Obama administration claims GITMO complies with Geneva Convention standards

[Cylinder]

This episode courtesy WaPo:

A Pentagon review of conditions at the Guantanamo Bay military prison has concluded that the treatment of detainees meets the requirements of the Geneva Conventions but that prisoners in the highest-security camps should be allowed more religious and social interaction, according to a government official who has read the 85-page document.

The report, which President Obama ordered, was prepared by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations, and has been delivered to the White House. Obama requested the review as part of an executive order on the planned closure of the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, on the southeastern tip of Cuba.

[...]

Walsh concluded that force-feeding, which involves strapping detainees to special chairs and inserting a tube through one nostril and into their stomachs, is in compliance with the Geneva Conventions' mandate that the lives of prisoners be preserved, according to the government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the report publicly.

 

[Whiplash]

When I was growing up, I had a neighbor friend who was a bit younger than me, and terribly anorexic, and she was sent to a facility to help her. While there, she was forced to live day by day with the tube down her nose, into her stomach, so they could force her to eat (she was really, really bad off).

This happens to real people in real life too, is it really such a terrible thing? To force sustenance into someone who is trying to avoid it, and putting their life at risk?

 

[Texas]

Obama is becoming a right-wing nut!

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

One might safely argue he's at least backpedalling severely.

 

[Texas]

One might safely argue he's at least backpedalling severely.

I don't think he is "backpedaling" but is now privy to information he didn't have as a candidate or a Senator. He is now in the big leagues and so far he appears to be a quick study.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Backpedalling. He only seems to be a quick study because he happens to agree with your bias's. He said he'd stop it; now he isn't.

It's backpedalling, and unless he comes up with a good reason, he's pandering to a crowd that couldn't care less if he's making halfway gestures.

.. well, at least HALF of the crowd couldnt' care less.

 

[Whiplash]

I'm curious why anyone would have objection to forced feeding. If it's a catering to their "religious rights", I'm just curious how many that feel that would would extend the same right to people who withold medicine or treatments from themselves, or their own children, based on religious beliefs. There is usually moral outrage about this sort of thing.

I recognize that some would disagree on the inclusion of children in what I said, but I think it's fair. Most religions have ethical guidelines and rules regarding children and their place. If you are catering to religious beliefs in any way, you can't do it pick and choose, and still be fair.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't understand. Who was objecting to forced feedings? I thought the issue was "enhanced interogation techniques" and prisoner abuse.

I haven't read the article on my little phone here, but is he talking about not closing it down? How is this backpeddeling?

 

[Darat]

What is the backpedaling here? That the prisoners are on the whole kept under conditions which would be in-line with the Geneva conventions has never been the issue has it? It is the fact that on the one hand we have these apparent prisoners of war [on terror] but on the other hand they were not granted the rights that prisoners of other wars should have, according to treaties the USA is a signature to?

 

[gumboot]

The OP is misleading. It is not the Obama administrating making claims about Guantanamo Bay; it is a Pentagon investigation. There's no indication that this report has actually changed his mind.

Simply put, he went into office with a pre-existing intention to close the base, for purely political reasons. As part of that process he asked for a report on conditions, probably expecting the report to be quite damning. The report appears to have inconveniently concluded that there's no problem with the base. Like a good little politician, he'll no doubt forge ahead.

It may be incredibly stupid, but it's not back peddling.

 

[gumboot]

What is the backpedaling here? That the prisoners are on the whole kept under conditions which would be in-line with the Geneva conventions has never been the issue has it? It is the fact that on the one hand we have these apparent prisoners of war [on terror] but on the other hand they were not according the rights that prisoners of other wars should have, according to treaties the USA is a signature to?

No, that's not the issue at all. Near as I can tell, there's two issues:

1) There aren't any laws covering these circumstances
2) The majority of people are woefully ignorant of the Laws of War

I agree there's no evident back-peddling here.

 

[Darat]

No, that's not the issue at all. Near as I can tell, there's two issues:

1) There aren't any laws covering these circumstances
2) The majority of people are woefully ignorant of the Laws of War

...snip...

Which is the issue that I said was the issue....

 

[gumboot]

Which is the issue that I said was the issue....

No. Your post actually perfectly highlighted the two points I raised, although in the opposite order:

2. The majority of people are woefully ignorant of the Laws of War

As demonstrated by:

on the one hand we have these apparent prisoners of war

1. There aren't any laws covering these circumstances

As covered by:

they were not according the rights that prisoners of other wars should have

Simply put:

The Laws of War do not allow for a situation in which large numbers of terrorists, mercenary or "third party" combatants are captured. As a result these people are not covered by the Laws of War, and have no rights under the Laws of War.

This naturally raises the question "What do you do with these people?"

The answer, of course, is "Whatever you want" but you'd be amazed at the number of people who can't swallow that obvious fact.

 

[Darat]

No. Your post actually perfectly highlighted the two points I raised, although in the opposite order:

2. The majority of people are woefully ignorant of the Laws of War

As demonstrated by:



1. There aren't any laws covering these circumstances

As covered by:



Simply put:

The Laws of War do not allow for a situation in which large numbers of terrorists, mercenary or "third party" combatants are captured. As a result these people are not covered by the Laws of War, and have no rights under the Laws of War.

This naturally raises the question "What do you do with these people?"

The answer, of course, is "Whatever you want" but you'd be amazed at the number of people who can't swallow that obvious fact.

Repeating what I said was the issue that people were concerned with whilst saying that you saying something different is ...er... rather strange.

 

[gumboot]

Repeating what I said was the issue that people were concerned with whilst saying that you saying something different is ...er... rather strange.

I'm saying that the issue people are concerned with is not the real issue at all, but that the fact people are concerned about that issue is itself the issue.

That's a fine distinction, I'll admit.

You're saying the issue is X, because that's what people are concerned about.

I am saying that X is false, and thus the issue is not X. The real issue is that people are concerned about something that is false.

 

[Darat]

I'm saying that the issue people are concerned with is not the real issue at all, but that the fact people are concerned about that issue is itself the issue.

...snip...

Ah right I think you understand you now. I'm not going to argue with you about your argument but from reading this Forum over the years I would state that the issue as it was presented by the folks arguing either side was as I stated. That's what my point was about , in a way I was saying that the opening post was in a sense attacking a strawman.

 

[gumboot]

Ah right I think you understand you now. I'm not going to argue with you about your argument but from reading this Forum over the years I would state that the issue as it was presented by the folks arguing either side was as I stated. That's what my point was about , in a way I was saying that the opening post was in a sense attacking a strawman.

I think I misunderstood your post also.

Addressing your point, I'm not entirely sure I agree it's a strawman. You seem to be arguing that "conditions which would be in-line with the Geneva conventions" and" rights that prisoners of other wars should have, according to treaties the USA is a signature to" are two distinctly separate things.

To my way of thinking, they're one in the same.

I am not sure how you could keep prisoners in conditions that comply with the GC without granting prisoners the rights they should have.

Unfortunately since the OP hasn't actually offered an opinion on the article (which, incidentally, they misrepresent, as I pointed out), it's difficult to determine what their point is at all, thus I am not sure it's fair to argue a strawman. In order to commit the strawman fallacy you have to actually make an argument, don't you?

 

[Darat]

From the article it seemed to be saying that the report says that conditions (which I took to mean accommodation, food, clothing and so on) meet the requirements of the GC but it didn't mention the rights the GC gives POWs. It could be I am reading too much into the use of the word "conditions" in the article.

 

[gumboot]

From the article it seemed to be saying that the report says that conditions (which I took to mean accommodation, food, clothing and so on) meet the requirements of the GC but it didn't mention the rights the GC gives POWs. It could be I am reading too much into the use of the word "conditions" in the article.

I inferred they meant more than just living conditions given:

"treatment of detainees meets the requirements of the Geneva Conventions"

Perhaps either your interpretation or mine is equally valid, absent clarification from the report itself.

 

[INRM]

If GITMO (as it was under Bush) meets the Geneva Convention Standards, then I'm an albino...

INRM