I was under the impression that a human could die from lack of sleep faster than starvation - and the assumed time for starvation is 2 weeks.

 

 

 

Yep. Tests on cats have resulted in peculiar results. The cats were woken up every 5 minutes when they fell asleep and due to a lack of sleep (and dreaming) they first became insane, then died.

 

btw, you can suffer starvation for over a hundred days if you have sufficient liquids to drink. There are people who were stuck in the ocean on a raft and survived over half a year with only purified water, no food whatsoever.

Yea, I mean deprivation of foods and liquids. So it's technically dehydration that gets you after the two weeks or so.

@rick: it only takes 3-4 days for the avg human to die without water, or any liquids. Pretty scary, isn't it?

 

 

 

btw, you can suffer starvation for over a hundred days if you have sufficient liquids to drink. There are people who were stuck in the ocean on a raft and survived over half a year with only purified water, no food whatsoever.

 

 

 

Woah..that's pretty cool. Links to any stories about it? That's fascinating...

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3236118.stm - fakir story: don't know if it's 100% true though.

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9695373 - a man who survived without water for a week, which is twice as long as a normal human being.

 

http://www.equipped.com/primer.htm - how to survive. Scroll all the way down to 'food a lower priority'.

 

 

 

And there are ample examples of ship accidents in the wide ocean or plane crashes in mountainous territory where several people managed to survive without food for a long time. Google a bit and you'll get a ton :)

Yea. Us humans are so fragile. Wish to be a croc or snake sometimes. Those suckers can go for 6 months without a meal :ohnoes:

Yea. Us humans are so fragile. Wish to be a croc or snake sometimes. Those suckers can go for 6 months without a meal :ohnoes:

 

 

 

Yup, and lions can too, even though they're mamals. Crocs are more extreme though; they can survive over a year and a half without food, but then they really do really need a tasty zebrachop :)

 

What you said is pretty normal for a croc, just like it ain't a big deal if we skip a day of eating.

 

Sorry, thought it was answering your question plainly - but I'll say it simpler:

 

 

 

Q: Is everyone captured - whereever - and sent to Guantanomo guilty of terrorist acts and should be detained for that reason?

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: Is there no question as to their guilt?

 

A: No.

 

Q: Can you really say that being detained and put into a camp is all the proof needed that "coercive questioning" is only to be used to extract further information?

 

A: No.

 

 

 

So the swedish citizen who spent 930 days as an unwilling guest at Guantanamo before being released without any charges must've done something related to terrorism? It just couldn't be proved in a military court, but hey, he was in there... Clearly a terrorist. Why else would he been arrested by the Pakistani police inside Pakistan after all?

 

 

 

Real life doesn't work like the last episode of 24. Sure, there are people who are Clearly Actual Terrorists, but chances are, most of the people processed are either innocent, or not involved in a grand enough scale to warrant their treatment. (Ignoring the legalities). I'm fairly sure there's plenty of people here who will argue that setting aside human rights for the occasional innocent - and innocent is used loosely, considering the lack of proper trials in a fair few cases - is well worth it in the end. *shrug* In my opinion, once you start crossing that border... There's a lot of things that can be described as being done for the Greater Good that any civilized human being would consider atrocious. The ends don't justify the means nearly as often as TV would have you to believe.

 

 

 

And that's about today. Then there's the fact that various laws that encroaches human rights and civili liberties might have a positive effect *today*. But fifty years from now, those laws could be abused in a wide variety of ways. Which is why human rights and civil liberties has to be permanent, solid fixtures in a society. Because once the border is fluctuating, no one really knows where it will stop, or when.

So the swedish citizen who spent 930 days as an unwilling guest at Guantanamo before being released without any charges must've done something related to terrorism? It just couldn't be proved in a military court, but hey, he was in there... Clearly a terrorist. Why else would he been arrested by the Pakistani police inside Pakistan after all?

 

 

 

Real life doesn't work like the last episode of 24. Sure, there are people who are Clearly Actual Terrorists, but chances are, most of the people processed are either innocent, or not involved in a grand enough scale to warrant their treatment. (Ignoring the legalities). I'm fairly sure there's plenty of people here who will argue that setting aside human rights for the occasional innocent - and innocent is used loosely, considering the lack of proper trials in a fair few cases - is well worth it in the end. *shrug* In my opinion, once you start crossing that border... There's a lot of things that can be described as being done for the Greater Good that any civilized human being would consider atrocious. The ends don't justify the means nearly as often as TV would have you to believe.

 

 

 

And that's about today. Then there's the fact that various laws that encroaches human rights and civili liberties might have a positive effect *today*. But fifty years from now, those laws could be abused in a wide variety of ways. Which is why human rights and civil liberties has to be permanent, solid fixtures in a society. Because once the border is fluctuating, no one really knows where it will stop, or when.

 

 

 

Maybe I'm just really dim today but I'm not sure what the point is that you're making with the Swedish chap. Maybe I don't understand it because I've never watched an episode of 24 before...

So the swedish citizen who spent 930 days as an unwilling guest at Guantanamo before being released without any charges must've done something related to terrorism? It just couldn't be proved in a military court, but hey, he was in there... Clearly a terrorist. Why else would he been arrested by the Pakistani police inside Pakistan after all?

 

 

 

Real life doesn't work like the last episode of 24. Sure, there are people who are Clearly Actual Terrorists, but chances are, most of the people processed are either innocent, or not involved in a grand enough scale to warrant their treatment. (Ignoring the legalities). I'm fairly sure there's plenty of people here who will argue that setting aside human rights for the occasional innocent - and innocent is used loosely, considering the lack of proper trials in a fair few cases - is well worth it in the end. *shrug* In my opinion, once you start crossing that border... There's a lot of things that can be described as being done for the Greater Good that any civilized human being would consider atrocious. The ends don't justify the means nearly as often as TV would have you to believe.

 

 

 

And that's about today. Then there's the fact that various laws that encroaches human rights and civili liberties might have a positive effect *today*. But fifty years from now, those laws could be abused in a wide variety of ways. Which is why human rights and civil liberties has to be permanent, solid fixtures in a society. Because once the border is fluctuating, no one really knows where it will stop, or when.

 

 

 

Maybe I'm just really dim today but I'm not sure what the point is that you're making with the Swedish chap. Maybe I don't understand it because I've never watched an episode of 24 before...

 

 

 

I believe what Blue Tear meant is the following:

 

 

 

You asserted that everyone captured and sent to Guantanamo is guilty of terrorist acts and should be detained for that reason.

 

 

 

Blue Tear brought up a counterexample, in which a Swedish individual spent 930 days at Guantanamo, and was eventually released. 930 days of prison time without the rights afforded to other types of prisoners... and yet he was eventually not found guilty and released.

I believe what Blue Tear meant is the following:

 

 

 

You asserted that everyone captured and sent to Guantanamo is guilty of terrorist acts and should be detained for that reason.

 

 

 

Blue Tear brought up a counterexample, in which a Swedish individual spent 930 days at Guantanamo, and was eventually released. 930 days of prison time without the rights afforded to other types of prisoners... and yet he was eventually not found guilty and released.

 

 

 

Then I have three questions:

 

 

 

1) Was he released after being found innocent?

 

 

 

2) Who arrested him in the first place and where?

 

 

 

3) How many cases can you show me where this happens?

1) They released him without charges even being made. There'd be no point releasing him if there was even a remote chance that he was guilty.

 

 

 

2) He was captured by Afghan warlords and then handed to the US army without a warrant being out for him. The warlord's claim that he was a terrorist was all that was needed.

 

 

 

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp#Released_Prisoners - At a quick glance, I'd say dozens.

Dude no one answer my question but one person. And it really wasnt answering my question it was jsut why we shouldnt.

 

My question is, without using the interrogation techniques we use now, how are we supposed to gather the nessecary information in order to prevent and immenint attack on the US?

The same way the US has always kept itself safe. Diplomacy. Infiltration. Surveillance. Anything allowed within national and international law. Whatever we know from 'interrogating' Gitmo prisoners obviously hasn't been enough to capture any major terrorist leader or prevent any major attack. If it had been enough, don't you think it would've been all over the news?

 

 

 

I'm sure that arbitrary executions would eventually get some people to talk. Not because they know anything, just to make the killing stop. I have a question for you: If you stoop to the terrorists' level to beat them, have you really won?

Exsqeeze me? You know what level the terrorist are at? Their at the level of killing women and children, bombing subways, flying into buildings. We cause mild-medium discomfort.

Exsqeeze

I'm sorry, I really have to ask - do you just sling your fist in the general direction of the letters you want to type and hope something sensible comes out?

 

 

 

Anyway, these terrorists are attacking not just America, but the American way of life. The American way of life is freedom. Freedom from, among other things, fear of being arrested without a chance to defend yourself in a court of law and fear of being subjected to cruel and unusual punishments. If you take that freedom away, from your own citizens or from people living abroad, you're taking away from the American way of life. Which is exactly what the terrorists want to do.

 

Then I have three questions:

 

 

 

1) Was he released after being found innocent?

 

 

 

 

He had "not committed a crime that could be proven in a military court". Judging by the brief mention in this pressrelease http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/200 ... 41890.html, I'd say they let him out after an administrative hearing. Meaning they didn't even try his case in a military court before throwing it out.

 

 

 

2) Who arrested him in the first place and where?

 

Pakistani warlords -> Pakistani Police -> US authorities. Inside Pakistan, near the Afghan border.

 

 

 

3) How many cases can you show me where this happens?

 

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004 ... ased_x.htm

 

 

 

After having a look around on the official Gitmo website (I have to say, making official websites for things like that impresses me. Talk about easy information access for the public. It's biased, obviously, but it's still readily available information), I'd say anyone released by an administrative board, i.e. not tried in a court, is likely to have gotten away without any charge, anywhere. This seems to be noted as "released", where as those charged with something in a different country, are "transfered". So that makes it somewhere like... Well, I found a press release that has 167 people listed as released, and 29 has transfered. But it's from July 2005, so I'd imagine there'll be a fair bit more people today.

 

 

 

People who were determined not to be illegal combatants, despite ending up at Gitmo.

Exsqeeze me? You know what level the terrorist are at? Their at the level of killing women and children, bombing subways, flying into buildings. We cause mild-medium discomfort.

 

So that makes it alright then? =;

 

For the love of smeg...

1) They released him without charges even being made. There'd be no point releasing him if there was even a remote chance that he was guilty.

 

 

 

2) He was captured by Afghan warlords and then handed to the US army without a warrant being out for him. The warlord's claim that he was a terrorist was all that was needed.

 

 

 

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp#Released_Prisoners - At a quick glance, I'd say dozens.

 

 

 

So they were released? What's the problem then?

 

 

 

Whatever we know from 'interrogating' Gitmo prisoners obviously hasn't been enough to capture any major terrorist leader or prevent any major attack. If it had been enough, don't you think it would've been all over the news?

 

 

 

Bush has said in numerous speeches that we have stopped at least one major attack - and we have killed and captured several terrorists. Do you not remember us killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Do you think things like that are just luck? Bush, in numerous speeches has spoken of the terrorists we have kill and captured, and plots we have foiled due to "making people talk." If it didn't work - someone by now would have said, "Hey - this is making our poll numbers go down and it's not accomplishing very much is it?" It's just illogical to think that Bush and his administration take the continuous beating that they do over and over for Gitmo and other prisons if it's not accomplishing anything.

 

 

 

And to answer your question about whether it would be all over the news or not...no it wouldn't. It wasn't on the news when we found evidence that Saddam was in fact seeking uranium from Africa (that was pushed aside for the false allegations against Rove and Cheney about Plame), it wasn't all over the news when we found Mustard and Sarin gas in Iraq. No, I don't think it would be all over the news. I do think it's interesting though that when Bush constantly keeps saying in his speeches, "These prisons have led to the capture of high profile terrorists and have stopped numerous attacks" you just choose not to believe him and then ask why it's not in the news. If you don't want to believe him, that's fine. I don't believe Bill Clinton when he points his finger at Chris Wallace and lists all of the things he did to combat terrorism. But if it's just to the point where you're not going to believe what he says no matter what, don't ask what good they do - because you're not going to believe it.

 

 

 

The issue here isn't whether or not it helps us stop attacks and capture terrorists - because it does. The issue is whether or not we're violating human rights in a way we shouldn't. And I will be the first to admit that, although I don't agree with your opinion on the issue, I do see the very strong case your side has.

Exsqeeze me? You know what level the terrorist are at? Their at the level of killing women and children, bombing subways, flying into buildings. We cause mild-medium discomfort.

 

 

 

What makes what the terrorists did so different to what the US army did hunting down osama bin laden after the world trade centre attack, many more people have been killed, don't you think the torture you have inflicted on that country is enough?

 

 

 

As soon as you legalise torture in one area of the law the line becomes hazy for other areas, soon they will be able to torture you for other crimes, imagine being a 12 year old tortured because you shoplifted some sweets and would tell the police who was with you?

 

 

 

No human has the right to inflict suffering on another, yes what these terrorists do is wrong, but that doesn't make what america wants to do to them any righter.

1) They released him without charges even being made. There'd be no point releasing him if there was even a remote chance that he was guilty.

 

 

 

2) He was captured by Afghan warlords and then handed to the US army without a warrant being out for him. The warlord's claim that he was a terrorist was all that was needed.

 

 

 

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp#Released_Prisoners - At a quick glance, I'd say dozens.

 

 

 

So they were released? What's the problem then?

 

 

 

 

:shock: What? There's nothing wrong with being imprisoned for TWO AND A HALF YEARS without ever having a formal charge laid against you? With prison guards potentially mistreating you, being unable to see or contact your family, for two and a half YEARS? I mean... I know we all have different standards of morality and all, but... :P

1) They released him without charges even being made. There'd be no point releasing him if there was even a remote chance that he was guilty.

 

 

 

2) He was captured by Afghan warlords and then handed to the US army without a warrant being out for him. The warlord's claim that he was a terrorist was all that was needed.

 

 

 

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp#Released_Prisoners - At a quick glance, I'd say dozens.

 

 

 

So they were released? What's the problem then?

 

 

 

 

:shock: What? There's nothing wrong with being imprisoned for TWO AND A HALF YEARS without ever having a formal charge laid against you? With prison guards potentially mistreating you, being unable to see or contact your family, for two and a half YEARS? I mean... I know we all have different standards of morality and all, but... :P

 

 

 

Then I would agree he should be compensated in some way.

1) They released him without charges even being made. There'd be no point releasing him if there was even a remote chance that he was guilty.

 

 

 

2) He was captured by Afghan warlords and then handed to the US army without a warrant being out for him. The warlord's claim that he was a terrorist was all that was needed.

 

 

 

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp#Released_Prisoners - At a quick glance, I'd say dozens.

 

 

 

So they were released? What's the problem then?

 

 

 

 

:shock: What? There's nothing wrong with being imprisoned for TWO AND A HALF YEARS without ever having a formal charge laid against you? With prison guards potentially mistreating you, being unable to see or contact your family, for two and a half YEARS? I mean... I know we all have different standards of morality and all, but... :P

 

 

 

Then I would agree he should be compensated in some way.

 

 

 

Slightly off topic: Right now, most states don't provide any compensation for people who are wrongfully imprisoned going through the normal justice system. There are people who have served over 20 years in prison, or have even served many years on DEATH ROW expecting to be killed, and later released when new evidence was found. Most of these exonerees aren't compensated by the government in any way, despite 18 years of their life being taken away, for example. However, some of them have earned decent jobs by becoming public speakers and sharing their experiences - if you ever get the opportunity, I highly recommend trying to bring someone to your school or community or campus to talk. For more information, check out The Innocence Project at http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Slightly off topic: Right now, most states don't provide any compensation for people who are wrongfully imprisoned going through the normal justice system. There are people who have served over 20 years in prison, or have even served many years on DEATH ROW expecting to be killed, and later released when new evidence was found. Most of these exonerees aren't compensated by the government in any way, despite 18 years of their life being taken away, for example. However, some of them have earned decent jobs by becoming public speakers and sharing their experiences - if you ever get the opportunity, I highly recommend trying to bring someone to your school or community or campus to talk. For more information, check out The Innocence Project at http://www.innocenceproject.org/

 

 

 

You mentioned new evidence. Were these people found guilty and then later released after new evidence was found - or were they in jail that long waiting for a verdict?

Seahawk10490 wrote:

 

Exsqeeze me? You know what level the terrorist are at? Their at the level of killing women and children, bombing subways, flying into buildings. We cause mild-medium discomfort.

 

 

 

So that makes it alright then?

 

For the love of smeg...

 

 

 

If the defense of all good, means being tough then damnit so be it!

Here's my question to everyone: is it reasonable for me to change my stance on this issue because I'm embarrassed about who agrees with me? Hint: ^^

Here's my question to everyone: is it reasonable for me to change my stance on this issue because I'm embarrassed about who agrees with me? Hint: ^^

 

 

 

Not usually, but in the case we may let it slide :P .

 

 

 

Reminds me of the "Change the flag" episode of South Park, they didn't want the KKK siding with them :D

Dude...people here are jerks.

 

Ill no longer post my opinion here since no one here seems to agree with me.