> From: Derek Thornton <lists@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Re: plain guantanamo
>
>> Are those huts "designed" in some way ?
>
> My theory is that they were designed for the internal
> US reaction only (since it is clear that the US does
> not give 2 cents for world opinion - if they did then
> Sept. 11th probably wouldn't have happened at all).
bravo, short and clear. Wellco.
>
> I have a feeling that the specification included a
> requirement that not even the poorest, worst accommo-
> dated, US voter would be able to claim that "they are
> living under better conditions than I am".
eventually rumsfeld could still say that. He works too much.
>
> That would have been a big challenge for any run-of-the-mill
> prison-cell architect, but the man/woman responsible
> for this construction must be somebody very special
> because, apart from satisfying the specification, he/she
> has managed to outrage world opinion at the same time.
>
> Some of the world's best architects spent years trying to
> do that and most have failed miserably (who gets outraged
> these days at new buildings that are, in fact, unfit for
> human habitation? Nobody of any significance!) Now,
> using nothing more than some 2x4s, a bit of chicken
> netting and a hot tin roof, this anonymous designer has
> achieved world-wide fame/infamy in only a few days!
I suppose it's not the sole architect/designer in this case, But probably a
Guinesslike record.
>
> The sad aspect is that, although the structure could not
> legally be used in Europe even to house stray dogs, it
> is still many times better than the accommodation
> provided by most of the world's prison administrations
> even for their own nationals held awaiting trial.
you should see the mexican ones... not far away from me.
>
> It is well ventilated and well drained and there is adequate
> provision for daylight to enter. Easily cleanable toilet
> facilities have been provided, including one redundant
> bucket, plus a fresh change of clothing.
the climate is certainly better there than in a goulag. Just wait for some
dust storm/wind/hurracan to see some other problems...
>
> You have only to compare that with a regular Russian
> prison cell in which up to 100 remanded prisoners, many
> of them with tuberculosis, might be kept packed into a
> windowless cellar room wearing the same clothes they
> had on when arrested months before, and with only one
> bucket between the lot of them, to appreciate the
> benevolence of the US authorities. I would really like to
> see the results of a survey conducted among prison
> populations in Russia, Turkey, Thailand, etc, offered the
> chance to exchange their cell for one on Guantanamo,
> to see how many would rather stay put than switch.
of course. But if the US is proclaiming everywhere his respect of basic
rights, even if compared to Russia or Mexico the cells in Cuba should always
be on top of any of the international standards.
>
> The problem is that the Geneva Convention does not
> permit exposing prisoners of war to the public gaze and
> the US authorities were misguided enough to "ill-treat"
> their prisoners out in the open for all to see - most other
> societies take pains to exclude prying eyes.
The Cuba detainess are not supposed to be prisoners of war. Rumsfeld and
others said recently their situation should just be humanitarian.
And if not permitted by the convention, why did the US send the press to
Guantanamo to check even from some 150 yards the orange clothed tourists on
the island's sun ? To act as if they do not consider those talibans as
prisoners but just temporary enclosed for their safety and the safety of the
general public? remember: they traveled to the USA as did the slaves on the
spanish/english vessels before.
Meaby someday their descendandts will also be on the first page of the
Newsweek magazine, as important as their original importers.
>
> This very openness amounts, however, to nothing less
> than a cunning attempt at mental torture, in my opinion.
> I would hazard a guess that most human beings, kept in
> well-lit pigeon coops in the hot Cuban sun, would soon
> be willing to tell their captors more than the maximum
> allowed by the Geneva Convention (name, rank and
> number) in merciful exchange for a nice, friendly,
> old-fashioned US penitentiary cell.
or to be sent back to his own country's cell , just that would be enough.
The sun even under a tin roof is a torture. Any beach user knows that,
better under a tree.
>
> It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the
> first man breaks down and spills the beans.
could you really believe than nobody already died under alliance/allied
breakdown torture in discrete places around Kaboul ? Just look at the
published picts of beaten guys, and imagine what could happen behind walls
or in some cave ? without cameras on the site? Let's hope the Marines or
Black Berets maintained there, even without scrutiny, their good manners
when handling any kind of "prisoner", even if not of "war". No My-Lai again.
Who separated the interesting guys sent to Cuba from the poor followers who
were liberated or left in Afghanistan ?
Who decided that ? A military court ? A plain specialist "en la matière" ?
What are the living conditions for the rest of the "warriors" who are now in
afghan prisons ? ( who cares of that: they are very far away, protected from
public scrutiny under some old fashioned and there "inapplicable"
convention)
Who is in charge of them ?
Who interrogates them there ? the afghanis or some Special Services/cia
agents?
Is there any verified number of confirmed or probable taliban casualties,
taliban prisoners,civil deaths ( collateral deaths !), or people still in
observation before to be sent to Cuba or some other place ?
?¼?
( I'm not justifying the taliban's acts or governement here. just trying to
apply to those prisoners what the US public opinion wanted to ask the NVA
to apply to his sons in Vietnam. Those acts were certainly less detailed or
publicized. Good reason for the US administration to show "she's the best in
the world".
>
Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "patachon" <phsov@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:28 PM
> Re: plain guantanamo
>
>> Are those huts "designed" in some way ?
>
> My theory is that they were designed for the internal
> US reaction only (since it is clear that the US does
> not give 2 cents for world opinion - if they did then
> Sept. 11th probably wouldn't have happened at all).
bravo, short and clear. Wellco.
>
> I have a feeling that the specification included a
> requirement that not even the poorest, worst accommo-
> dated, US voter would be able to claim that "they are
> living under better conditions than I am".
eventually rumsfeld could still say that. He works too much.
>
> That would have been a big challenge for any run-of-the-mill
> prison-cell architect, but the man/woman responsible
> for this construction must be somebody very special
> because, apart from satisfying the specification, he/she
> has managed to outrage world opinion at the same time.
>
> Some of the world's best architects spent years trying to
> do that and most have failed miserably (who gets outraged
> these days at new buildings that are, in fact, unfit for
> human habitation? Nobody of any significance!) Now,
> using nothing more than some 2x4s, a bit of chicken
> netting and a hot tin roof, this anonymous designer has
> achieved world-wide fame/infamy in only a few days!
I suppose it's not the sole architect/designer in this case, But probably a
Guinesslike record.
>
> The sad aspect is that, although the structure could not
> legally be used in Europe even to house stray dogs, it
> is still many times better than the accommodation
> provided by most of the world's prison administrations
> even for their own nationals held awaiting trial.
you should see the mexican ones... not far away from me.
>
> It is well ventilated and well drained and there is adequate
> provision for daylight to enter. Easily cleanable toilet
> facilities have been provided, including one redundant
> bucket, plus a fresh change of clothing.
the climate is certainly better there than in a goulag. Just wait for some
dust storm/wind/hurracan to see some other problems...
>
> You have only to compare that with a regular Russian
> prison cell in which up to 100 remanded prisoners, many
> of them with tuberculosis, might be kept packed into a
> windowless cellar room wearing the same clothes they
> had on when arrested months before, and with only one
> bucket between the lot of them, to appreciate the
> benevolence of the US authorities. I would really like to
> see the results of a survey conducted among prison
> populations in Russia, Turkey, Thailand, etc, offered the
> chance to exchange their cell for one on Guantanamo,
> to see how many would rather stay put than switch.
of course. But if the US is proclaiming everywhere his respect of basic
rights, even if compared to Russia or Mexico the cells in Cuba should always
be on top of any of the international standards.
>
> The problem is that the Geneva Convention does not
> permit exposing prisoners of war to the public gaze and
> the US authorities were misguided enough to "ill-treat"
> their prisoners out in the open for all to see - most other
> societies take pains to exclude prying eyes.
The Cuba detainess are not supposed to be prisoners of war. Rumsfeld and
others said recently their situation should just be humanitarian.
And if not permitted by the convention, why did the US send the press to
Guantanamo to check even from some 150 yards the orange clothed tourists on
the island's sun ? To act as if they do not consider those talibans as
prisoners but just temporary enclosed for their safety and the safety of the
general public? remember: they traveled to the USA as did the slaves on the
spanish/english vessels before.
Meaby someday their descendandts will also be on the first page of the
Newsweek magazine, as important as their original importers.
>
> This very openness amounts, however, to nothing less
> than a cunning attempt at mental torture, in my opinion.
> I would hazard a guess that most human beings, kept in
> well-lit pigeon coops in the hot Cuban sun, would soon
> be willing to tell their captors more than the maximum
> allowed by the Geneva Convention (name, rank and
> number) in merciful exchange for a nice, friendly,
> old-fashioned US penitentiary cell.
or to be sent back to his own country's cell , just that would be enough.
The sun even under a tin roof is a torture. Any beach user knows that,
better under a tree.
>
> It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the
> first man breaks down and spills the beans.
could you really believe than nobody already died under alliance/allied
breakdown torture in discrete places around Kaboul ? Just look at the
published picts of beaten guys, and imagine what could happen behind walls
or in some cave ? without cameras on the site? Let's hope the Marines or
Black Berets maintained there, even without scrutiny, their good manners
when handling any kind of "prisoner", even if not of "war". No My-Lai again.
Who separated the interesting guys sent to Cuba from the poor followers who
were liberated or left in Afghanistan ?
Who decided that ? A military court ? A plain specialist "en la matière" ?
What are the living conditions for the rest of the "warriors" who are now in
afghan prisons ? ( who cares of that: they are very far away, protected from
public scrutiny under some old fashioned and there "inapplicable"
convention)
Who is in charge of them ?
Who interrogates them there ? the afghanis or some Special Services/cia
agents?
Is there any verified number of confirmed or probable taliban casualties,
taliban prisoners,civil deaths ( collateral deaths !), or people still in
observation before to be sent to Cuba or some other place ?
?¼?
( I'm not justifying the taliban's acts or governement here. just trying to
apply to those prisoners what the US public opinion wanted to ask the NVA
to apply to his sons in Vietnam. Those acts were certainly less detailed or
publicized. Good reason for the US administration to show "she's the best in
the world".
>
Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "patachon" <phsov@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:28 PM