USA restarts show trials

[E.J.Armstrong]

'...United States President Barack Obama has revived the system of Guantanamo military trials for foreign terrorism suspects.

Many are angry at the new announcement and say Mr Obama has broken a promise to end the controversial tribunals set up by the Bush administration. ...'

from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/16/2572317.htm?section=world

The same report goes on to say

'..In a written statement, Mr Obama says his approach is "the best way" to protect America while upholding its deeply held values. ...'

What deeply held values is he talking about? The right to a fair trial? Rights under habeas corpus? The right to chose your own lawyer? The right to be tried under a properly constituted legal system?

What rights is Obama talking about?

[Bob Klase]

What deeply held values is he talking about? The right to a fair trial? Rights under habeas corpus? The right to chose your own lawyer? The right to be tried under a properly constituted legal system?

What rights is Obama talking about?

Mr Obama has also ordered changes to the system, banning evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogations, including waterboarding.

The use of hearsay evidence will be limited and the detainees will get greater leeway to choose their own military counsel.

Yep, looks like you got them all. The right to a fair trial, Rights under habeas corpus, The right to chose your own lawyer, The right to be tried under a properly constituted legal system.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Yep, looks like you got them all. The right to a fair trial, Rights under habeas corpus, The right to chose your own lawyer, The right to be tried under a properly constituted legal system.

I agree, Breach of Rule 12 removed. actually explained it quite well. There's not much left to say. Should be a pretty short thread!

[Jeff Corey]

Wanna bet?

[dudalb]

Winston Chuchill's definition of a fanatic: Someone who Can't Change His Mind and Won't Change the Subject.

[theprestige]

I'm pretty sure foreign POWs aren't entitled to the same privileges the criminal justice system affords to citizens who stand accused of a crime.

And I'm pretty sure terrorist insurgents, who have signed no Geneva Conventions, who submit to no chain of command, who are not governed by any recognized nation-state, who wear no uniforms, and who have an explicit policy of targeting civilians in blatant contravention of every civilized custom of warfare... I'm pretty sure these aren't even entitled the privileges granted a uniformed POW serving in the army of a Geneva Conventions signatory nation.

So for me, it's essentially a question of how we can improve the process by which the U.S. military sifts the "innocent bystanders" out of its POW population. And I don't think just slapping "innocent until proven guilty! habeas corpus! due process!" on them is the answer.

[BPSCG]

Or consider the Uighurs — Jihadists from the Muslim hinterlands of China — that the Obama administration is planning to release into D.C.’s Virginia suburbs and put on the public dole. At Gitmo, these detainees were allowed to watch television because they were deemed nonviolent. While watching a televised soccer game, the camera showed women with exposed arms, and the Uighurs went ballistic, picking up the TV and smashing it.Living in D.C.'s Virginia suburbs, I can hardly wait to welcome my new neighbors. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGYyOWVjMGQxZTM1YjdhZTM2NzY0Njc4OWE5ZDFkMWE=)

[WildCat]

Living in D.C.'s Virginia suburbs, I can hardly wait to welcome my new neighbors. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGYyOWVjMGQxZTM1YjdhZTM2NzY0Njc4OWE5ZDFkMWE=)
Just keep the women covered and there won't be any problems. The First Lady should take note.

[GreyICE]

Living in D.C.'s Virginia suburbs, I can hardly wait to welcome my new neighbors. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGYyOWVjMGQxZTM1YjdhZTM2NzY0Njc4OWE5ZDFkMWE=)

BPSCG, the other day a group of Christians in a church ate several young children. Yep. Cut them up and ate them.

I'm sure you see where I'm going here. Well, actually, since it's you, about 50/50.

[Skeptic]

In WWII, enemy combatants wearing no uniform, or false (USA) uniform (as in the battle of the bulge), were simply lined up and shot.

Terrorists, like pirates, who wear no uniform, have no chain of command, and obey no rules of war, have made themselves outlaws (in the real sense of the term, not the sense of "someone who broke some law") and are liable -- according to international law, not to say common sense -- to be shot on sight.

That they get humane treatment, let alone any trial at all is, as it were, a bonus they do not deserve.

That EJ's hearts bleeds for them is unsurprising but irrelevant.

BPSCG, the other day a group of Christians in a church ate several young children. Yep. Cut them up and ate them.

Irrelevant sarcasm here misses the point since, while Goldberg's article in the link might not be fair, he is describing what Jihadists actually do, and do repeatedly, so it is hardly the same as blaming Christians for eating babies.

If Goldberg could give you a laundry list of documented, undeniable cases of Christians REALLY eating babies, but refrained from doing so to make the Jihadists look worse, your analogy might work.

But the fact that you have to recourse to imaginary (sarcastic) "accusations" to counter the real horrors of the Jihadists prove Goldberg's point.

(Or, perhaps your point is that Goldberg is making it all up? Well, in THAT case, you'd need some stronger evidence than "I don't like what he says about the Jihadists", and I doubt very much you can provide it.)

[linusrichard]

Living in D.C.'s Virginia suburbs, I can hardly wait to welcome my new neighbors. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGYyOWVjMGQxZTM1YjdhZTM2NzY0Njc4OWE5ZDFkMWE=)

Funny how Jonah doesn't mention why Northern Virginia. Also funny that, when he tells the story, "the Uighurs" went ballistic, but in other tellings, only one of the Uighurs smashes the TV. Also funny that he doesn't mention that only seven of the seventeen Uighurs in Guantanamo are being considered for release. Funny.

With all due respect to Jonah Goldberg, no respect is due Jonah Goldberg. Unless he's citing sources, he has zero credibility.

[GreyICE]

Irrelevant sarcasm here misses the point since, while Goldberg's article in the link might not be fair, he is describing what Jihadists actually do, and do repeatedly, so it is hardly the same as blaming Christians for eating babies.

If Goldberg could give you a laundry list of documented, undeniable cases of Christians REALLY eating babies, but refrained from doing so to make the Jihadists look worse, your analogy might work.

But the fact that you have to recourse to imaginary (sarcastic) "accusations" to counter the real horrors of the Jihadists prove Goldberg's point.

(Or, perhaps your point is that Goldberg is making it all up? Well, in THAT case, you'd need some stronger evidence than "I don't like what he says about the Jihadists", and I doubt very much you can provide it.) Breach of Rule 12 removed.

Breach of Rule 12 removed., you miss the point on skepticism entirely. The burden of proof is ENTIRELY on Goldberg. I have to do no work at all to question his claim, in the same way I have to do no work at all to question the claims of psychics, mind readers, ufo believers, faith healers, republicans, chiropractors, and other frauds. He made the claim. He cites no sources, shows no dates, logs not times, provides no way to back up the anecdote. Simple fact? He's probably lying, or has heard the lie from someone else. Something that stripped of fact is 100% untraceable, therefore probably a lie. If you believe he is not lying, the burden of proof is 100% upon you. These incidents occur in a heavily monitored facility, TVs cost money, the program displayed on one is easily documented, get cracking. Lack of evidence is sufficient grounds for doubt.

The exact claim, Breach of Rule 12 removed., is that the specific people relocated to the DC area, these people, are, in fact, relocated to the DC area. Obama's administration and the people working for him did in fact judge them nonviolent. They did, in fact, destroy a TV in response to the picture of a women with uncovered arms (the TV was not destroyed as an accident, mechanical failure, or for an unrelated reason to what was being shown on TV).

These people are heavily monitored, their lives documented and recorded. Get cracking, or admit that I have no reason, no reason at all, to believe the words of that scum-sucking syphilitic idiot, and the sycophantic rabble who bleat his words like a holy charm against the demons.

[Undesired Walrus]

In WWII, enemy combatants wearing no uniform, or false (USA) uniform (as in the battle of the bulge), were simply lined up and shot.

Terrorists, like pirates, who... have no chain of command,

You're kidding right?

[Skeptic]

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

Septic

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

But as a final note, Breach of Rule 12 removed.of course the burden of proof is on Goldberg... but it isn't too hard to find numerous examples of Islamic barbarism. It's an easy burden of proof to meet!

[Darat]

I have had to infract and edit several posts in this thread for Rule 12 breaches. If I have to issue any further infractions or make edits for further such breaches further action will follow, which will include suspension as a minimum.

Remember: Attack the argument not the arguer.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Winston Chuchill's definition of a fanatic: Someone who Can't Change His Mind and Won't Change the Subject.

Are human rights a good topic for continued derision?

[BPSCG]

Are human rights a good topic for continued derision?No.

But if I could get in the same room with them, along with my trusty .38 Special, I could improve my civilian-killing score (so nice of you to start that thread, BTW - thanks...).

[E.J.Armstrong]

And I'm pretty sure terrorist insurgents, who have signed no Geneva Conventions, who submit to no chain of command, who are not governed by any recognized nation-state, who wear no uniforms, and who have an explicit policy of targeting civilians in blatant contravention of every civilized custom of warfare... I'm pretty sure these aren't even entitled the privileges granted a uniformed POW serving in the army of a Geneva Conventions signatory nation.

So for me, it's essentially a question of how we can improve the process by which the U.S. military sifts the "innocent bystanders" out of its POW population. And I don't think just slapping "innocent until proven guilty! habeas corpus! due process!" on them is the answer.

What you are pretty sure about and the law are of course two entirely different things. Luckily the USA has not signed up to follow your opinion on human rights. It has instead signed up to obey the law.

So if you throw out innocent until proven guilty you will presumably applaud the US police rounding up everyone in a street until they 'sift' out the innocent after a bit of slapping around, harrying the innocent with dogs and a bit of torture maybe in a disreputable and illegal sifting process.

Your answer I think shows clearly the institutionalised contempt for innocent people from foreign countries and would never be allowed in the USA because it would be totally unacceptable to US citizens. So why is it acceptable for some foreigners?

[BPSCG]

What you are pretty sure about and the law are of course two entirely different things. Luckily the USA has not signed up to follow your opinion on human rights. It has instead signed up to obey the law. Wait, we're having "show trials" and we're "signing up to obey the law?"

These days of modern times are so confusing.

[E.J.Armstrong]

No.

But if I could get in the same room with them, along with my trusty .38 Special, I could improve my civilian-killing score (so nice of you to start that thread, BTW - thanks...).

You just contradicted yourself and your comment even in jest seems remarkably contemptuous of human rights.

If you truly care about human rights in any way can you tell us your opinion of the restarting of the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp show trials?

[RoboTimbo]

The link you provided says, "These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law,"

Is that what makes you so unhappy? Personally, I applaud them being in line with the rule of law.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Wait, we're having "show trials" and we're "signing up to obey the law?"

These days of modern times are so confusing. i

Let me explain. It is really very very simple. The USA has signed up to many international treaties designed to ensure respect for human rights and the law.

Strangely and despite having signed up to many human rights treaties the USA then proceeded to institute an official torture programme in contravention of its agreements on human rights.

Can you spot the difference now?

Signing up to respect human rights and actually respecting human rights are clearly two entirely different things to the USA. Its not what you say it's what you do that has disgusted many in the USA and around the world. restarting show trials in the Guantanamo concentration camp shows a very high level of disregard for human rights - again.

[BPSCG]

If you truly care about human rights in any way can you tell us your opinion of the restarting of the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp show trials?Sure. They're a travesty of justice. If there were any real justice, we wouldn't have any prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, because they'd all have been killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan. :)

[E.J.Armstrong]

The link you provided says, "These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law,"

Is that what makes you so unhappy? Personally, I applaud them being in line with the rule of law.

And how do you bring the restarting of the Guantanamo Bay concebtration camps back in line with the law when you have dehumanised, maltreated and abused the human righst of the people you are supposedly trying? You can't.

If the USA wants to now to return to the rule of law (that it apparently didn't want to do until recently) why is it not processing these people under its normal legal regime instead of carrying on with a deeply flawed system? What is so scary about the USA's due legal process that has been used on Usan terrorists that it dare not be used for these people.

It clearly suggests that like Bush Obama cannot risk the US legal system giving proper human rights to these people - unlike white, US terrorists.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Sure. They're a travesty of justice. If there were any real justice, we wouldn't have any prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, because they'd all have been killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan. :)


And after that bloodthirsty argument would you care now to tell us all about the hundreds of innocent people who were not captured on any battlefield and who were stuck in the Guantanmo Bay concentration camp without charge for years by the USA and who had their human rights abused so comprehensively by the USA and who were then found not to have done anything? Why are you ignoring all the innocent people who were maltreated in the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp set up by the USA and that still exists today.

Do you actually care that innocent people are treated properly?

What is wrong with human rights?

[RoboTimbo]

And how do you bring the restarting of the Guantanamo Bay concebtration camps back in line with the law when you have dehumanised, maltreated and abused the human righst of the people you are supposedly trying? You can't.

If the USA wants to now to return to the rule of law (that it apparently didn't want to do until recently) why is it not processing these people under its normal legal regime instead of carrying on with a deeply flawed system? What is so scary about the USA's due legal process that has been used on Usan terrorists that it dare not be used for these people.

It clearly suggests that like Bush Obama cannot risk the US legal system giving proper human rights to these people - unlike white, US terrorists.

I thought the difference had been explained to you already. Oh, I see, posts #6 and #10. Were you thinking that criminal trials in civil courts would be the correct way to go?

[Dancing David]

I disagree with the comparison to shooting of partisans under the Geneva convention. (Specifically not under it.)

The issue for me is how the information was obtained that tehse peopel were enemy non-comatants engaged in warfare. Many were suggested to the people who took them because they wanted the money or they wanted revenge.

That is why the evidentiary nature of their detention is imporatnt. I assume there is a reason that they chose the tribunals, which will come out. And then I will likley disagree or agree with the rationale.

[E.J.Armstrong]

I thought the difference had been explained to you already. Oh, I see, posts #6 and #10. Were you thinking that criminal trials in civil courts would be the correct way to go?

I am afraid not.

The USA already has a precedent of treating a white accused terrorist within the normal legal system.

Obama is going to carry on with show trials within a concentration camp despite the fact that he has already stated he will close the concentration camp because it is unacceptable. Not for these accused apparently. A double standard is already in operation.

Obama can be seen to make a break with the recent human right abusing regime of the USA by trying all suspects under the normal USA judicial system.

[gumboot]

Just a reminder... it's illegal to try a POW under a civilian legal system for war crimes. You have to try them under either a Court Martial or a Military Tribunal.

[E.J.Armstrong]

I disagree with the comparison to shooting of partisans under the Geneva convention. (Specifically not under it.)

The issue for me is how the information was obtained that tehse peopel were enemy non-comatants engaged in warfare. Many were suggested to the people who took them because they wanted the money or they wanted revenge.

That is why the evidentiary nature of their detention is imporatnt. I assume there is a reason that they chose the tribunals, which will come out. And then I will likley disagree or agree with the rationale.


Many people were indeed arrested because the USA was offering rewards and were never near a battlefield.

The key issue for me is human rights. Either the USA supports human rights or it does not. Unfortunately it has a recent history of abusing human rights on all sorts of despicable rationales.

One good way to start to repair the deep damage done by those abuses would be to try all the accused under the normal US legal system. Restarting a discredited system of show trials will simply endanger western interests even more than the US has already done though the Guantanamo Concentration camp system.

[gumboot]

One good way to start to repair the deep damage done by those abuses would be to try all the accused under the normal US legal system.


Since when did the normal US legal system have jurisdiction over non-Americans carrying out actions outside America against other non-Americans?

The only civilian courts than can try these people are either the courts of their native country or the courts in which their illegal action took place.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Just a reminder... it's illegal to try a POW under a civilian legal system for war crimes. You have to try them under either a Court Martial or a Military Tribunal.

But what exactly is the status of all these people? Are they prisoners of war? Is this yet another attempt by the USA to change the definition of these people?

Are they illegal combatants? Or.

Are they 'bad people' as your past president called them, (including all the innocent people) in an effort to prejudice their trials?

What exactly is the USA calling them now? Has it changed its mind again? Can someone please tell the world what the USA has decided to call them once and for all?

Given that many people were simply picked up randomly because the USA offered bribes to Afghan warlords, how did they ever become 'prisoners of war'?

Experience has shown time and again that we simply cannot trust the US military to tell the truth on these matter.

Trying them under the normal legal process would go some way to hgetting rid of the stench of human rights abuses under Bush, Cheney and Rice.

[Bikewer]

Even before Obama was elected, legal commentators were going on as to the knotty problem of what to do with some of the "detainees".

Arguably, the individuals to be tried are indeed terrorists, and would constitute a definite threat should they be released. At the same time, the evidence against them is of a sort that would not be allowed in a conventional court setting.
Hearsay, statements obtained under duress, etc.

What to do? Wave by-by and hope for the best? Take them out and shoot them (a tactic that as noted above, might well have been employed in the past)? Keep them confined indefinitely?

Even releasing some of the detainees that likely do not represent a threat is proving to be problematic; no one wants them.

[TragicMonkey]

Quibble: it's not a show trial if it's carried out behind closed doors. That's actually the opposite of a show trial. A show trial is when you invite the cameras in and make everything as public as possible.

[BPSCG]

And after that bloodthirsty argument would you care now to tell us all about the hundreds of innocent people who were not captured on any battlefield and who were stuck in the Guantanmo Bay concentration camp...As long as you keep applying the term "concentration camp" to a prison facility where the average inmate has gained weight and gets better medical care than he would get at home, where his jailers are required to respect his religious beliefs, where he gets to watch TV and destroy it in a fury when it broadcasts a woman's bare arms, I will continue to treat your posts in this thread with the contemptuous jeering they deserve.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Since when did the normal US legal system have jurisdiction over non-Americans carrying out actions outside America against other non-Americans?I note your bias against proper justice for these people. Does the USA really still employ lynch law? They are alleged to have committed certain acts. They are in fact innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you appear to have already decided their guilt indicates fairly clearly that you do not believe they are entitled to a fair trial and perhaps why so many people don't trust the military of a President who had also prejudged their guilt to provide a fair trial.

The only civilian courts than can try these people are either the courts of their native country or the courts in which their illegal action took place.


1/ Why have you sent them to a concentration camp which the US set up on rented land? (Surely that breaks the tenancy agreement? It would in most of the places I've rented. Why some landlords explicitly state that tenants are not permitted to set up concentration camps and torture people during the period of their tenancy - but I digress)
2/ What is their status exactly? What is the USA calling them now?
3/ A president of the USA has already prejudice their trial by calling all the inmates of the Guantanamo Concentratio camp 'Bad' people. How can a US military that served that president, abused their human rights on his orders and provided the facilities for the official US torture programme be trusted to try them fairly within the concentration camp the current US president has said should be closed. Can't you guys ever make up your mind about human rights?
4/ if this is true why not send them back to their own land or the land in which the alleged crimes were committed?

[E.J.Armstrong]

As long as you keep applying the term "concentration camp" to a prison facility where the average inmate has gained weight and gets better medical care than he would get at home, where his jailers are required to respect his religious beliefs, where he gets to watch TV and destroy it in a fury when it broadcasts a woman's bare arms, I will continue to treat your posts in this thread with the contemptuous jeering they deserve.


Plus ca change.

You missed out many relevant facts about the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp.

You missed out the beatings, the official torture programme, the persistent abuse of legal and human rights over many years, the incarceration of children, people being incarcerated therein as a result of the US paying bribes to warlords, the fact that many people were not even told what they were accused of for years never mind being charged, the attempts by a US president to prejudice all the trials by calling all the people inside the concentration camp 'bad' people.
That is a concentration camp.


Last but not leasst you have completely failed to talk about all the innocent people whose human rights were abused comprehensivley in the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp.

Do you not respect their human rights?

[RoboTimbo]

You missed out many relevant facts about the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp.

Are you calling it a concentration camp to evoke images of Nazi concentration camps? Is that why you always use such infammatory words when you're tirading against America? They aren't at all analogous.

I thought the topic was show trials. Which you will recognize as more inflammatory rhetoric now that you have been corrected by TragicMonkey.

[Donal]

Please read the mod box above and remember not to personalize arguments.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Quibble: it's not a show trial if it's carried out behind closed doors. That's actually the opposite of a show trial. A show trial is when you invite the cameras in and make everything as public as possible.

George Dub tried to 'show' in public that he could prejudice all their trials by claiming all the inmates of the concentration camp were 'bad' people. He didn't even see the need to know what they were charged with to declare them all guilty.

That's what I call a 'show' trial.

[RoboTimbo]

Please read the mod box above and remember not to personalize arguments.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Are you calling it a concentration camp to evoke images of Nazi concentration camps? Is that why you always use such infammatory words when you're tirading against America? They aren't at all analogous.

I thought the topic was show trials. Which you will recognize as more inflammatory rhetoric now that you have been corrected by TragicMonkey.

Au contraire.

The UK used concentration camps in the Boer war for one theing and the USA put Japanese citizens into concentration camps during the second world war. At least one senior IK legal expert has called Guantanamo Bay concentration camp a 'concentration' camp. People all over the world are clear it is a concentration camp for all the reasons given.

The topic is indeed show trials. This is a continuation of the show trial system set up by the serial human rights abuser Dubbya - who strangely still walks around free as a bird as though he didn't officially authorise torture. Bush announced in public that all the inmates of the Guantanamo concentration camp were 'bad' people. In his attempt to prejudice any trials he tried them and found them all guilty (even the innocent ones) in public and with absolutely no qualification of his remarks. The very definition of a show trial.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Hey, I think we should listen to him here. If anyone would know what a concentration camp is, it would be EJ. After all, his people invented them. Hell, the English are so skilled at it, they turned entire countries into concentration camps.

As I have already pointed out the UK set up concentration camps during the Boer war and the USA set up concentration camps for the American Japanese citizens during world war 2. The use of concentration camps has a very long history.

From the way BPSC talks you would think it is a holiday camp and they are all being treated like a US president what with food and all. The USA is to be applauded for giving the people in the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp food. That is very very generous and is an example to everyone around the world.

[RoboTimbo]

Au contraire.

Your president publicly tried all the people in Guantanamo Bay concentration camp and declared them all guilty in public (even all the innocent people). That is the very definition of a show trial.

I need a citation for this blatant lie, please. A transcript of the trials will do nicely. Thanks in advance.

[Donal]

At least one senior IK legal expert has called Guantanamo Bay concentration camp a 'concentration' camp.

Linky?

People all over the world are clear it is a concentration camp for all the reasons given.

Linky?

[WildCat]

i

Let me explain. It is really very very simple. The USA has signed up to many international treaties designed to ensure respect for human rights and the law.
And one of those international treaties specifically calls for military tribunals in cases of war crimes.

Do you know which one that is? I do!

[WildCat]

It clearly suggests that like Bush Obama cannot risk the US legal system giving proper human rights to these people - unlike white, US terrorists.
"White, US terrorists" will get the same treatment if they ever get captured as part of a declared war.

You don't appear to be aware there is a war going on.

The USA already has a precedent of treating a white accused terrorist within the normal legal system.
Once again, not as part of a declared and ongoing war. Do you know what a "war" is?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

the attempts by a US president to prejudice all the trials by calling all the people inside the concentration camp 'bad' people.


Oh Snap! The President called them bad people! Their defense attorneys need to strenuously object to that. If I were sitting on a trial, and I knew that the president had called the defendant a 'bad person,' that would be an automatic guilty.

I mean... they're bad people! The President even said so! :rolleyes:

[RoboTimbo]

In his attempt to prejudice any trials he tried them and found them all guilty (even the innocent ones) in public and with absolutely no qualification of his remarks. The very definition of a show trial.

Sorry to add to your laundry list of homework to back up your assertions, I'd also like to see a link to that definition of show trial.

Que sera sera.

[WildCat]

Please read the mod box above and remember not to personalize arguments.

[E.J.Armstrong]

I need a citation for this blatant lie, please. A transcript of the trials will do nicely. Thanks in advance.

You still don't appear to get it about the people in Guantanamo bay concentration camp and evidence. The Bush administration didn't see the need to publish much of its activities - did they? Why Richard Cheney fought tooth and nail to keep abuse records secret. How can the world trust the US now after your recent history of abusing human rights?

The Bush admiistration did not need to have the benefits of a proper trial before declaring everyone in Guantanamo concentration camp guilty of being 'bad people'. In other words the US government made itself to be the judge and jury without the need for the evidence to be presented. Have you asked them why they carried out the prejudical trial of innocent people? Please provide a transcript of where you challenged that appalling abuse of 'justice'.

Did the Bush administration produce transcripts for all the torture they did? Where are all those transcripts. Where are all the photos of abused prisoners that Obama was going to allow to be published? Why they are being kept secret. So much for US 'transcripts'. Please provide the transcripts of where you challenged the US human rights abuses.

[RoboTimbo]

The Bush admiistration did not need to have the benefits of a proper trial before declaring everyone in Guantanamo concentration camp guilty of being 'bad people'.

I don't know why you're deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting.

I'll ask again: A citation to the public trials that you claim occurred. It has nothing to do with secrecy that you are also claiming.

Here it is again so that you won't willfully misunderstand what you claimed:
Your president publicly tried all the people in Guantanamo Bay concentration camp and declared them all guilty in public (even all the innocent people). That is the very definition of a show trial.

[TragicMonkey]

George Dub tried to 'show' in public that he could prejudice all their trials by claiming all the inmates of the concentration camp were 'bad' people. He didn't even see the need to know what they were charged with to declare them all guilty.

That's what I call a 'show' trial.

Then you are operating with a completely different definition from the historical one. Show trials are what Stalin put on during the purges. Even Nuremburg could be said to be show trials. Show trials require choreography, big public displays, courtroom theatrics, public confessions, many speeches, much gesturing, and lots and lots and lots of film footage and photographs and transcripts. That's the point. It's a show.

Secretive military tribunals held behind closed doors may not be any more just or fair than a show trial, but they are not the same thing.

You might be looking for the term "kangaroo court", or "star chamber".

[E.J.Armstrong]

And one of those international treaties specifically calls for military tribunals in cases of war crimes.

Do you know which one that is? I do!

What war crimes? Most of the people who have been in the Guantanamo bay concentration camp were bought be the USA with bribes to war lords. What war crimes did they commit?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Oh Snap! The President called them bad people! Their defense attorneys need to strenuously object to that. If I were sitting on a trial, and I knew that the president had called the defendant a 'bad person,' that would be an automatic guilty.

I mean... they're bad people! The President even said so! :rolleyes:

I see you are unconcerned with the fact that your government deliberately tried to prejudice any chance of a fair trial by declaring all of the people in Guantanamo Bay guilty.

Do you realise how your contempt for the concept of innocent until proven guilty makes you look? Why even bother with a show trial when your government already said that the innocent were guilty? Remind me what happened to 'US values' and 'respect for the law'? Was that not something Obama was supposed to rectify. It seems to have had little effect with some.

[INRM]

I have a feeling these trials will still amount to Kangaroo courts...

[E.J.Armstrong]

I don't know why you're deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting.

I'll ask again: A citation to the public trials that you claim occurred. It has nothing to do with secrecy that you are also claiming.

Here it is again so that you won't willfully misunderstand what you claimed:

As you don't get it let me tell you yet again. Your government declared publiclly that all the inmates of the Guantanamo concentration camp were 'bad people' - even the innocent. They did not do this in secret. They did this publicly. They did this without, evidence or giving the accused and found guilty a chance to reply. In other words they carried out a show trial.

Now where is the transcript of you complaining about that abuse of due process? You still haven't provided any? Why is that?

Does your president go around declaring that all the people who are suspected of crimes bad before they are even charged? Is that how Usan justice works?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Then you are operating with a completely different definition from the historical one. Show trials are what Stalin put on during the purges. Even Nuremburg could be said to be show trials. Show trials require choreography, big public displays, courtroom theatrics, public confessions, many speeches, much gesturing, and lots and lots and lots of film footage and photographs and transcripts. That's the point. It's a show.

Secretive military tribunals held behind closed doors may not be any more just or fair than a show trial, but they are not the same thing.

You might be looking for the term "kangaroo court", or "star chamber".

Show trials do tend to follow the form you describe. In this case the US government declared everyone in Guantanamo to be 'bad people' in public. In effect they went around the press declaring them very publicly to be guilty by decree. This is particularly important because they were going to tell people they pay and who are under their command to 'try' people they had already declared guilty by decree.

Its one of the things complained of in the Declaration of Independence. Guilt by decree of the King. Is that document still relevant in the USA today or is it regarded as just an curiosity and irrelevant?

[Quad4_72]

Hey EJ, what SHOULD be done with the prisoners at Guantanamo?

[GreNME]

Hey EJ, what SHOULD be done with the prisoners at Guantanamo?

Make `em work at Disneyland.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Hey EJ, what SHOULD be done with the prisoners at Guantanamo?

1/ They should be treated with respect
2/ They should be allowed to challenge their detention (oh they've already done that)
3/ They should be transferred out of the concentration camp and into the US legal system if there is any proper ( not invented or fantasy) charges against them.
4/ They should be charged or released
5/ If no charges are brought against them they should be compensated
6/ Everyone who tortured them, abused them, treated their religion with contempt and all those who ordered, carried out and facilitated that torture, abuse and contempt should be made to apologise publicly to them and be taken in front of a properly constituted court under the US legal system.

In short the US needs to respect human rights and their obligations under international instead of systematically abusing human rights and flouting international law.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Make `em work at Disneyland.

It appears that human rights are a matter of humour and/or contempt for you. Strangely, that is the charge against the USA.

[zooterkin]

I note your bias against proper justice for these people. Does the USA really still employ lynch law? They are alleged to have committed certain acts. They are in fact innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you appear to have already decided their guilt indicates fairly clearly that you do not believe they are entitled to a fair trial and perhaps why so many people don't trust the military of a President who had also prejudged their guilt to provide a fair trial.

What does any of that have to do with what gumboot said?



1/ Why have you sent them to a concentration camp which the US set up on rented land?

Why do you say 'you'? Where do you think gumboot is?


4/ if this is true why not send them back to their own land or the land in which the alleged crimes were committed?

Isn't that exactly gumboot's point?

[RoboTimbo]

Your government declared publiclly that all the inmates of the Guantanamo concentration camp were 'bad people'... In other words they carried out a show trial.

I'll try one more time:
Your president publicly tried all the people in Guantanamo Bay concentration camp and declared them all guilty in public (even all the innocent people). That is the very definition of a show trial.

Either you can show the transcripts of the trials that you say took place or you are lying when you say there were trials. I'll give you a hint, saying that someone is bad is not a 'show trial' even in EJan. I'll allow you to admit that you were simply in error.

[Quad4_72]

1/ They should be treated with respect
2/ They should be allowed to challenge their detention (oh they've already done that)
3/ They should be transferred out of the concentration camp and into the US legal system if there is any proper ( not invented or fantasy) charges against them.
4/ They should be charged or released
5/ If no charges are brought against them they should be compensated
6/ Everyone who tortured them, abused them, treated their religion with contempt and all those who ordered, carried out and facilitated that torture, abuse and contempt should be made to apologise publicly to them and be taken in front of a properly constituted court under the US legal system.

In short the US needs to respect human rights and their obligations under international instead of systematically abusing human rights and flouting international law.

Alright. Thats fine. I was expecting you to say something like "Release them all back to their countries!" So I am a little impressed. One thing though, you do need to stop using the term "concentration camp" That term does not apply here. You are obviously using it as an appeal to emotion but it simply doesn't work. It makes you look quite silly. A concentration camp is what the Nazis used. There is quite a difference between rounding up millions of innocent jews and putting them into camps to either be killed or put to work as upposed to the US holding suspected insurgents/detainees. You need to recognize this difference and post accordingly.

[E.J.Armstrong]

What does any of that have to do with what gumboot said? Then let me make it very very clear for you. Gumboot said and I quote 'i...n which their illegal action took place. ...'
He did not say 'alleged' illegal action. Like your president he has already declared them guilty without even a trial. That is one charge against the USA. Why is this so difficult for you guys to understand. What is it about innocent until proven guilty that is hard to understand.

[GreNME]

It appears that human rights are a matter of humour and/or contempt for you. Strangely, that is the charge against the USA.

No, it appears that you're too wrapped up in a wild goose chase, and getting all bent out of shape because I won't play your silly game.

You've already made it clear your unwillingness to engage in intellectual honesty with me and your admitting to lack of good faith, so I have no reason to take you seriously based on answers you gave me yourself. When you decide that you'd like to approach a conversation with at least a nominal amount of intellectual honesty and good faith, I'll be happy to take you seriously again.

As it stands, you can consider this my final response to you until that happens. If it'll keep you from getting bent out of shape I'll try to avoid addressing others in threads you create as well. You take care of yourself.

[zooterkin]

Then let me make it very very clear for you. Gumboot said and I quote 'i...n which their illegal action took place. ...'
He did not say 'alleged' illegal action. Like your president he has already declared them guilty without even a trial. That is one charge against the USA. Why is this so difficult for you guys to understand. What is it about innocent until proven guilty that is hard to understand.

My president? Who would that be?

[E.J.Armstrong]

I'll try one more time:


Either you can show the transcripts of the trials that you say took place or you are lying when you say there were trials. I'll give you a hint, saying that someone is bad is not a 'show trial' even in EJan. I'll allow you to admit that you were simply in error.

Let me try one more time. I'll allow you to admit you were in error or even try to address my questions.

Your government at the time declared publicly that the people in the Guantanamo concentration camp were guilty by publicly declaring them all, including all the innocent people 'bad people'. In doing so he tried them publicly for crimes that had not even been established. In most decent democracies you do not declare people guilty without a trial. He obviously carried out a trial in his own mind, found them all guilty without the need for evidence or defence and publicly declared the result of his 'trial' leaving the 'punishment' for the military lawyers under his command to decide in due course.

You may not have any problem with your government declaring people guilty publicly but I suggest that the good citizens of the USA would be up in arms if your government tried to prejudice all the trials in the USA in the same way.

I ask you yet again. Please provide the transcripts of all the places where you challenged that abuse of human rights. Do you not have them?

Do you understand the principle 'innocent until proven guilty'?

[zooterkin]

Then let me make it very very clear for you. Gumboot said and I quote 'i...n which their illegal action took place. ...'
He did not say 'alleged' illegal action. Like your president he has already declared them guilty without even a trial. That is one charge against the USA. Why is this so difficult for you guys to understand. What is it about innocent until proven guilty that is hard to understand.

If you read what he said, rather than what he didn't say, you'll find he's actually agreeing with you. The fact that he missed out the word 'alleged' is not necessarily significant. He also mispelt 'that' as 'than'. As usual, you seem to be your own worst enemy.

[Pardalis]

Why is this so difficult for you guys to understand. What is it about innocent until proven guilty that is hard to understand.

Does this apply to unlawful combatants?


ETA

Plus ca change.

And for the last time, it's "ça". If you want to look smart by writing in French , you should at least write correctly. "ca" is not a word in French.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Alright. Thats fine. I was expecting you to say something like "Release them all back to their countries!" So I am a little impressed. One thing though, you do need to stop using the term "concentration camp" That term does not apply here. You are obviously using it as an appeal to emotion but it simply doesn't work. It makes you look quite silly. A concentration camp is what the Nazis used. There is quite a difference between rounding up millions of innocent jews and putting them into camps to either be killed or put to work as upposed to the US holding suspected insurgents/detainees. You need to recognize this difference and post accordingly.

That is simply not true.

I have already stated that the UK used concentration camps in the Boer war and the USA used concentration camps for American Japanese citizens during the second world war.You will also be aware that many people around the world use the term concentration camp for Guantanamo bay. That does not mean they are correct. They are correct because of the reality of the concentration camp conditions at Guantanamo Bay camp.

Innocent people have been kept without trial for years without being informed of any charges against them outside a normal legal process. They have been tortured, abused and have had their legal rights abused. In fact the Guantanamo Concentration camp was specifically set up to be outside of the US judicial system and remains there to this day. Guantanamo Bay is a therefore a concentration camp.

Not using the correct term and trying to stop others from doing so makes you look silly. You need to recognise the reality and post accordingly. This is just another example of the US redefining simple to understand terms like 'torture 'to mean 'not torture' and 'illegal kidnapping for torture' to extraordinary rendition'.

[Dancing David]

I am afraid not.

The USA already has a precedent of treating a white accused terrorist within the normal legal system.

Wow, EJ, your polemic is worse than usual.

T. McVeigh was not arrested by military forces in a foreign country under alleged conditions of a battele firld. Now was he?

Obama is going to carry on with show trials within a concentration camp despite the fact that he has already stated he will close the concentration camp because it is unacceptable. Not for these accused apparently. A double standard is already in operation.

Yeah, your double standard. I agree Obama should close the camp and transfer people to the US soil for trial. But it is possible that people will just be discharged after the evidence is reviewed under the new standard.

What country are you from EJ?


Obama can be seen to make a break with the recent human right abusing regime of the USA by trying all suspects under the normal USA judicial system.


Not really, the military courts tribunal may not be structured the same way the Nuremberg was, but they will happen. Which I think is the main goal, some detainees should be released very quickly. If you threw it to the Federal courts, they could be detained for a very long time.

I do not know what will happen but i assume that many detainees will be discharged very quickly now.

[Dancing David]

Many people were indeed arrested because the USA was offering rewards and were never near a battlefield.

The key issue for me is human rights. Either the USA supports human rights or it does not. Unfortunately it has a recent history of abusing human rights on all sorts of despicable rationales.

And unlike whatever country you live in in your mind, it is a diverse country. I protested the Guantanamo base detetion through phone calls and letters.

"It" is made up of many people doing many things at many times. yes the adminsitration of GWB did dome terrible things.

I did not, I called my congersman and senators, and I wrote them letters. I baaed my congers man when i saw him on the street.


But where are you from?



One good way to start to repair the deep damage done by those abuses would be to try all the accused under the normal US legal system.

the military courts tribunal is part of the US legal system, duh. It is either that or courts martial.

Duh.

Restarting a discredited system of show trials will simply endanger western interests even more than the US has already done though the Guantanamo Concentration camp system.

Only in how the system structures it's rules, you must be from sort of monotheistic absolutist kind of country. There are no absolutes in reality. If the ones who are detained on third hand herasay are let go, and those who are held on coerced testiminy are let go, taht is a huge start.

Obama has a lot to deal with, you have to move slow or the tyranny of the mob takes over. i hope that Arar and others will get to sue the government for illegal deportation and extradition for torture.

If you lived in the US you would be aware of just how crazy some people are and how they followed the dictates of GWB, change is slow and it is better to change than to hit the wall again.

[Quad4_72]

That is simply not true.

I have already stated that the UK used concentration camps in the Boer war and the USA used concentration camps for American Japanese citizens during the second world war.You will also be aware that many people around the world use the term concentration camp for Guantanamo bay. That does not mean they are correct. They are correct because of the reality of the concentration camp conditions at Guantanamo Bay camp.

Innocent people have been kept without trial for years without being informed of any charges against them outside a normal legal process. They have been tortured, abused and have had their legal rights abused. In fact the Guantanamo Concentration camp was specifically set up to be outside of the US judicial system and remains there to this day. Guantanamo Bay is a therefore a concentration camp.

Not using the correct term and trying to stop others from doing so makes you look silly. You need to recognise the reality and post accordingly. This is just another example of the US redefining simple to understand terms like 'torture 'to mean 'not torture' and 'illegal kidnapping for torture' to extraordinary rendition'.

That is incorrect. It is a prison. If you find the conditions there bad, then you can call it a prison with bad conditions, but it is by no means a concentration camp. We did not gather up groups of non combatants to either kill them or make them work.

[Dancing David]

But what exactly is the status of all these people? Are they prisoners of war? Is this yet another attempt by the USA to change the definition of these people?

Are they illegal combatants? Or.

Are they 'bad people' as your past president called them, (including all the innocent people) in an effort to prejudice their trials?

What exactly is the USA calling them now? Has it changed its mind again? Can someone please tell the world what the USA has decided to call them once and for all?

Given that many people were simply picked up randomly because the USA offered bribes to Afghan warlords, how did they ever become 'prisoners of war'?

Experience has shown time and again that we simply cannot trust the US military to tell the truth on these matter.

Trying them under the normal legal process would go some way to hgetting rid of the stench of human rights abuses under Bush, Cheney and Rice.

Hey EJA, you had better hope that they are treated as POWs and not illegal combatants. have you been paying attention at all? Illegal combatants=summary execution.

Duh, I do not trust any official to tell the truth, do you?

[Donal]

Let me try one more time. I'll allow you to admit you were in error or even try to address my questions.

Or you can just admit this is a foolish point to try and make.

Your government at the time declared publicly that the people in the Guantanamo concentration camp were guilty by publicly declaring them all, including all the innocent people 'bad people'.

No, the President, the head of the executive branch, said this. Not the entire government.

In doing so he tried them publicly for crimes that had not even been established. In most decent democracies you do not declare people guilty without a trial.

Well, considering how he is not the head of the judicial branch, this doesn't seem ot be the problem.

He obviously carried out a trial in his own mind, found them all guilty without the need for evidence or defence and publicly declared the result of his 'trial' leaving the 'punishment' for the military lawyers under his command to decide in due course.

Wow, I find that "things happening in one's own mind" especially funny coming from you.

You may not have any problem with your government declaring people guilty publicly but I suggest that the good citizens of the USA would be up in arms if your government tried to prejudice all the trials in the USA in the same way.

You mean like perp walks?

Do you understand the principle 'innocent until proven guilty'?

Yes. Do you understand what "show trial" actually means?

Do you know the difference between a civilian trial and a military court martial?

[zooterkin]

That is incorrect. It is a prison. If you find the conditions there bad, then you can call it a prison with bad conditions, but it is by no means a concentration camp. We did not gather up groups of non combatants to either kill them or make them work.

Neither of which are defining characteristics of a concentration camp; it's simply the gathering which is significant, hence the name. Ironically, according to wikipedia (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp#Concentration_camps), the name 'concentration camp' derived from the 'reconcentration camps' in Cuba.

[zooterkin]

Hey EJA, you had better hope that they are treated as POWs and not illegal combatants. have you been paying attention at all? Illegal combatants=summary execution.


According to whom? Not international law, certainly.

[WildCat]

1/ They should be treated with respect
2/ They should be allowed to challenge their detention (oh they've already done that)
3/ They should be transferred out of the concentration camp and into the US legal system if there is any proper ( not invented or fantasy) charges against them.
4/ They should be charged or released
5/ If no charges are brought against them they should be compensated
6/ Everyone who tortured them, abused them, treated their religion with contempt and all those who ordered, carried out and facilitated that torture, abuse and contempt should be made to apologise publicly to them and be taken in front of a properly constituted court under the US legal system.

In short the US needs to respect human rights and their obligations under international instead of systematically abusing human rights and flouting international law.
So the US is the only country in the history of warfare not allowed to hold captured enemy combatants until the end of the conflict if they so desire?

[Bob Klase]

Do you realise how your contempt for the concept of innocent until proven guilty makes you look? Why even bother with a show trial when your government already said that the innocent were guilty?


Can you find me a a criminal trial anywhere in the US in the last 100 years where the government (the prosecution) did not tell the jury that the man was guilty- if not in opening remarks then surely in closing arguments.

Why bother having juries at all. The government always tells the jury that the accused is guilty before the jury goes off to decide. I guess the juries must always think "well, the government says they're guilty so they must be guilty".

That explains why no one has ever been acquitted in a trial in the US.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

publicly that the people in the Guantanamo concentration camp were guilty by publicly declaring them all, including all the innocent people 'bad people'. In doing so he tried them publicly for crimes that had not even been established. In most decent democracies you do not declare people guilty without a trial.

This is satire, right? No reasonable person could possible believe that calling someone a 'bad person' is the equivalent of putting them on trial and convicting them of terrorism and murder.

Even if the two were equal, being a 'bad person' isn't, to my knowledge, a crime. As such, I'm not sure how the government could try and convict someone for being a 'bad person' to begin with -- even if we were actually talking about a real trial and not some fantasy, imaginary land where name calling = being found guilty in a court of law.

Or can you point me to the part of the U.S. code where being a 'bad person' is illegal?

[gumboot]

But what exactly is the status of all these people? Are they prisoners of war? Is this yet another attempt by the USA to change the definition of these people?

Their status is determined by a combatant status review hearing, in accordance with the Laws of War.


Are they 'bad people' as your past president called them, (including all the innocent people) in an effort to prejudice their trials?

My President? I don't have, and have never had, a President?


What exactly is the USA calling them now? Has it changed its mind again? Can someone please tell the world what the USA has decided to call them once and for all?

Who cares what the USA calls them? I'm talking about the Laws of War, not the semantic whims of the current President. He can call them Marsh Wiggles for all I care.


Given that many people were simply picked up randomly because the USA offered bribes to Afghan warlords, how did they ever become 'prisoners of war'?

They're not, they've been kidnapped by the USA.


Experience has shown time and again that we simply cannot trust the US military to tell the truth on these matter.

Tough, only the US Military has the right to try them.


Trying them under the normal legal process would go some way to hgetting rid of the stench of human rights abuses under Bush, Cheney and Rice.

Trying them under the civilian legal system is illegal. Are you calling on the United States to violate international law? Really? Think about this very carefully before you answer.

[gumboot]

I note your bias against proper justice for these people. Does the USA really still employ lynch law? They are alleged to have committed certain acts. They are in fact innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you appear to have already decided their guilt indicates fairly clearly that you do not believe they are entitled to a fair trial and perhaps why so many people don't trust the military of a President who had also prejudged their guilt to provide a fair trial.

The above drivel has no bearing whatsoever on what I said. Please answer my question. Does the US Judiciary have jurisdiction over acts committed outside the USA by non-Americans against other non-Americans, yes or no?

If anything, you're the one arguing a dangerous precedent here - you want the US to extend its jurisdiction to whatever it feels like. I reject that position. It is a direct and gross violation of the basic principles of independent sovereignty.



1/ Why have you sent them to a concentration camp which the US set up on rented land? (Surely that breaks the tenancy agreement? It would in most of the places I've rented. Why some landlords explicitly state that tenants are not permitted to set up concentration camps and torture people during the period of their tenancy - but I digress)

What are you talking about?


2/ What is their status exactly? What is the USA calling them now?

If you know so little about the situation why are you presuming to dictate a solution to people who are so much more knowledgeable on the matter?


3/ A president of the USA has already prejudice their trial by calling all the inmates of the Guantanamo Concentratio camp 'Bad' people. How can a US military that served that president, abused their human rights on his orders and provided the facilities for the official US torture programme be trusted to try them fairly within the concentration camp the current US president has said should be closed. Can't you guys ever make up your mind about human rights?

Who are "you guys"?


4/ if this is true why not send them back to their own land or the land in which the alleged crimes were committed?

If what is true?

[Travis]

1/ They should be treated with respect

I can get behind that.

2/ They should be allowed to challenge their detention (oh they've already done that)


If they've done that then what is the problem?

3/ They should be transferred out of the concentration camp and into the US legal system if there is any proper ( not invented or fantasy) charges against them.

You want the US to start prosecuting foreigners in its legal system who have committed no crimes within the United States?

4/ They should be charged or released

Assuming they aren't POW's I will agree.

5/ If no charges are brought against them they should be compensated

Compensated for what? Compensated in what way?

6/ Everyone who tortured them, abused them, treated their religion with contempt and all those who ordered, carried out and facilitated that torture, abuse and contempt should be made to apologise publicly to them and be taken in front of a properly constituted court under the US legal system.

Where is the line between torture and abuse? What constitutes contempt of religion? Why is contempt of religion, which is itself a form of religious expression, suddenly criminal?

[Bob Klase]

5/ If no charges are brought against them they should be compensated

Are US citizens compensated if they're arrested and jailed but later released with no charges filed? I'm sure it probably happens occasionally in unusual circumstances, but do you have any evidence that it's common or normal?

Of do you just not know what you're talking about again?

[Darat]

Despite my very clear warning that further breaches of the Membership Agreement in this thread would result in further action including suspension as a minimum quite a few Members decided to ignore the Mod Box warning and their Membership Agreement and therefore have been suspended. Any further breaches will be treated in the same way.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I see you are unconcerned with the fact that your government deliberately tried to prejudice any chance of a fair trial by declaring all of the people in Guantanamo Bay guilty.[/quote[


Uh... you do realize that the entire legal system in America is predicated upon the state claiming that they believe someone is guilty of a crime right? That's why criminal trials are 'State of XXXX vs. John Smith' or at the Federal level, 'The United States of America vs. John Smith.' The entire point of the American criminal justice system is that the executive branch (through the Justice Department at the Federal level and district attorneys below that) accuses people of committing a crime. The judicial branch then arbitrates the trials.

Do you realise how your contempt for the concept of innocent until proven guilty makes you look? Why even bother with a show trial when your government already said that the innocent were guilty? Remind me what happened to 'US values' and 'respect for the law'? Was that not something Obama was supposed to rectify. It seems to have had little effect with some.

The state accuses people of being guilty. That's the entire point. It would be awfully difficult to accuse someone of a crime if you couldn't... you know, accuse someone of a crime.

[Dancing David]

I have a feeling these trials will still amount to Kangaroo courts...

I hope not.

[Dancing David]

According to whom? Not international law, certainly.

After sone research it turns out I was operating under the earlier geneva accords than the fourth, but i will have to do some research into how partisans are covered under the current accords. (I know there was not a surrendered state, the clause that made the french partisans outisde the 2nd convention.)

[Travis]

I'd just like to throw this out.

I think it's possible that the prison at Guantanmo can be run in a humane manner.

I also think that the military tribunals can be conducted in a manner that is fair and equitable.

So why is it that there are suggestions that 1) simply moving the prisoners elsewhere and 2) using some other legal system would solve the problems?

[Darat]

I'd just like to throw this out.

I think it's possible that the prison at Guantanmo can be run in a humane manner.

I also think that the military tribunals can be conducted in a manner that is fair and equitable.

So why is it that there are suggestions that 1) simply moving the prisoners elsewhere and 2) using some other legal system would solve the problems?

I agree that this is the crux of the matter - what the trails are called is an irrelevance - it is whether they are fair e.g. due process observed and so on.

The issue about where the prisoners are held and put on trial was seen by some to be merely a legally loophole that the USA government created so that the prisoners were not accorded the same rights as they would have if they were held on "USA soil".

[E.J.Armstrong]

No, it appears that you're too wrapped up in a wild goose chase, and getting all bent out of shape because I won't play your silly game.

You've already made it clear your unwillingness to engage in intellectual honesty with me and your admitting to lack of good faith, so I have no reason to take you seriously based on answers you gave me yourself. When you decide that you'd like to approach a conversation with at least a nominal amount of intellectual honesty and good faith, I'll be happy to take you seriously again.

As it stands, you can consider this my final response to you until that happens. If it'll keep you from getting bent out of shape I'll try to avoid addressing others in threads you create as well. You take care of yourself.

I am sorry you have chosen to take your ball home with youi rather than face up to the reality of what the USA is doing to human rights.

I have repeatedly explained my position in good faith but once again it seems that there is absolutely nothing I can do as you have already judged me guilty. So be it.

[E.J.Armstrong]

My president? Who would that be?

If you are not a US citizen i apologise.

[E.J.Armstrong]

If you read what he said, rather than what he didn't say, you'll find he's actually agreeing with you. The fact that he missed out the word 'alleged' is not necessarily significant. He also mispelt 'that' as 'than'. As usual, you seem to be your own worst enemy.


If he is agreeing with me then he is naturally correct and a wholesome fellow. ;)


I disagree with you about one thing. A characteristic of many of the post by Usans seems to be the offensive assumption that, by definition, any inmate of the Guantanamo concentration camp are guilty as their president so clearly did. I aoplogise unreservedly to any US citizen who believes in the simple principle of innocent until proven guilty and who feels that my comments have traduced him/her in any way.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Does this apply to unlawful combatants?


What unlawful combatants. You ask that question as though that term has any meaning. Most of the prisoners were not captured on the battlefield. many were simply bought by the USA. Remind me in what may that makes anyone combatanta never mind 'unlawful'.



[QUOTE]And for the last time, it's "ça". If you want to look smart by writing in French , you should at least write correctly. "ca" is not a word in French.

Remember I have patiently told you already that I never have, do not now and never will take your advice on spelling. Sorry.

I think human rights in the Guantanamo concentration camp are a tad more important that your concern for telling people off about spelling.
Pip pip.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Wow, EJ, your polemic is worse than usual.

T. McVeigh was not arrested by military forces in a foreign country under alleged conditions of a battele firld. Now was he? I am not talking about McVeigh. You do know that most of the people who were victims of the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp wre not captured on the battlesfield they were bought by the USA.

Yeah, your double standard. I agree Obama should close the camp and transfer people to the US soil for trial. But it is possible that people will just be discharged after the evidence is reviewed under the new standard.Good for you



Not really, the military courts tribunal may not be structured the same way the Nuremberg was, but they will happen. Which I think is the main goal, some detainees should be released very quickly. If you threw it to the Federal courts, they could be detained for a very long time. So the Military tribunals are designed to free people quickly. Sorry but that is simply untrue given the devastating criticism of the entire system by Us lawyers for among other things the consistent impediment to their ability to see their clients.

I do not know what will happen but i assume that many detainees will be discharged very quickly now. Really. After years of not even being charged, having access to legal representation impeded for years. History of this deeply flawed, morally reprehensible and frankly ludicrous system shows that is unlikely.

[Pardalis]

What unlawful combatants. You ask that question as though that term has any meaning.

To you words lose all their meaning, you make up the English language as you go along.

Most of the prisoners were not captured on the battlefield. many were simply bought by the USA. Remind me in what may that makes anyone combatanta never mind 'unlawful'.Really? Sorry if I don't take your word for it.

Remember I have patiently told you already that I never have, do not now and never will take your advice on spelling. Sorry.
If you want to destroy the English language, go ahead, just leave French alone.

I think human rights in the Guantanamo concentration camp Here you go again, you've denatured another word, "concentration camp". You've been consistently shown that the word isn't what you are using it for.

[E.J.Armstrong]

And unlike whatever country you live in in your mind, it is a diverse country. I protested the Guantanamo base detetion through phone calls and letters.[/QUOTE[ Good for you.

[QUOTE]"It" is made up of many people doing many things at many times. yes the adminsitration of GWB did dome terrible things. yes they did and strangely they are still walking about free in the USA despite all their crimes against humanity. How is that happening?

I did not, I called my congersman and senators, and I wrote them letters. I baaed my congers man when i saw him on the street.Good for you.



the military courts tribunal is part of the US legal system, duh. It is either that or courts martial. No it isn't.




Only in how the system structures it's rules, you must be from sort of monotheistic absolutist kind of country. There are no absolutes in reality. If the ones who are detained on third hand herasay are let go, and those who are held on coerced testiminy are let go, taht is a huge start. No I am not. I am from a country that respects human rights. But not all hearsay is to be ruled out is it?

Au contraire. He moved fast on a number of issues. What mob? Do you mean there are mobs in the USA who are against human rights?

[QUOTEIf you lived in the US you would be aware of just how crazy some people are and how they followed the dictates of GWB, change is slow and it is better to change than to hit the wall again.So there are mobs against human rights. If you would rather have Obama kow tow to bigots and people who do not respect human rights feel free. I have nothing but contempt for that approach to the USA's international obligations to upholding human rights.

While your government kow tows to the mob how can they demand others do what they will not?

[E.J.Armstrong]

That is incorrect. It is a prison. If you find the conditions there bad, then you can call it a prison with bad conditions, but it is by no means a concentration camp. We did not gather up groups of non combatants to either kill them or make them work.

That is simply not true. It is a concentration camp.

In that concentration camp people were kept for years without even being told what they were guilty of. They were tortured at the will of the guards and the US government. They were systematically abused. They were denied access to legal representation for years and impediments placed in their way. Many were told that they would probably be there all their lives. They were concentrated from all over the world and most of them were not captured of any battlefield but bought by the USA for bribes. A number of them 'took their own lives' and the US claimed that was an aggressive act. The government of the USA declared them all guilty before many were even charged.

I could go on with many other exampesl of ethh deep and abiding abuse on every level that the victims of the guanmatamo goncentration camp suffered.

Guantanamo Bay was set up and operated as a concentration camp and is known all around the world as a concentration camp.

[Pardalis]

Repeating the same word over and over again doesn't make it true.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Hey EJA, you had better hope that they are treated as POWs and not illegal combatants. have you been paying attention at all? Illegal combatants=summary execution.

Duh, I do not trust any official to tell the truth, do you?

Really?

Then what is their status? have they got any? Are they just ghost people who can be denied human rights when the USA decides. Are they: -

1/ Enemy combatants (even though many/most of them were bought by the USA)
2/ Illegal combatants
3/ Prisoners of war (see 1 above)
4/ Bad people.
5/ Mildly irritating people
6/ People who farted near the White House
7/ People who once sneezed while Bush was speaking
8/ People who were suspected of wanting to throw a shoe at Bush
9/ People who farted in the vicinity of a picture of the White House

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Are they: -

1/ Enemy combatants (even though many/most of them were bought by the USA)
2/ Illegal combatants
3/ Prisoners of war (see 1 above)
4/ Bad people.
5/ Mildly irritating people


All of the above, depending on who you're talking about. Some are POWs, some are illegal combatants, I'm sure some are bad and/or mildly irritating people along with being POWs or illegal combatants.

See, that was an easy answer.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Wow, I find that "things happening in one's own mind" especially funny coming from you.



Still trying I see. Good luck.

[E.J.Armstrong]

So the US is the only country in the history of warfare not allowed to hold captured enemy combatants until the end of the conflict if they so desire?


What enemy combatants?

Is that what you call people the US bought from war lords? You do know how silly it is to keep on pretending they were all captured in battle don't you? I think the secret was out a long time ago. Any chance of you acknowledging the actual facts?

[Pardalis]

Any chance of you acknowledging the actual facts?

Got any?

[Travis]

What enemy combatants?

Is that what you call people the US bought from war lords? You do know how silly it is to keep on pretending they were all captured in battle don't you? I think the secret was out a long time ago. Any chance of you acknowledging the actual facts?

While I will grant that some of the prisoners are probably innocent are you really taking the position that they all are?

[fuelair]

Let me try one more time. I'll allow you to admit you were in error or even try to address my questions.

Your government at the time declared publicly that the people in the Guantanamo concentration camp were guilty by publicly declaring them all, including all the innocent people 'bad people'. In doing so he tried them publicly for crimes that had not even been established. In most decent democracies you do not declare people guilty without a trial. He obviously carried out a trial in his own mind, found them all guilty without the need for evidence or defence and publicly declared the result of his 'trial' leaving the 'punishment' for the military lawyers under his command to decide in due course.

You may not have any problem with your government declaring people guilty publicly but I suggest that the good citizens of the USA would be up in arms if your government tried to prejudice all the trials in the USA in the same way.

I ask you yet again. Please provide the transcripts of all the places where you challenged that abuse of human rights. Do you not have them?

Do you understand the principle 'innocent until proven guilty'?
I do, just do not agree with it on the battlefield. If someone is shooting at me on a battlefield and is not wearing an identifiable uniform, he is not a legal combatant and is not subject to the protection of the Rules of War agreements. And he is clearly guilty of unlawful acts. Why he is firing at me is immaterial. I just do not think they should have been taken anywhere - just shot as spies. Only ones who were not shooting at us AND not providing any kind of aid to the enemy should have any rights - and those the minimum of the country we were fighting in, cetainly not ours.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Can you find me a a criminal trial anywhere in the US in the last 100 years where the government (the prosecution) did not tell the jury that the man was guilty- if not in opening remarks then surely in closing arguments.

Why bother having juries at all. The government always tells the jury that the accused is guilty before the jury goes off to decide. I guess the juries must always think "well, the government says they're guilty so they must be guilty".

That explains why no one has ever been acquitted in a trial in the US.

Can you tell me all the trials within the USA where the President has declared the defendants to be bad people before all the charges are in and they have been put on trial?

[E.J.Armstrong]

This is satire, right? No reasonable person could possible believe that calling someone a 'bad person' is the equivalent of putting them on trial and convicting them of terrorism and murder.

Even if the two were equal, being a 'bad person' isn't, to my knowledge, a crime. As such, I'm not sure how the government could try and convict someone for being a 'bad person' to begin with -- even if we were actually talking about a real trial and not some fantasy, imaginary land where name calling = being found guilty in a court of law.

Or can you point me to the part of the U.S. code where being a 'bad person' is illegal?



Does the US government declare all accused people to be bad people and therefore guilty without bothering with a trial and before some of the charges are even in?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Their status is determined by a combatant status review hearing, in accordance with the Laws of War. Is that what happened when they were declared 'enemy combatants' in that made up term? Do you think the world takes the US legal process for the victims of Guantamo?




My President? I don't have, and have never had, a President? My apologies.




Who cares what the USA calls them? I'm talking about the Laws of War, not the semantic whims of the current President. He can call them Marsh Wiggles for all I care. The soldiers and people of the UK care because their lives have been endangered by USA contempt for human rights and the names the US invents for its victims to get arounf human righst legislation.

The abuse by the US government of people in the concentration camps at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Baghram show that is basically a lie. The USA is endangering its allies by abusing human rights.




They're not, they've been kidnapped by the USA. Here I agree with you.




Tough, only the US Military has the right to try them. No they don't. The USA has bought many innocent people who have never been near a battlefield. THe US military has no jurisdiction over them. That would be like saying that if the US military illegally kidnapped your daughter because of fantasy evidence by someone who disliked her that she could only be kidnapped by the IS military. It is the US military which should be on trial for the abuse of human rights so systematically over so many years.




Trying them under the civilian legal system is illegal. Are you calling on the United States to violate international law? Really? Think about this very carefully before you answer.I have been for years suggesting that the US will only be taken seriously when it starts to obey the law. The US military should be in the dock for human rights abuses. If they illegally kidnap someone why on earth should they have any right to try those people?

[zooterkin]

If someone is shooting at me on a battlefield and is not wearing an identifiable uniform, he is not a legal combatant and is not subject to the protection of the Rules of War agreements. And he is clearly guilty of unlawful acts. Why he is firing at me is immaterial. I just do not think they should have been taken anywhere - just shot as spies.

Really? So, if the USA was invaded, if those citizens who have guns were to use them against the invaders, they could be shot as spies?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Does the US government declare all accused people to be bad people and therefore guilty without bothering with a trial and before some of the charges are even in?

How does declaring someone a "bad people" equal declaring them "guilty of terrorism"?

You still haven't answered that question. Repeating the claim ad nauseum isn't an argument.

[paximperium]

Really? So, if the USA was invaded, if those citizens who have guns were to use them against the invaders, they could be shot as spies?
Actually yes. They are illegal combatants hiding among a civilian population. Unless they wear some identifying marker(an arm band or uniform), they are not legal combatants and are not protected under most of the articles of war.

[JihadJane]

Actually yes. They are illegal combatants hiding among a civilian population. Unless they wear some identifying marker(an arm band or uniform), they are not legal combatants and are not protected under most of the articles of war.

What's legal about unprovoked military invasions?

[applecorped]

Define unprovoked. Now, realize someone else will define it differently.

[paximperium]

What's legal about unprovoked military invasions?
Irrelevant to the question at hand. Please try to catch up to the current discussion.

[dafydd]

Sure. They're a travesty of justice. If there were any real justice, we wouldn't have any prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, because they'd all have been killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan. :)

Take them to court,present the evidence and prove that they were on the battleflields in Afghanistan.I am not anti USA,I never have been but innocent until proven guilty,remember? Some of these people were snatched off the street,not a battlefield.Mistakes were made.America cannot claim the moral high ground anymore,Guantanamo Bay has put paid to that.

[Travis]

Take them to court,present the evidence and prove that they were on the battleflields in Afghanistan.I am not anti USA,I never have been but innocent until proven guilty,remember? Some of these people were snatched off the street,not a battlefield.Mistakes were made.America cannot claim the moral high ground anymore,Guantanamo Bay has put paid to that.

Right, and France can't either, not after what they did in the Algerian war....and the UK did some shady things during The Troubles and the Dutch did some nasty things to those they felt collaborated with the occupying Nazi's and........well, let's just say no one can take the moral high ground.

Of course that isn't the point. These trials should be done in a fair way not because someone needs to reclaim some moral "high ground" but because it's the right thing to do.

[dafydd]

What would you show trial and illegal detention fans say to this guy?

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE51M11X20090223

4 years,no charge,no trial.

[E.J.Armstrong]

The above drivel has no bearing whatsoever on what I said. I afraid that is drivel. There is a fundamental difference in law between one who has committed illegal acts and one who is alleged to have committed illegal acts.

Please answer my question. Does the US Judiciary have jurisdiction over acts committed outside the USA by non-Americans against other non-Americans, yes or no?
If anything, you're the one arguing a dangerous precedent here - you want the US to extend its jurisdiction to whatever it feels like. I reject that position. It is a direct and gross violation of the basic principles of independent sovereignty.
I do not want the USA to extend its jurisdiction to wherever it likes. It claims to have taken people prisoner on the battlefield presumably involving US troops.
It is a fact that most people have not been captured on the battlefield





What are you talking about? Whoosh.




If you know so little about the situation why are you presuming to dictate a solution to people who are so much more knowledgeable on the matter? Where does it say that I cannot ask a question on the forum rules? Does you believe that a lawyer asking a question demonstrate that he does not know the answer?





Apologies for implying your are an American is you are not.




If what is true?

Your claim that I posted.

[PhantomWolf]

Actually yes. They are illegal combatants hiding among a civilian population. Unless they wear some identifying marker(an arm band or uniform), they are not legal combatants and are not protected under most of the articles of war.

Actually no, the citizenry of a country being invaded have the right to form local milita and take up arms against the invaders without the use of uniforms or other military organisation.

The Appropriate Law is Article 2 of Chapter One of the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907.

Art. 2.

The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Now if the US was invaded and a bunch of Canadians came down over the border and started fighting, then there might be a case for them being illegal Combatants. In the same way the US considered the non Afghani Fighters in Afghanistan illegal Combatants.

[paximperium]

Actually no, the citizenry of a country being invaded have the right to form local milita and take up arms against the invaders without the use of uniforms or other military organisation.

The Appropriate Law is Article 2 of Chapter One of the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907.

Art. 2.

The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Now if the US was invaded and a bunch of Canadians came down over the border and started fighting, then there might be a case for them being illegal Combatants. In the same way the US considered the non Afghani Fighters in Afghanistan illegal Combatants.
Thanks for the correction.

[PhantomWolf]

Thanks for the correction.

np, always handy to know the laws of war in case your country gets invaded. ;)

[paximperium]

np, always handy to know the laws of war in case your country gets invaded. ;)
I'll start stocking up on weapons just in case the Canadians invade.

[PhantomWolf]

I'll start stocking up on weapons just in case the Canadians invade.

Well I hear that they already did it once, and burned down the Whitehouse too, so who knows (okay I know, it was really the Brits because Canada wasn't an independant state at the time, but...) You can't trust them that's for sure, all that smiling and cheerfulness. They have to be up to something, sneaky sods.

[paximperium]

Well I hear that they already did it once, and burned down the Whitehouse too, so who knows (okay I know, it was really the Brits because Canada wasn't an independant state at the time, but...) You can't trust them that's for sure, all that smiling and cheerfulness. They have to be up to something, sneaky sods.
They burnt down DC but we did get a smashing great National Anthem in return.

[Bob Klase]

Can you tell me all the trials within the USA where the President has declared the defendants to be bad people before all the charges are in and they have been put on trial?


Nope. Why would I even look for any? I'm not the one making the claim.

[Dancing David]

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

[doobiedoright]

[QUOTE=Pardalis;4719660]Does this apply to unlawful combatants?


What unlawful combatants. You ask that question as though that term has any meaning. Most of the prisoners were not captured on the battlefield. many were simply bought by the USA. Remind me in what may that makes anyone combatanta never mind 'unlawful'.





Remember I have patiently told you already that I never have, do not now and never will take your advice on spelling. Sorry.

I think human rights in the Guantanamo concentration camp are a tad more important that your concern for telling people off about spelling.
Pip pip.



I believe there are something like 270 people still held at GITMO.
You have made a claim with out providing any evidence please post the link proving your claim!

[doobiedoright]

That is simply not true. It is a concentration camp.

In that concentration camp people were kept for years without even being told what they were guilty of. They were tortured at the will of the guards and the US government. They were systematically abused. They were denied access to legal representation for years and impediments placed in their way. Many were told that they would probably be there all their lives. They were concentrated from all over the world and most of them were not captured of any battlefield but bought by the USA for bribes. A number of them 'took their own lives' and the US claimed that was an aggressive act. The government of the USA declared them all guilty before many were even charged.

I could go on with many other exampesl of ethh deep and abiding abuse on every level that the victims of the guanmatamo goncentration camp suffered.

Guantanamo Bay was set up and operated as a concentration camp and is known all around the world as a concentration camp.



You keep running your mouth but you have posted no proof.Why dont you try that?
I sure would love to see proof they were tortured at the will of the guards and the US government and they were systematically abused.
Show any evidence this was done at gitmo or shut your pie whole!
Fact of the matter is these guys have gained weight,have had dental work done for the first time in their lives and have received excellent medical care while being held!

[BonkingBear]

You keep running your mouth but you have posted no proof.Why dont you try that?
I sure would love to see proof they were tortured at the will of the guards and the US government and they were systematically abused.
Show any evidence this was done at gitmo or shut your pie whole!
Fact of the matter is these guys have gained weight,have had dental work done for the first time in their lives and have received excellent medical care while being held!

EJ is correct in his description of the camp - many of those released to their native countries have confirmed all those points. I think it is very naive of you to believe otherwise. Your comment re dental work/food is highly presumptuous and and facetious. The fact remains that as Americans we should be deeply ashamed that our nation stooped so low. What rights do we have now to preach/critisize other countries on 'human rights'?.

[jj]

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

[Bob Klase]

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

Breach of Mod Box warning removed.

[zooterkin]

If he is agreeing with me then he is naturally correct and a wholesome fellow. ;)


I disagree with you about one thing. A characteristic of many of the post by Usans seems to be the offensive assumption that, by definition, any inmate of the Guantanamo concentration camp are guilty as their president so clearly did. I aoplogise unreservedly to any US citizen who believes in the simple principle of innocent until proven guilty and who feels that my comments have traduced him/her in any way.

You seem to assume that anyone who does not unambiguously agree with you is American. Neither I nor gumboot is in, nor a citizen of, the USA.

Since gumboot is talking about where the detainees should be tried, I would take that as meaning he is not assuming they are automatically guilty of what is alleged against them (not that that itself is clear, as I understand it), otherwise why bother with a trial?