Musicians Protest Use Of Songs By US Jailers 210
The guy who wrote the Barney "I love you" song, and other musicians are banding together to protest the US military using their songs as weapons. The campaign has brought together groups including Massive Attack and musicians such as Tom Morello, who played with Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave. It will feature minutes of silence during concerts and festivals, said Chloe Davies of the British law group Reprieve, which represents dozens of Guantanamo Bay detainees and is organizing the campaign.
Can I protest them back? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been tortured by morons blasting their music in my apartment complex and out of cars with overly shaky bass systems constantly. I hereby protest these so-called "artists" and their crappy music.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can I protest them back? (Score:4, Insightful)
You obviously have never been forced to be around toddlers for any length of time. If you're not used to it and/or already emotionally geared towards it, that's torturous enough even without the big gay purple dino (or Tinky Winky etc) to deal with.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-- RIAA
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you could sue them for copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, you and Tommy Hilfiger. Tommy Hilfiger protested that gangsters and hoodlums wore his gear. His protest created a real shit storm, now all the gangsters and gangsters-wanna-be buy his stuff and wear his gear just to try to piss him off even more.
There's no point to the whole thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of spending effort tormenting the detainees so that they hate us even more, it seems the time could be better spent re-educating them into lovers of America. We've currently got no reason to keep them there, so at least we could find something remotely constructive to do while this is going on. Then again, our entire prison system is based on locking people away for arbitrary (and long!) amounts of time rather than actually doing anything with those people.
Privitized Prison system... (Score:3, Insightful)
...I'm sure the contractors supporting Gitmo are making bank.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't forget about Dick Cheney. He's also an investor in privately run federal prisons. He's probably making out like a bandit over gitmo.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Side note: Re-educating them into lovers of America? LOL! Why not just leave them be and send them home to their families. They would probably appreciate that more than any re-education program about how good America is. Not to be rude to American's, but it's just not all about you all the time
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't being entirely serious there, but it's a better idea than blasting shitty music at them. The point of the post was that any idea is a better idea than what they're doing now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a subset of the prisoner population which either doesn't want to return to their coutry of orgin because they believe they will be tortured or that we do not want to send to their country of orgin because those governments will not guarantee they will not be tortured.
If no other country will take these people, then what do you do with them?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bluntly, if you can't prove their guilt and can't deport them, then let them stay in your country.
Since when do POWs get trials? (Score:2)
Funny how new rules apply to America that no country has ever extended to POWs.
Typical, disagree with a lib, (Score:2)
If you even attempted to inform yourself enough in the issue, you'd know that Geneva gives less protections to the unlawful combatant status than to the POW. The point of Geneva is carrot and stick. Sign the Convention, and abide by it, get all of its protections. Don't sign and/or commit warfare outside of its requirements, you don't get the vast majority of its protections.
Anyone who would say an unlawful combatant should be treated better than
Re: (Score:2)
Or more likely, as has happened, send them home so they can start engaging in more terrorist activities.
It has to be one or the other with people like this. Either convince them to stop hating non-Muslims and the freedoms of the West, or kill them/lock them away forever. I don't see any in between.
Re: (Score:2)
"to create fear, disorient ... and prolong capture shock." - Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, (then the) U.S. military commander in Iraq
give them a reason to hate us?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except they weren't [amnesty.org.au]
Except you didn't [amnesty.org.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Xplains the Barney song (Score:2)
"I love you. You love me and we're a happy family ..."
Re: (Score:2)
Your little sister?
I LOVE YOU! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I read the partial list of songs, my first reaction was, "what? these are some good tunes, kind of old, but good"; maybe someone like Sony BMG will cut a CD of the songs for the rest of us? But my concern is that the Constitution says no Cruel, or Unusual Punishments. I also think that Bush may have to come up with some coin for the Musicians because how the music was used was via Broadcasting, and if a Bar did this they'd have a great business, but they'd would have to pay some fines. And I didn't read
Torture (Score:5, Funny)
I'm fine with waterboarding inmates as long as no one is actually drowned. I draw the line at Barney's "I Love You" song, though. Subjecting humans to that song is simply too uncivilized.
Come on, if they REALLY want to torture (Score:3, Funny)
Musicians and Message (Score:2)
I feel like an important part of art -- especially music -- is to have some control over its use at sanctioned events/places. Think of your favorite song/artist. If GW Bush wanted to use that song as his campaign song, wouldn't you feel as though the artist were somehow endorsing that campaign? Or if BMW decided to use the song in one of their car ads, isn't the song endorsing their product?
In the same way the above are pay-for-play, the artist has to explicitly give up the right for his/her work to be u
Re: (Score:2)
"Think of your favorite song/artist. If GW Bush wanted to use that song as his campaign song, wouldn't you feel as though the artist were somehow endorsing that campaign?"
I totally agree. When I first read about Charles Manson, my very first thought was: "How could the Beatles be endorsing that psycho?"
Re: (Score:2)
The Foo Fighters were just complaining about the use of Hero by some Republican, they've got no leg to stand on though, their recording label licensed the music to some party throwing services with rights to be played, and as long as the royalties are paid the song gets played.
That said, I don't think using a song for background music means the artists supports what's goi
"wrote" the I Love You song? (Score:2, Insightful)
Like all those crappy Barney songs, they just added a few trivial lyrics to a PD song ("This Old Man" in this case).
They also used "Yankee Doodle" and others. One of the reason I used to detest Barney; Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood used real original songs.
Who are you? (Score:4, Funny)
[blast of loud Van Halen music]
Silence, Earthling! My name is Darth Vader. I am an extraterrestrial from the planet Vulcan!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I am never a grammar either! We have so much in common! I'm also never a syntax or diction!
Re: (Score:2)
Awww... sometimes I'm medical terminology...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there have been lesser depressions than The Great Depression. That's what makes it great: by being greater than another.
And I wouldn't say "several". You only need "a couple" others, which when combined with a potential new one, gives a total of "a few".
I'm just expecting that Stephen Colbert will use that line eventually because it's a natural to succeed his loaded, "George W. Bush: great president, or the greatest president?" inte
Win-win, no? (Score:2)
So... musicians whose songs have been determined by the armed forces to be military-grade weapons are going to protest. And they're going to protest with silence.
What's to complain about?
hmm.... (Score:4, Funny)
..maybe they should quit bitching and write better music. :)
RATM (Score:2)
Correction:
Hmm.. what's with the the idle section and the quote tags?
Re: (Score:2)
He just announced Monday that there's absolutely 0 chance that there will ever be new RATM material so that he can focus on his side project The Nightwatchmen.
USGov/USArmy Copyright violation? (Score:2)
The use at Gitmo doesn't sound like "private performances" and sounds much more like "public performances" in the sense they are being done to further the organizations' goals, and not for private appreciation.
The artists involved may well have a copyright violation suit to press. Unlike patents, I do not bel
Metallica liked the idea (Score:2)
Given how Metalica is held in such high esteem in these parts I thought it should be pointed out that Metallica, number one on the Gitmo playlist with Enter Sandman, liked the idea. They thought it was cool their music was scary and were happy to help ... uh ... protect the ... can't remember but they were happy.
Lightwights (Score:2)
The "I Love You" song? Pffff...that's kids stuff! If they really wanted to torture, they'd play the song that never ends. It goes on and on, my friends....
Great lawsuit (Score:2)
Great lawsuit. Because shooting them or spending billions of dollars on some other non-lethal option (which will still probably turn out to be very painful or potentially lethal) is so much better than just playing some music.
If they win, I can't wait to hear the press conference... "We had the building surrounded but had no non-lethal options available to effect the hostage rescue, so we just went in and shot everyone."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. So you really buy that whole "terrorists under the beds" nonsense. I guess someone has to.
I suppose you think there's an insurgency in Iraq too.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, there WAS an insurgency in Iraq.
Keyword: WAS
Re:"Torture." Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're talking about the insurgency in the 70's that put Saddam in power right?
Let's get this straight: In 2003 there was an invasion of Iraq by US forces (oh, and a smattering of allies, woo!) Since then there has been an occupation of Iraq by those same forces. One of the first actions of the occupying force was to disband the Iraqi army. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were told to go home. Their pay severed. For a while they tried to get jobs but, due to the widely publicized incompetence of the occupying forces, there was no jobs to be had. The looting and destruction of both private and public property was tolerated and ignored by the occupying forces. National treasures that had been preserved over millennia were destroyed. Seeing that their country was being systematically reduced to rubble they formed a militia and began fighting to remove the occupying force.
This is not insurgency. If someone invaded your country, fired the government, fired the military and replaced it with nothing you'd rise up and try to eject them too. If you didn't, you'd hardly be a patriot.
Re: (Score:2)
I think someone forgot this part:
Keyword: WAS
The worst is over in Iraq. Sorry, if that hurts your anarchofreedomunist leanings.
Saddam wasn't replaced with nothing. Also, they've hired back and trained many of the people in the military that were let go. Iraq has an army. Iraq has a government. Hell, Iraq's government is already playing hardball with our government, which is a good thing really (or a well placed charade).
Re: (Score:2)
whoa there, you're using militia in a second amendment way.... this is Iraq, not the USA, that doesn't apply there.
Funny thing about war is that according to Geneva convention "citizens" don't really have the right to rebuild their society... their GOVERNMENT has that right. According to Geneva, citizens do not have the right to overthrow a government, the Declaration of Independence is not actually a legal document the US government has to follow, just some pretty words. Geneva is all about what GOVERNME
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite. The Iraqi army effectively disbanded itself. They simply went home.
No.. they were standing ready.. by executive order they were disbanded.
..and exactly what would you have had the US forces do and to what level of force would have had them use? There wasn't enough forces available to protect all of that property.
Gee, I fucking wonder why?!!
Re: (Score:2)
The US attempted to reconstitute the army after realizing that releasing the only natives with combat training and no source of income could effectively serve as the army AND were often the perpetrators of the looting. WHAT A SURPRISE. It wasn't a matter of trying to protect everything, it was a matter of the US destabilizing the country on multiple levels. The news is old, you should have kept track.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. A "coup" is an act of "insurgency". If you're a citizen of country X and you overthrow the legitimate government of country X then you are an insurgent. My objection is to the bastardized usage of the word in the media to refer to militia men try to eject an occupying force in their country.
Re:"Torture." Right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sleep deprivation can kill. I certainly call that inhumane. Living a life that has no future except being locked in a prison for decades sounds like torture, too. When life is worse than simply being pointless and the mental cost of living another day outweighs the benefits, that's a tortured life. There's plenty of people who live lives like this, imprisoned or not, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing or that America can be proud of imposing this state of life on anyone.
Also keep in mind that these people have been there for years. What new information could they ever give to us?
Re: (Score:2)
If living a life that has no future except being locked in prison for decades is torture, then what should we do to criminals? Let them go? Tell them to be good and hope they are? Give them drugs?
Just because you have been there for years doesn't mean you don't have anything new to say, does it? I think you underestimate human abilities of deception.
Re:"Torture." Right. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know. Give them a fair trial and a sentence of some determinable time?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And what would be the determinable time for murder, terrorism, rape, etc? In other words, should society hold no crime serious enough that the punishment is as serious as prison for life? Or should punishment no longer fit the crime.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Should they be in jail? Let a judge decide. What should be the punishment? Let a judge decide. Or is "terrorism" such a serious crime that we can't allow judges to decide who is guilty of it? Is terrorism so bad that judges can't decide what the sentence should be? Is terroris
Re:"Torture." Right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not?
Perhaps because they were sent to gitmo so that US law would not apply, regardless of court decisions since, this was an enclave deliberately created to allow the US to commit acts thaat would be illegal in the US itslef.
Gitmo has destroyed the image the US once had as a country that beleved in fairness and the rule of law.
Re: (Score:2)
"And what would be the determinable time for murder, terrorism, rape, etc?"
.
A 300 grain .44 magnum bullet travels at 1500ft/sec. Assuming the 'criminals' are less than a foot away, then the determinable time is ~6.66e-4 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of the music is picked specifically for sleep deprivation, played loud, all the time, to prevent sleeping, much of it is also considered religiously offensive, if they understood english. As "american rock music" they are forcing them to commit sin, according to Islam, every day.
What if we got anti-abortion activists (religious terrorists sympathizers) pregnant just so we could abort them to harvest stem cells as part of their prison "work"? It's just a medical procedure to save lives like donating bl
Miranda rights, asshole (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you do have to give "terrorists" a nice cell and good food, as well as a speedy trial by a jury of their peers.
Anything less justifies retribution, whether you call it "terrorism" or not.
Re:Miranda rights, asshole (Score:5, Informative)
Miranda rights are for people picked up by the police, in a non-war zone.
They do not apply to enemy military personnel, especially enemy personnel wh fail to uphold their Geneva Convention responsibilities to dress in military uniform and carry their weapons openly (so as not to cause problems in telling military and civilians apart) who are picked up either (a) in the act of sabotage or (b) on the battlefield itself.
Finally: spies have NO rights, even in the Geneva Conventions.
Live and learn. If you ever learn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Guantanamo isn't for spies, or prisoners of war, the US Government doesn't want to give the people they pick up the rights of the latter, and they have better places to send the former.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no military personnel in Guantanamo (Score:5, Insightful)
The ones picked within the US can be charged in a civilian court, deported, or both. That's it.
Those picked up on the battlefield have done absolutely nothing wrong. If you invade a country, the civilians there have every right to attack your soldiers. That's war, sweetheart.
If you don't like it, don't wage it. Imprisoning people for defending their homes is not on.
That's a stupefying level of hypocrisy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... cheaper.
Wow, I'm going to hell for saying that.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you're either proper military personnel entitled to the Geneva Convention, of you're a civilian entitled to Constitutional treatment (at least in the U.S. or by U.S. troops.
The whole 'unlawful combatant' dodge as well as claiming that Gitmo isn't the U.S. (whose flag do they fly there then, Cuba's?) is a shameful sophistry by a shameful administration.
Re: (Score:2)
A shameful sophistry it might be, but it's not like it's a new invention.
Re: (Score:2)
End result being that, no, you don't automatically fall under Geneva Convention or constitutional coverages.
The term has been around a lot longer than that, but the 'special' status where an unlawful combatant is granted no rights at all either as a POW under the Geneva Convention nor Constitutional rights is new.
I'm guessing you're referring to Quirin. However, that case was considerably different in that the detainees were granted their right to council and a trial. In addition, rather than being swept up in a combat zone, they actively entered the U.S. itself with the intention of sabotage (that is, they acted
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this reasoning is that there is no due process to determine if someone is a spy, or not. For instance, a Canadian citizen was kidnapped in Canada (with the complicity of the Canadian authorities) and tortured for the better part of three years, all because he happened to have the same full name as the guy our CIA people were looking for. And in Pakistan and Iraq, the intelligence was initially so poor, that they started giving aw
Re:Miranda rights, asshole (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a strange meme - the notion that to be an unlawful combatant, you have to have carried weapons on a battlefield. American government lawyers disagree [law.com].
Could a "little old lady in Switzerland" who sent a check to an orphanage in Afghanistan be taken into custody if unbeknownst to her some of her donation was passed to al-Qaida terrorists? asked U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green.
"She could," replied Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle. "Someone's intention is clearly not a factor that would disable detention." It would be up to a newly established military review panel to decide whether to believe her and release her.
So you don't need to carry a gun. You don't even need to have any intention of supporting terrorism. Team America will have you away to Cuba post haste anyway.
Now, how about this 'battlefield'? Where is it?
Noting the Supreme Court said detention was to keep combatants from returning to the battlefield, Green asked, "What and where is the battlefield the U.S.military is trying to detain the prisoners from returning to? Africa? London?"
Boyle: "The conflict with al-Qaida has a global reach."
So I suppose it's technically true that all the Guantanamo prisoners were captured on the battlefield. America defines the battlefield as the whole of Planet Earth.
They're called defendants, asshole (Score:2)
Re:"Torture." Right. (Score:4, Informative)
Constant loud music wears people down phycologically. 16 hours mean that just about every waking hour is filled with this music. When they try to sleep, all there is is ringing.
Have you even heard of people who lost their hearing by shooting guns through the years without any kind of ear protection? A subset of this group end up killing themselves because they can't take the severe tinnitus ringing anymore.
Now come on. You may not think it's torture when idly thinking about it. But there must be SOME reason they are doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I completely agree that there is some reason they are doing. I decline to agree that it's simple brutality and a love of torture. Are there people like that? Yes. I bet a lot of them play games like GTA, heh.
Yes, I know people lose their hearing by shooting guns, etc. And by going to rock concerts. And I know about tinnitus, members of my family have it... and not from rock concerts.
Here's my question to you. How do you propose to protect your country from those who plot against it? How do yo
Re:"Torture." Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, guess what? As long as we're being stereotypical, please allow me to assert that you must be from the South, being that you're inbred as far as you are. You just might be a redneck if your family tree has no branches. I'll bet your sister is your favorite aunt, and the lazy-eyed kids you two have together must sure be special. Et cetera, and so on, and so forth. Ad nauseum. Ad infinitum.
But I digress.
We don't really have any evidence that these folks have done anything wrong, because if we did, we'd have a trial for them, and THEN we'd have locked them up forever, or for however long their crimes may warrant. Meanwhile, there's no reason to torture anyone. Whether it be water-boarding, thumbscrews, humiliation, or simple sleep deprivation brought on by 16 hours of loud music followed by a 4 hour respite of quiet, it's torture.
And, as a GTA-playing tinnitus sufferer, torture is just not how I want to see things done. This is not the America that I want to be a part of.
You don't like being called inbred without any supporting evidence, I'd guess. And I don't like jailing terrorists without a public trial.
To each his own, I suppose. I'm all for defending the country, but without limits on how we treat all humans, we're no better than any other offensive, fear-mongering, repressive society of the past.
I want to be remembered as having lived during a time of greatness and good virtue, not insolence.
Re: (Score:2)
There may never have been a time of greatness and good virtue. And if there was, we (all 6.7 billion of us) have probably mostly forgotten it. You're right about that.
I'll be remembered, though, by my children. If I'm lucky, my grandchildren will also remember me. And if I'm really playing my cards right and live long enough, my great grandchildren will also remember me.
That's enough fame for me. It's plenty of reason for me to always try to be fair, just, and to aspire for greatness, no matter how ins
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the sarcasm gene. Perhaps, some day, medical science will be able to fix that for you.
Until then, good luck out there.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is torture, it should be called torture. It becomes a lot easier to regulate it if the word is not always being avoided. If the people of the United States feel torture is required, at least this would help keep things in line. Given how many Americans likely still feel we should wipe all those Iraqis off the earth for the world trade center incident, I don't think this should be a problem.
But please, I do not want the government lie about it. I already have enough distrust from reading the conspir
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I completely agree that there is some reason they are doing. I decline to agree that it's simple brutality and a love of torture.
If I torture you and I don't enjoy doing it, does that make it ok?
Re:"Torture." Right. (Score:4, Insightful)
"I guess we should just not try to extract any information from prisoners. Forget the whole "intelligence" thing. We shouldn't spy, we shouldn't use "torture." If 16 hours of extremely loud rock music (apparently not enough to deafen, though) and 4 hours of complete silence and darkness counts as "torture," people need to visit some other countries more often. "
Do you think it would be acceptable to subject YOU to this treatment?
After all YOU are as guilty as they are. Neither of you have even been charged with a crime, neither of you has been convicted of anything, indeed the only real difference between them and you is that THEY are in gitmo and you aren't.
Are YOU willing to trade places with them?
After all, a lot of them are as innocent as you.
Perhaps we should try and "extract" intelligence from you for a few years, and see if you think its still a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
First, both your examples are strawmen. We're talking about Gitmo.
Do you really think any of Gitmo's incarcerated have an undetonated bomb ticking away about to blow up? Of course not, hell, it took more than few days to get them to Gitmo in the first place from where they were arrested/captured. If this was a 'ticking bomb' situation, the bombs would have exploded before they ever got there. And that was YEARS ago... why are they STILL there?
What if a criminal has kidnapped your family and he also said tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you need to work on your reading skills. the prisoners aren't being put through just 16 hours of loud music and 4 hours of silence.
prisoners are being locked up without due process and subjected to physical and psychological torture for weeks, months, or even years. sensory deprivation is known to cause psychosis and potentially permanent damage to an individual. and as if the psychological abuse wasn't enough, the prisoners are also being held in stress positions meant to cause pain and/or injury to detain
Re:"Torture." Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
What "terrorists"? What, exactly, have the "terrorists" done? Who do they rape, kill and murder? Where and when is this happening?
Well, ok, the us army rapes and murders people based on religious and political beliefs. We call it war.
But these people in cuba? Do you know what they have done? What have they been charged with? What crimes did they commit? Do you even know who they are, where they come from, or what is being done to them?
NO, you dont. But its ok, they are "terrorists." Because the tv told you so.
Bush IS a war criminal. By any modern, humane definition of the term, by the UN's own definition. We hung Saddam. We hung the war criminals tried at Nuremberg.
I just love this new term, "terrorist" it is so meaningless and vague. Lets hope someday you are tagged with it and then we'll see where you stand.
You see, murderers and rapists are tried and sentenced, in any country. These poor people are not charged with any crime, are not sentenced to any punishment.
Yet sick stupid motherfuckers like you continue to sit by while it happens. Hopefully someday you will know what its like. Hopefully.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the despicable troll mod you are spot on sir.
Truth hurts.
Re:Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, I have a friend who was imprisoned in Afghanistan during the 70's/80's. A "terrorist" nation.
He was never tortured or treated improperly EVER. When the soviets invaded and took over the prison, THEY never tortured nor harmed him, in fact treatment got even better. 20 years in a foreign prison and the only bad thing to happen to him was an opium addiction.
Its funny hearing his story, because he was a good american boy, afraid of the bad guys and especially of the soviets. When they marched through the prison he freaked out, only to find they were genuinely interested in his well being. The soviet general who toured the place stopped specifically at his cell and talked to him, because he was american. He received medical treatment, fresh clothing and good food, plus a promise that his sentencing would be looked at and he was released a few years later, from a life sentence (for smuggling hashish.) I've never seen somebody more changed by an experience, going from good ol' american boy to seeing the truth: the USA is the biggest fucking fascist state on earth. All from being locked up in a foreign country. You can tell a lot about a society by how they treat their prisoners. He never once saw anybody raped or tortured. Now, american prisons on the other hand...
Most people would be very very surprised to know the stats on prison violence and rape in the US versus the rest of the world. We have the most inhumane conditions for prisoners of almost anywhere on the planet. Not to mention the fact we have the highest per capita prison population on earth.
The America people believe exists from watching tv, does, in fact, not exist except on tv.
Not to mention nuclear weapons, oh yeah baby. We have used them. On innocent civilians. Twice. Nobody else can claim that prize.
Oh well. Just bomb more brown people. That will fix your life so you can buy more video games in which you kill brown people.
Re: (Score:2)
Study up on the terrorists who founded this country then. They are at war with us, they are POW's if anything. Which means they have rights and are to be treated a certain way according to the geneva convention.
If we are at war, then who are we at war with? An enemy, which means they are POW's.
Keep calling it a war, and keep calling "them" terrorists. Words mean everything, read your Orwell.
Do you expect the people living in a country we invaded and are occupying to sit idly by?
What would you do if chinese
Re:"Torture." Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
If 16 hours of extremely loud rock music (apparently not enough to deafen, though) and 4 hours of complete silence and darkness counts as "torture," people need to visit some other countries more often.
You disgust me. The United States of America is supposed to be a shining beacon of light to the entire world. But you're fine with this sort of abuse as long as we're better than Egypt or North Korea? Screw being a beacon unto others, at least we're better than certain squalid dictatorships!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we should. And do you know why? BECAUSE IT FUCKING WORKS. That is, unless you think that you, as a /. commenter, have more experience in the field than an actual interrogator [washingtonpost.com]. Although, given that you are a /. commenter, if you did believe that I shouldn't be a bit surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Why am I getting flashbacks of Beethoven's symphony being played while character was being tortured in Clockwork Orange [google.com]?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"suspected" terrorists.
Guantanamo has had to let huge percentages of its prisoner population go because they weren't terrorists. There's no proof that any of the rest will ever be convicted of anything either. Your problem is you believe the government and military are only torturing guilty people. By that logic, lets torture everyone in south-east LA, there's a higher percentage of real crime happening there per capita than Guantanamo.
Re:"Torture." Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck that. We shouldn't be imprisoning people just to gain intelligence. Prove a crime was committed and punish them, or do not detain them. To do otherwise runs contrary to the entire set of principles on which the USA was founded.
Re: (Score:2)
except none of the "residents" of gitmo are actual terrorists by the army's own admitting. Most were "enemy combatants" picked up for shooting at soldiers during the invasion or turned in under "reward" programs as knowing info about the terrorists. Most have learned more intel about terrorist ops inside gitmo and from the interrigators than they knew on the outside. The majority are just street thugs who were pushed into harassing soldiers by actual terrorists... more dangerous guys will be looting the s
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we could:
1. Follow the Geneva conventions, because we want to not get our asses laughed at when we bitch about people torturing OUR citizens.
2. Not imprison people based on shaky intelligence.
3. Make torture illegal.
Why can't we do things the good old-fashioned way, where you could torture people, and if you got found out, you'd get shit-canned? That would be awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Many tortures don't actually sound that bad or even seem that bad at first. It's the repetition and lack of assurance that it will ever end that makes it torture.
You're also forgetting that none of these people have received a trial. It's nearly inconceivable that out of that many people detained, not one of them is innocent. Those that are innocent have no confession to make and no secrets to keep. Shall we prove we're no more civilized than the Inquisition? Torture them until they make up a confession? I
Re: (Score:2)
I think Bush deserves all that and worse. He is responsible for many more deaths than any of the terrorists.
If this was applied to you I suspect you would quickly change your juvenille view of torture.
Lets see the proof of your accusations about the Gitmo inmates, the list of convictions, the evidence- oh thats right there is none.
So you approve of torture of people who are suspected of terroism. without any proof.
Ah Truth, Justice and what used to be the American way.
Re: (Score:2)
>>I guess we should just not try to extract any information from prisoners. Forget the whole "intelligence" thing.
Okay, I'll barge in your home and drag you to my cellar then keep extracting intelligence from you till your anus bleeds.
I have exactly as much right to do so, and exactly as many clues that you actually possess this information. And I will not stop till you tell me all I want to know.
I expect to receive all the admissions to everything I suspect you for, in the process, proving my actions
Re: (Score:2)
Hearing loss is a gradual linear progression. We all suffer hearing loss with age linearly. That's one of the reasons that teenagers can have ring tones at frequencies that only they can hear. If you ramp up the sound exposure to an extreme, you'll also ramp up the hearing loss. There is no two ways about it. This treatment may not be enough to deafen prisoners in one go, but it is no doubt accelerating their hearing loss t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing something along the lines of "Your right to listen to whatever you want ends just outside my eardrums."