ARTIST DIRECT FROM GUANTANAMO BAY
Charles Berlitz
produced a series of paintings of his treatment in the camp.
http://www.geocities.com/artist5832/Page21.htm
Any feedback/comments can be emailed back to me (i am his agent)
charlie
Bob & Dale Ford
What a shitty martyr.....he's still alive.
Really I guess they took the hand cuffs off long enough for him to
paint. Guess things aren't so bad, not to mention having access to mail,
art supplies and communication with an agent. Sounds like he is full of
crap or you are. Take a look at POW conditions (even under the Geneva
conventions) during the World wars. This is a cake walk in comparison.
Terrorists are not protected by the Geneva conventions, just like spies
and traitors. This whole issue is a red herring. Terrorists just like
spies are allowed to be lined up and shot.
But the most outrageous part of this is do you want me to feel sorry for
a person who is a traitor to their country, who choose to join an
organization that crashes planes full of people into buildings? All I
have to do is think of that mother who lost her husband and HER 2 MONTH
OLD DAUGHTER and I am filled with rage. Do you know what happens on a
crash like a hard landing? The impact is so great that the flesh is
ripped like a plastic bag from the body. Now in your head picture a baby
girl being ripped from her skeleton. And you want me to feel sorry for
HIM?????? The people who thought this was good???? The only thing I see
when I saw this post was hell hit him harder he's still breathing.
Terrorist hit soft targets, they survive on media attention and
appealing to compassion and sensibilities of others. This is the new
front. The new mis-information war.
Then again maybe it is best that you win this one. Maybe if they have a
little more fear next time thinking the target isn't quite so soft,
maybe there won't be another Sept 11.
Dale
Peter H.M. Brooks
Charles Berlitz wrote:
>
> A British born artist captured and detained in Guantanamo bay has
> produced a series of paintings of his treatment in the camp.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/artist5832/Page21.htm
>
> Any feedback/comments can be emailed back to me (i am his agent)
>
> charlie
>
behaviour, I agree. It is interesting how cowards (who kill civilians
from 40,000 feet with cluster bombs etc.) turn into bullies once they
have defenceless people to torture.
You might want to put in a mirror site - the traffic is so heavy that
geocities stops the site downloading from time to time.
As art work I think it leaves a little to be desired, though!
Bob & Dale Ford
slandering the marines who guard these prisoners.
John S. Mill once wrote that "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest
things. The ugliest is the man who thinks nothing is worth fighting and
dying for and lets men better and braver than himself to protect him."
As far as the use of certain ordinances I am well aware of the reason
why bombing is used. Basically ( because this is not a military forum)
it is to soften the target to limit the casualties of the allied (the
would be our side, or my side any way) forces. Since you were not
willing to go to Afghanistan and arrest certain elements, other people
(Marines, Army, SAS, JTF, etc...) are sent to do the job. It would be
nice that our guys are presented with the greatest chances of survival.
After all Private Smith didn't help fly a plane full of people into
buildings. It has nothing to do with cowardice. But hiding behind
leftist propaganda as an excuse to do nothing (and get more people
killed by terrorism) , or an excuse not to bomb (and there for get
private Smith killed) .........well.............
What I find hypocritical here is that all of those screaming for due
process and preferred treatment for terrorists have already condemned
the men and women who have fought to protect and defend our way of life
as guilty of war crimes. In promoting the story that the marines are
beating and torturing prisoners you have taken away the rights of the
marines. What about their due process??? When a person becomes a soldier
they still have rights......quit infringing on them.
As far as the art work goes again how the hell would such a tortured
individual have access to time space art supplies let alone the
logistical problems of getting the art work out past the evil guards.
Then mailing the work out so quickly. Then only just arrived in Cuba
after all. The POST IS BULL SHIT. Not to mention that Taliban and other
radical individuals banned all depiction of human beings in art work as
evil, iconographic. So if the guy is nuts enough to leave England to
join some terrorist organization whose goal is to kill western
civilization (his own friends, family, neighbours etc....) then he
probably is not producing artwork with people in it is he. Or just may
be he was and that is why he has a stump instead of a hand.
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
couple of days.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> The Red Cross has been invited to visit the camp
>
I am delighted to hear that they are being allowed in - it is shocking
that it has taken so long for this elementary step to take place.
--
'Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would be at the expense of two?"
The Latest Decalogue - Arthur Hugh Clough
William Barkin
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:a2o90k$9b8$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
Peter H.M. Brooks
William Barkin <wba...@bcn.net> wrote in message
> Stop wasting tax payer funds and shoot them all...
>
You must approve of the bombing of the World Trade Centre. So butch...
William Barkin
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:a2pjru$quu$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
Peter H.M. Brooks
William Barkin <wba...@bcn.net> wrote in message
>
> --------------------------
> William Barkin - Fine Artist
> Online Portfolio
> http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> news:a2pjru$quu$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
> >
> > William Barkin <wba...@bcn.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > Stop wasting tax payer funds and shoot them all...
> > >
> > You must approve of the bombing of the World Trade Centre. So
butch...
>
>
chose, but I am happy to believe you.
The conclusion isn't ludicrous. You are arguing for murder without due
process of law as revenge that doesn't require guilt, but only
association. So you must approve of the bombing of the World Trade
Centre that was indeed murder without due process of law as revenge.
Bob & Dale Ford
why I said the original post was BS because the timings aren't right.
The Red Cross was present at the prison in Afghanistan right away. If
you remember that is when the prisoners attacked, killed the CIA guy,
injured several Americans and killed some Alliance forces. When the
battle was over, the Red Cross was interested in what happened, worried
the guards were over zealous, as how could defenceless prisoners attack
their capturers???? And as the Red Cross workers were removing some dead
bodies, investigating, the prisoners killed a couple of them. Seems
radical fundamentalists don't like people that are not one of
them....even if they are trying to help them. ( Oh by the way that's
considered a war crime. )
Also I heard that many of your country men were worried about Malaria in
Cuba, there isn't any. So don't worry about them being outside. Cuba is
about 75 degrees during the day and 65 at night lovely weather. Fell
sorry for the poor army, marines, SAS etc. who are sleeping in holes
with scorpions, snakes in Malaria ridden Afghanistan. And the only
reason why they are there is because of some nut cases decided to
attempt genocide on the western world. ( Another war crime which BTW are
tried by military tribunal. And Saboteurs are allowed to be shot, they
are not entitled to POW status, never have been. Caught behind enemy
lines without a uniform and you aren't entitled to POW status, You are
entitled to be SHOT. These are the rules of the Geneva conventions, and
if you apply them then William is right technically they should be
shot.) And now some past targets are worried that the captured nut cases
sleep outside.....BOO HOO. Why doesn't amnesty international visit the
base at Kandahar and see the conditions the military is living with,
then compare with how the prisoners are treated, they'd shut up pretty
quick. I lost almost every ounce of respect I ever had for AI. This
whole human rights violation is a political ploy and has nothing to do
with the actual conditions in any camp. And I am amazed at the ignorance
of the press and the United Nations as to the Geneva coventions. They
didn't even bother to read them.
What I would love to see, and I really think the people of the US should
consider is a class action suit against Amnesty International, and a few
British papers for Slander and Liable. Whether you like it or not those
guards are human, and so are Americans, and their rights have been
violated.
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> William Barkin <wba...@bcn.net> wrote in message
> >
> > --------------------------
> > William Barkin - Fine Artist
> > Online Portfolio
> > http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
> > "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:a2pjru$quu$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
> > >
> > > William Barkin <wba...@bcn.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Stop wasting tax payer funds and shoot them all...
> > > >
> > > You must approve of the bombing of the World Trade Centre. So
> butch...
> >
> > And how did you arrive at that ludicrous conclusion? Dork
> >
> Your description of yourself as a 'Dork' isn't one I would necessarily
> chose, but I am happy to believe you.
>
> The conclusion isn't ludicrous. You are arguing for murder without due
> process of law as revenge that doesn't require guilt, but only
> association. So you must approve of the bombing of the World Trade
> Centre that was indeed murder without due process of law as revenge.
Again read the Geneva Conventions, as terrorists you will see they
aren't entitled to such protection. Britain of all countries should be
very careful here, since more than one IRA member has been eliminated
with out due process. Some call it revenge others would say protecting
the population of Great Britain from attack, still others would claim it
was murder.
The UN I understand why they are making a fuss. They have been upstaged
and are trying to reassert themselves. This is the only issue that they
can use. Pow status for terrorists. Yeah any one want to bet which
countries are backing that one. But England my God.....expect a few more
subway bombs if this baby goes through. And that is a VERY BAD thing.
The only thing the UN is going to accomplish with this is getting a
bunch of people killed, just like they did in Rwanda, Sierra Leone,
Congo, Bosnia etc...
Inaction and kind words to genocidal maniacs just gives them more time
to kill more people.
Dale
Dale
Peter H.M. Brooks
> aren't entitled to such protection. Britain of all countries should be
> very careful here, since more than one IRA member has been eliminated
> with out due process. Some call it revenge others would say protecting
> the population of Great Britain from attack, still others would claim
it
> was murder.
>
have not been conviced of any crime and were detained during a war, so
they are, under the Geneva Convention, prisoner's of war.
You may remember that Bush declared it a war.
>
> Inaction and kind words to genocidal maniacs just gives them more time
> to kill more people.
>
You do have a point. The US has killed more innocent Afghani civilians
than civilians were killed in the World Trade Centre. Where do you think
that US terrorism is likely to strike next?
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >
> > Again read the Geneva Conventions, as terrorists you will see they
> > aren't entitled to such protection. Britain of all countries should be
> > very careful here, since more than one IRA member has been eliminated
> > with out due process. Some call it revenge others would say protecting
> > the population of Great Britain from attack, still others would claim
> it
> > was murder.
> >
> Britain has certainly committed acts of terrorism, I agree. These people
> have not been conviced of any crime and were detained during a war, so
> they are, under the Geneva Convention, prisoner's of war.
>
No that is a gross simplification. Even a soldier in full uniform
committing sabotage behind the lines is not entitled to POW protection.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> >
> > Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Again read the Geneva Conventions, as terrorists you will see they
> > > aren't entitled to such protection. Britain of all countries
should be
> > > very careful here, since more than one IRA member has been
eliminated
> > > with out due process. Some call it revenge others would say
protecting
> > > the population of Great Britain from attack, still others would
claim
> > it
> > > was murder.
> > >
> > Britain has certainly committed acts of terrorism, I agree. These
people
> > have not been conviced of any crime and were detained during a war,
so
> > they are, under the Geneva Convention, prisoner's of war.
> >
> No that is a gross simplification. Even a soldier in full uniform
> committing sabotage behind the lines is not entitled to POW
protection.
>
But news footage of American and Northern Alliance
troops firing down
on the POWs from the heights of the fortress walls,
and fields littered
with the corpses of dead and mutilated prisoners,
provided clear
evidence of a massacre. Even as the extermination of
pockets of
survivors continued, demands were being raised by
human rights
organisations for an investigation into violations
of the Geneva
Convention and other international laws of war.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch called
for an inquiry into
the events at the Qala-i-Janghi fortress, and were
joined by Mary
Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights.
The United States and Britain have rejected all such
appeals. The
American media, which paid only passing attention to
the bloody events
as they were unfolding, has gone completely silent
in their immediate
aftermath.
But the slaughter of POWs outside of Mazar-i-Sharif
cannot so easily be
swept under the rug. As the British newspaper the
Guardian suggested
on December 1: "A single, horrific atrocity can
provide the defining
moment in a war ... questions are being asked about
whether the bloody
end to this week's prison siege at the 19th-century
Qala-i-Janghi fort
outside the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif
will be the defining
moment of the Afghan war. Pictures of aid workers
picking their way
through the corpses of Taliban prisoners killed by a
combination of
Northern Alliance fighters and American bombings
have caused revulsion
around the world."
No single act carried out by the American military
so clearly bespeaks a
war crime as the killing of hundreds of POWs at the
prison fortress. In
the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, American military
and civilian
authorities sought to attribute the slaughter of
civilians to a rogue element.
The chief perpetrator, Lt. William Calley, was
prosecuted by US courts.
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >
> > Again read the Geneva Conventions, as terrorists you will see they
> > aren't entitled to such protection. Britain of all countries should be
> > very careful here, since more than one IRA member has been eliminated
> > with out due process. Some call it revenge others would say protecting
> > the population of Great Britain from attack, still others would claim
> it
> > was murder.
> >
> Britain has certainly committed acts of terrorism, I agree. These people
> have not been conviced of any crime and were detained during a war, so
> they are, under the Geneva Convention, prisoner's of war.
>
> You may remember that Bush declared it a war.
> >
> > Inaction and kind words to genocidal maniacs just gives them more time
> > to kill more people.
> >
> You do have a point. The US has killed more innocent Afghani civilians
> than civilians were killed in the World Trade Centre. Where do you think
> that US terrorism is likely to strike next?
>
You aren't serious are you? Afghanistan culture is very complex. One day
you are A taliban fighter, the next you are an innocent person. That's
culturally acceptable there. The other problem is that accounts were
rather exaggerated and the NGO's and reporters count not confirm the
amounts killed. Didn't it strike you as suspicious that every day it we
always an even number of people dead. It was never 19 people were killed
it was 150 people killed.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > Britain has certainly committed acts of terrorism, I agree. These
people
> > have not been conviced of any crime and were detained during a war,
so
> > they are, under the Geneva Convention, prisoner's of war.
> >
> No that is a gross simplification. Even a soldier in full uniform
> committing sabotage behind the lines is not entitled to POW
protection.
>
Have a look at article 2 and the final paragraph that I quote. The full
text of the convention is in the URL.
http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/texts/BH240.txt
ARTICLE 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are
persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen
into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as
members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organised resistance movements, belonging to a
Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own
territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such
militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance
movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the
laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being
members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft
crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour
units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed
forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the
armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that
purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the
merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to
the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under
any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the
enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces,
without having had time to form themselves into regular armed
units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and
customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war
under
the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the
occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by
reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has
originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside
the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have
made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which
they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to
comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the
present Article, who have been received by neutral or
non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are
required to intern under international law, without prejudice to
any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give
and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph,
58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the
Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power
concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where
such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom
these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the
functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present
Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties
normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage
and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel
and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
ARTICLE 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article
4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their
final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy
the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status
has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Peter H.M. Brooks
time
> > > to kill more people.
> > >
> > You do have a point. The US has killed more innocent Afghani
civilians
> > than civilians were killed in the World Trade Centre. Where do you
think
> > that US terrorism is likely to strike next?
> >
> You aren't serious are you? Afghanistan culture is very complex. One
day
> you are A taliban fighter, the next you are an innocent person. That's
> culturally acceptable there. The other problem is that accounts were
> rather exaggerated and the NGO's and reporters count not confirm the
> amounts killed. Didn't it strike you as suspicious that every day it
we
> always an even number of people dead. It was never 19 people were
killed
> it was 150 people killed.
>
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/afghan-civ.htm
For chapter and verse, including all references look at:
http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/
Peter H.M. Brooks
in the Western World:
Doctors in Guantanamo Bay are at risk of being accessories to torture
Recent events make me concerned on behalf of my medical colleagues in
the US military forces. I have imagined what I might do
if I were to find myself posted to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Perhaps I
would pen a letter to the BMJ because of its keen interest
in medical human rights issues.1 This is the sort of letter I might
write.
EDITORI have been posted to the US military base at Guantanamo Bay.
I will be expected to provide medical
care to the hundreds of prisoners being relocated from Afghanistan.
I am told that they are coming to Cuba for
intensive interrogation.
I am under no illusion: this is a euphemism for brutal treatment
and torture.2 It is widely believedin Central and
South America at leastthat interrogations sponsored by the CIA and
US military incorporated violence ranging
from beatings to cycles of drowning. As a doctor, should I
resuscitate prisoners so that they might be retortured? I
would appreciate your advice.
My Alter Ego
We can ill afford to assume that inhumane treatment is sponsored only in
countries where democracy and respect for human rights are not secure.
Given the backing
of the UK and US governments for detaining prisoners in Guantanamo Bay,
we can also no longer assume that doctors placed in such unfortunate
positions can rely
on the support of the democratic world.
The BMJ could fulfil a useful function in debating this issue and
offering advice and support to our unfortunate US colleagues.
Tom Marshall, lecturer in public health medicine.
Bob & Dale Ford
hillside the prisoners were firing back. That point often gets left out.
If the people are actively fighting they are no longer prisoners now are
they. The red cross went in to investigate and 2 or three died killed by
prisoners. The majority of the bodies which are called mutilated have to
do with an arty strike that was called in. The co-ordinates were wrong
and a trench filled with northern alliance and Us soldiers were hit.
There is actual footage of that. When big bombs go of people's bodies
don't remain intact.
Ever wonder why the story was quickly dropped???? After a week????? When
the siege lasted a couple of days?
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
provisional factions of the lot???????
Is the IRA entitled to the same protection? Big can of worms isn't it.
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
Peter H.M. Brooks
> provisional factions of the lot???????
> Is the IRA entitled to the same protection? Big can of worms isn't it.
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
the
> hillside the prisoners were firing back. That point often gets left
out.
> If the people are actively fighting they are no longer prisoners now
are
> they. The red cross went in to investigate and 2 or three died killed
by
> prisoners. The majority of the bodies which are called mutilated have
to
> do with an arty strike that was called in. The co-ordinates were wrong
> and a trench filled with northern alliance and Us soldiers were hit.
> There is actual footage of that. When big bombs go of people's bodies
> don't remain intact.
>
> Ever wonder why the story was quickly dropped???? After a week?????
When
> the siege lasted a couple of days?
>
Prisoners were given access to weapons then killed.