct to suit one's inclination!

But imagine reading the Koran at night. Too damned religious.

Originally Posted by Ray

Thanks.

You're welcome.