Remove Advertisements

Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:12 am

Fivelives wrote:I think the argument he's going for is that "we might as well keep them there, since if they weren't terrorists before they went in, they would be by the time they come out".

I can see the merit in that argument. I mean, hell - wouldn't you be pissed at say, East Westfuckistan if they grabbed you off the street and threw you into the equivalent of Gitmo? I'd go back and bomb something, if it happened to me. I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that the innocents who've been in Gitmo for awhile wouldn't think exactly the same way.

Right, and the people we bomb on a daily basis are OK with it? None of them ever want to attack us? My point is that if we were literally scared to the point of inaction because we may piss people off enough to attack us, then how do you do you explain the much more significant actions we've taken on an astronomically larger scale.

The assertion clearly contradicts itself. It's like someone swimming in a pool during a rain shower saying he doesn't want to get out of the pool because he'll get wet...

That doesn't even cover the political reasons why it doesn't make sense, the fact that the population there is considerably smaller than it's peak (apparently the "guilty" ones we let go won't retaliate, it's only the innocents we fear?), and isn't even challenging some rather significant assertions about gitmo that are very questionable in the first place. It's not an argument with any merit at all.

Dantriges wrote:Actually the first half of my reply that seemed to bother you so much that you stopped reading after the first sentence was how could this rumour have been started and not that´s its true. I removed the whole thing.
I read all of that post. It didn't bother me, I was merely pointing out that it didn't make any sense. You replied that you read it somewhere so I spelled out why, on sooo many obvious levels, that it didn't make sense.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Fivelives » Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:26 pm

Ok, it's not that we're afraid of them. It's more that we're trying to incarcerate them.

Kind of a logical process:

Gitmo is where terrorists go.
If someone is in Gitmo, they are a terrorist.
If they weren't a terrorist before they went in there, they are now.
Therefore, once you're in Gitmo, you might as well stay there.

It's like fitting a square peg into a round hole. Once you've whittled it into a round peg, you may as well leave it in the round hole.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Egyptian police "Virginity Checks?"

Postby Dantriges » Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:00 am

So I eradicated most posts because well no sense arguing stuff when most is from the media anyways. I found a pretty credible source, a report from the US committee actually tasked to review the situation. You can read their results here:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ ... 0052803890

I summarised it a little bit, I dont think many people actually want to read it from beginning to end.

242 detainees left 8actually 240, one commited suicide, the other one was sentenced during the course of the review). 779 in total. 530 were already released or tansferred by the Bush administration.

Of the remaining: It was recommended that 126 should be transferred. 44 are recommended to be prosecuted, 48 shall be kept in indefinite detention. The 30 guys fom Yemen are on conditional detention. This means, they are sigged for transfer but can´t be sent back, because they are from Yemen and Obama put a moratorium on transfers to Yemen.

Transfer means more or less no worth the time. For an exact definition see p.7 and p.15+
Doesn´t mean they are not ncessarily innocent but not really a threat or only low risk. Page 17 goes into detail but my personal assessment is that the review gets a bit too much into obscure government doubletalk there. Seems to me that the oard wantsto cover their behind if the guy actually starts fighting the US again or was actually innocent. They mention stuff like no threat if appropriate security measures are used. No idea what they mean, continued imprisonment is not advised. Seems that the guys who are so dangerous that only continued imprisonment is feasible are the 48 designated for indefinite detention. I found the whole chapter a bit vague. In a later chapter about diplomatic efforts I found somethin that indicates that the term "appropriate security measures" is defined somewhere (p27), because it seems to be a point in resettlement talks. It´s not "throw in prison and forget them" as the paper talks about integration. I assume that they don´t mean proper integration into the society of their new prison.

8 of the 44 flagged for prosectution were assigned another status. 7 were not feasible for prosecution and instead put into indefinite detention, 1 is supposed to be transferred. p12.

10 percent of the remaining detainee population (240) are actual leaders, operatives or facilitators of terrorist attacks. (p.13)
20 percent were people with signifiant organizational roles within Al Quaeda or associated terroist organisation (p.13)
10 percent taliban leaders.
Most of the rest: low level foreign fighters. Mostly captured in Afghanistan by the afghan Northern Alliance.
5 percent : Don´t fall into any category.(p14)

Own conclusion: I was suprised that they only send 779 people to Guantanamo. Thought they had more inmates. So pleasant surprise. Some chapters, as noted previously were a bit too vague for my taste.
I found it a bit wasteful to establish the whole thing with all the associated costs in diplomatic, financial and military resources with the establishment of new legal constructs like unlawful combatants etc just to capture a hundred guys. Some will say it´s justified, others the price is high but worth it, others will perhaps think that there are more efficient means to get to the same result. I have my own opinion about some other issues associated with it, but well I already retracted my statements about that, and they are not the topic of this post anyways. Yep, reading too much gov-speak lately. :wink:
Dantriges
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Previous

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest