Printable View
Do you think Amnesty International is totally wrong with its report about prisoner abuses at Guantanamo Bay?
I appreciate we don't have all the facts here and because they were not allowed direct access they had to rely on statements from the red cross and ex detainees instead of their own first hand observations (but this is often the case with other nations).
So it is your gut feeling you are voting on.
Please try to be fair minded and not just be anti or pro America
These events, I believe, have transpired. This is almost the same as the US not signing on with the ICC, they know they've done wrong and they do not want their soldiers (or themselves) to face the consequences.
Amnesty international exists purelly for human rights and decency
they are not out to make profit....
so why lie?
ofcourse this is a more sensational event, their work in the past is without illintent. There is so much abuse in this world which we know nothing of.
There are some things wrong with Gitmo. Being imprisoned without a trial comes to mind imediately, but Amnesty Intl went too far when comparing the situation to gulags.Quote:
they have exagerated but i think some abuses have occured
The Al Quaeda "fighters" detained in Gitmo aren't starved to death, forced to labour to death or sommarily executed.
I think that Rumsfeld has picked up on the mention of a gulag and manipulated it.
Amnesty actually said that it was the 'gulag of our time' - not saying that the same atrocities go on there, simply that it is an example of a super-power treating politcal prisioners with no regard for their basic rights. A gulag was in a bygone time, Guantanamo is now. Amnesty's statement that Rumsfeld has siezed upon is perfectly valid.
This, of course, has enabled the Bush Administration to be able to tar the whole statement from Amnesty as being incredulous. This is a pity because the actual premis Amnesty has of demanding the facility to be opened to independent scrutiny is a fair one.
As zed correctly asserted, Amnesty has no bias, it is simply concerned with the welfare of human beings. I believe every word Amnesty say in this case, they make no gain by making false claims but stand to lose a lot of credibility and donations by making false ones.
I believe that some abuses have been carried out, but as is the way with relying on 'word of mouth' evidence things get changed. Anyone remember playing chinese whispers at school?
As manker and z have said Amnesty exist purely for the welfare of human beings so they would have nothing to gain by lying and plenty to lose
So does anyone accept the argument put forward that the "sources" could not be relied upon because they "have a grudge" . For example after being released only saying that they were abused "just to get back at us"?
That is also a valid point but I didn't fancy bringing it up :P
i'm worried about what it leads to.
does anyone seriously expect all the governments in the middle-east to suddenly take on america's style of democracy unopposed, then america lets everyone go home?
has anything like this ever happened before without being ended by revolution or war? :unsure:
I think that's a given, vid.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
However, Amnesty have unparalleled experience in sorting out this type of problem. Each and every prisioner is going to have a grudge against his incarcerators so Amnesty would be very careful in selecting the information they use and their choice of words.
What Amnesty are saying is that many people have made allegations about their treatment in Guantanamo, so let's have a look.
If there was nothing to hide, their doors should be opened for inspection already.
I just raised the point as it is being used by Bush/Cheney etc. to dismiss the claims