Guantanamo inmates commit suicide [Archive]

Zep

10th June 2006, 07:45 PM

If they are good they get to socialize, play soccer, get priveleges, etc. There's different levels in Gitmo, only the most troublesome inmates are kept islated. Not much different than other US prisons actually.Thank you for an informative, rather than shrill, answer.

So if these were cooperative prisoners, who were allowed priviledges equivalent to US prisoners, the question remains: WHY did they hang themselves? Any answers?

Because they could see the writing on the wall? Heck - if they were wanting to be martyrs, they would have let the evil USA kill them after a public trial, not commit suicide on the quiet.

Overcome with waves of irrepressible guilt? What, now? These "heartless conniving criminals"? And after more than three years with daily bed and food? Give me a break...

It's all very good waxing lyrical about "The only good Gitmo prisoner is a dead Gitmo prisoner". If you read up above, all of them seem to have been condemned out of hand for something that has yet to be proven at trial. You wouldn't do that to a US criminal, but you would to these people. Is that right? If so, why the double standard?

And please don't take that question as being an appeasment, or plea for their innocence. Perhaps they were all as guilty as hell and should be left to rot, I sure don't know. But no-one knows anything because they haven't been properly tried and found guilty. Which is one of the cornerstones of "US democracy" you are actively advocating to them. Yet you all cheer when they are denied it...

Good one. :rolleyes:

Zep

10th June 2006, 07:46 PM

a_unique_person

10th June 2006, 07:46 PM

Maybe we should just do what we did in past wars when our troops encountered enemy out of uniform - line them up for the firing squad. Maybe make some folks here wax nostalgic for Gitmo.

That was if they were spies, this is a matter of a militia, with many people set free because it was determined, even without a trial, that they were not guilty of criminal acts. Once again, where is the process to demonstrate they are guilty of anything.

The Magna Carta was one of the seminal documents of the march to democracy, the notion that if you were to be punished for anything, it had to be done using a process independent of the ruler, open for all to see. Guantanamo effectively shreds the Magna Carta. Prosecutors have even resigned from their roles their, because they knew what was happening.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1152260&highlight=Guantanamo#post1152260

A third US military prosecutor has quit the military commission process under which Australian David Hicks will be tried, over concerns it is unfair.

US Air Force Captain Carrie Wolf has chosen to take a reassignment along with other prosecutors, ABC radio reports.

The news follows the release of emails by two former prosecutors who say the Guantanamo prosecutions are rigged to ensure guilty verdicts against mainly low-level suspects.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says Australia had asked for an explanation of the criticisms in the emails and been told the matter had been investigated and the commission process cleared.

As Hicks' trial on terrorism charges looms, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says US prosecutors will produce witnesses to testify against the Adelaide man who has been detained at Guantanamo Bay for nearly four years.

.....

Prosecutor quits

The ABC said Captain Carrie Wolf asked to leave the Office of Military Commissions at the same time as the two email authors, Major Robert Preston and Captain John Carr.

It was understood Captain Wolf had shared her colleagues' concerns about the military commission process.

Major Preston and Captain Carr said in their leaked memos that the evidence gathered against four detainees, including Hicks, was "half-assed".

Rob Lister

10th June 2006, 08:16 PM

I think the prisoners are doing the right thing. I think they should be allowed to plan the next one to get far more participation.

The Fool

10th June 2006, 08:25 PM

Nothing?
We know that they were sincere believers in the "religion of peace".

No you don't...this is what you have been told and you choose to believe it. Yopu know zero about them....nothing.

We know that they were picked up on the battlefield

Most were, some were not, did you know that?

and despite there being no trial I believe that our military had good reason to suspect that they had no peaceful intentions towards us, the infidels.

they have told you they have good reasons, have they told you what the good reasons are?...you choose to believe anyway.

We know that they placed little or no value on even their own lives.

Because the committed suicide? How does that follow?

We have good reason to believe that they subscribed to all that crap about a heavenly reward of virgins for their "sacrifice"

In what way does the crap you assume they subscribe to vary from the crap thier captors subscribe to? Ask Americans if they think they are going to heaven...

To say that we know nothing about them is just plain silly.

I don't know about "we" but you certainly seem to know nothing about them.

WildCat

10th June 2006, 08:55 PM

That was if they were spies, this is a matter of a militia, with many people set free because it was determined, even without a trial, that they were not guilty of criminal acts. Once again, where is the process to demonstrate they are guilty of anything.
No it is not. There are rules of warfare, put in place to protect non-combatants as much as possible in a war. Thus the requirement for uniforms, chains of command, etc. These people have violated these rules, and they violate them willfully and knowingly. It wasn't just spies who were shot in WWII - saboteurs were also. And that is the closest equivalent to the merry bunch we have in Gitmo. Soldiers on the battlefield aren't a police force, carefully gathering and documenting evidence to be used in a trial, it is silly to assume as much of them.

The Magna Carta was one of the seminal documents of the march to democracy, the notion that if you were to be punished for anything, it had to be done using a process independent of the ruler, open for all to see. Guantanamo effectively shreds the Magna Carta.
The Magna Carta only applied if "you" happened to be a nobleman. Didn't apply at all to the regular folks, who served at the pleasure of the nobility and could be done w/ as they pleased.

If trials are given, it is at the pleasure of the US military. This is above and beyond what the rules of war require of the military, and certainly far better than what any coalition personnel could expect at the hands of the enemy.

WildCat

10th June 2006, 08:59 PM

Thank you for an informative, rather than shrill, answer.

So if these were cooperative prisoners, who were allowed priviledges equivalent to US prisoners, the question remains: WHY did they hang themselves? Any answers?

Because they could see the writing on the wall? Heck - if they were wanting to be martyrs, they would have let the evil USA kill them after a public trial, not commit suicide on the quiet.

Overcome with waves of irrepressible guilt? What, now? These "heartless conniving criminals"? And after more than three years with daily bed and food? Give me a break...

It's all very good waxing lyrical about "The only good Gitmo prisoner is a dead Gitmo prisoner". If you read up above, all of them seem to have been condemned out of hand for something that has yet to be proven at trial. You wouldn't do that to a US criminal, but you would to these people. Is that right? If so, why the double standard?

And please don't take that question as being an appeasment, or plea for their innocence. Perhaps they were all as guilty as hell and should be left to rot, I sure don't know. But no-one knows anything because they haven't been properly tried and found guilty. Which is one of the cornerstones of "US democracy" you are actively advocating to them. Yet you all cheer when they are denied it...

Good one. :rolleyes:
Sorry Zep, but the military is not a democracy, nor is the prosecution of war democratic. The US has decided to hold these illegal combatants alive, rather than putting them before a firing squad as was the norm in the past. They are not being held for trial, as if they were common criminals.

Kopji

11th June 2006, 12:40 AM

Many of the Gitmo prisoners see their death as a victory over our efforts to make the prison appear just or legitimate.

To have multiple suicides is not so much an indication of poor treatment, but that we are out of control. By our lack of control have allowed them to make a political statement.

The deaths are a message, and we have given them a worldwide podium to provide that message: They would rather die for their cause as martyrs than submit.

Gitmo is of far more value to terrorists than us, they have shown that over and over. They must enjoy our foolish ignorance of what their war is all about.

a_unique_person

11th June 2006, 02:04 AM

Nick Bogaerts

11th June 2006, 04:17 AM

These people have violated these rules, and they violate them willfully and knowingly.

For what, precisely? A suicide attempt gets categorised as an act of war by the Americans now. What have they been up to? Nose-picking? Jaywalking?

Dog Boots

11th June 2006, 04:33 AM

The US has decided to hold these illegal combatants alive, rather than putting them before a firing squad as was the norm in the past..

And look how grateful they are...

Zep

11th June 2006, 04:35 AM

Sorry Zep, but the military is not a democracy, nor is the prosecution of war democratic. The US has decided to hold these illegal combatants alive, rather than putting them before a firing squad as was the norm in the past. They are not being held for trial, as if they were common criminals.I'm terribly sorry, but this is so incorrect that I do have to object.

Firing squads happened AFTER A TRIAL. Even enemy saboteurs and spies get a trial. Even the military hold courts martial before sentences are carried out. Sure, it could be a show trial like Stalin, or in camera like the UK, but it's a trial nonetheless. Every domestic spy caught by the Allies in WW2 did have a trial before being executed or gaoled.

What's more, these days, those convicted of treason and sabotage and spying are hardly likely to face the death sentence anyway. At the very worst, a long solitary confinement awaits them, not last words and a last cigarette and a blindfold.

However the question remains: If these people are so goddamned guilty of all these crimes, why have they not had a trial and been convicted after more than three years in Gitmo? If the military is convinced of their guilt, why have they not got them in front of a military judge and had them dealt with properly? Even military courts recognise denial of due process.

As I said, these prisoners may be guilty as hell, but without a proper trial and conviction, they are still technically innocent. Yes? YES??

andyandy

11th June 2006, 04:50 AM

However the question remains: If these people are so goddamned guilty of all these crimes, why have they not had a trial and been convicted after more than three years in Gitmo? If the military is convinced of their guilt, why have they not got them in front of a military judge and had them dealt with properly? Even military courts recognise denial of due process.

As I said, these prisoners may be guilty as hell, but without a proper trial and conviction, they are still technically innocent. Yes? YES??

"innocent til proved guilty?" What a quaint notion .....:D

rjh01

11th June 2006, 04:57 AM

"They are smart. They are creative, they are committed. They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of ...warfare waged against us,"
The above is a quote from the article. I think it refers just as well to the US military and some of the posters here.

One of the things I know about this prison is that a lot of them are innocent. There were several British people held there. All were released without charge and sent home. And People here have condemned innocent people.

In Australia we lock up boat people. These people are not criminals. A lot who have been there long term hang themselves, which in some cases is fatal. Many of the rest suffer long term trauma. I can see no difference between our boat people and your prisoners.

Boat people - are people who enter Australia illegally and do not wish to go home.

Zep

11th June 2006, 05:13 AM

"innocent til proved guilty?" What a quaint notion .....:DYes, I know... :rolleyes: Aren't I just so naive?

Mind you, if you believe to the contrary, it will come as a rude shock the first time you get put against a wall and shot for a parking violation. ;)

andyandy

11th June 2006, 05:15 AM

Yes, I know... :rolleyes: Aren't I just so naive?

Mind you, if you believe to the contrary, it will come as a rude shock the first time you get put against a wall and shot for a parking violation. ;)

lol :)

I'm still waiting for a good reason as to why those held in guantanamo don't require a trial.....
A US military officer was being interviewed on the BBC this morning, and the best he could do was "well....it takes time to process people...."
:jaw:
If after nearly 5 years of detention, repeated interrogation and (one hopes) hundreds of hours of investigation, there is no charge that can be brought in a court of law, then one would have to presume there was no case to answer.

If they're guilty - and there is evidence to back up that assertion (which there should be seeing as how they're detained) then they should be tried and sentenced.....

to give some BS excuse about it "taking time" to process people is simply disingenuous....5 years one would hope would be time enough.

yanit

11th June 2006, 05:34 AM

In Australia we lock up boat people. These people are not criminals. A lot who have been there long term hang themselves, which in some cases is fatal. Many of the rest suffer long term trauma. I can see no difference between our boat people and your prisoners.

A book (http://shop.lonelyplanet.com/product_detail.cfm?productID=2145&seriesID=18&seriesname=Journeys%3A%20travel%20literature&) about that.

Perhaps some people on this board need to read it.

BPSCG

11th June 2006, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by YoPopa http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1697215#post1697231):Nothing?
We know that they were sincere believers in the "religion of peace". No you don't...this is what you have been told and you choose to believe it. Yopu know zero about them....nothing. You're right. I thnk they were probably Jehovah's Witnesses, and they were at Gitmo because Bush got annoyed at them banging at the White House door every weekend with copies of Awake!

BPSCG

11th June 2006, 05:46 AM

No you don't...this is what you have been told and you choose to believe it. Yopu know zero about them....nothing.
One of the things I know about this prison is that a lot of them are innocent. Emphases mine.

Why don't you boys fight it out between yourselves, and report back to the rest of us when you've come to a conclusion, okay?

a_unique_person

11th June 2006, 05:46 AM

The above is a quote from the article. I think it refers just as well to the US military and some of the posters here.

One of the things I know about this prison is that a lot of them are innocent. There were several British people held there. All were released without charge and sent home. And People here have condemned innocent people.

In Australia we lock up boat people. These people are not criminals. A lot who have been there long term hang themselves, which in some cases is fatal. Many of the rest suffer long term trauma. I can see no difference between our boat people and your prisoners.

Boat people - are people who enter Australia illegally and do not wish to go home.

Australia's treatment of it's illegal immigrants and asylum seekers is an absolute disgrace. And to think John Howard was quite happy to demonise them to win an election.

kalen

11th June 2006, 10:18 AM

No it is not. There are rules of warfare, put in place to protect non-combatants as much as possible in a war. Thus the requirement for uniforms, chains of command, etc. These people have violated these rules, and they violate them willfully and knowingly. It wasn't just spies who were shot in WWII - saboteurs were also. And that is the closest equivalent to the merry bunch we have in Gitmo. Soldiers on the battlefield aren't a police force, carefully gathering and documenting evidence to be used in a trial, it is silly to assume as much of them.

The Magna Carta only applied if "you" happened to be a nobleman. Didn't apply at all to the regular folks, who served at the pleasure of the nobility and could be done w/ as they pleased.

If trials are given, it is at the pleasure of the US military. This is above and beyond what the rules of war require of the military, and certainly far better than what any coalition personnel could expect at the hands of the enemy.
Rules that must be followed? Requirement for uniform?

These guys (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/20/wirq20.xml) weren't dressed as tourists.

From the article:
Two SAS soldiers were freed from a jail in Basra under the watch of British armoured vehicles last night a few hours after they were seized by Iraqis during the worst riots in Iraq's second city in two years.

They had been wearing Arab clothes when they were arrested in the southern city by a Shia militia loyal to the Iraqi government.

Why have one standard when you can have two!

kalen

11th June 2006, 10:29 AM

There have been numerous (dozens of) suicide attempts at Guantanamo, but none have succeeded until now. Strange, no?

Maybe not as strange as the spin the US is putting on this:

Guantanamo suicides a 'PR move' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5069230.stm)

A top US official has described the suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a "good PR move to draw attention".

Colleen Graffy told the BBC the deaths were part of a strategy and "a tactic to further the jihadi cause", but taking their own lives was unnecessary.

Rear Adm Harris said he did not believe the men had killed themselves out of despair.

"They are smart. They are creative, they are committed," he said.

"They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."

Ziggurat

11th June 2006, 10:43 AM

Gitmo is of far more value to terrorists than us, they have shown that over and over. They must enjoy our foolish ignorance of what their war is all about.

I have no doubt that the terrorists get a propaganda benefit from all the hysteria about Gitmo. But I question this conclusion, because quite frankly our side isn't going to talk about the value it really gets out of Gitmo. We're not going to reveal what intelligence we receive from these guys, how effective our efforts there are, etc. It's an asymmetrical situation, to be sure, but I don't think we on the outside really have all the information necessary to conclude that Gitmo is "of far more value to terrorists than us". I doubt it, though, for the very simple reason that I think the military would ask to close it (and almost certainly get their request granted) if they thought they weren't getting more benefit from it than it cost.

Ziggurat

11th June 2006, 10:48 AM

Why have one standard when you can have two!

Umm... we're not at war with Iraq. Iraq is on our side. The police who captured these guys and put them in jail were not acting on authority of the central government when they did so. Geneva conventions weren't the issue in that little scuffle in any way, shape or form. It was, in point of fact, analogous to undercover cops: nobody complains about them violating the Geneva conventions. And yet, following your line of argument, we should. Why don't we? Hmmm....

andyandy

11th June 2006, 10:56 AM

kalen

11th June 2006, 11:22 AM

Umm... we're not at war with Iraq. Iraq is on our side. The police who captured these guys and put them in jail were not acting on authority of the central government when they did so. Geneva conventions weren't the issue in that little scuffle in any way, shape or form. It was, in point of fact, analogous to undercover cops: nobody complains about them violating the Geneva conventions. And yet, following your line of argument, we should. Why don't we? Hmmm....
So there's a difference between coalition forces disguising themselves to blend in with the general population and the (yet to be convicted) terrorists doing the same? Actually, it's funny when you think about it, the (yet to be convicted) terrorists probably dressed like that their entire lives; haven't they even heard of the Geneva conventions?

ETA: Is it agreed that if Al-Queda caught these SAS guys, the Geneva conventions would not apply?

Ziggurat

11th June 2006, 12:05 PM

what about during the gulf war? Plenty of special forces in iraq then....and they weren't wearing uniforms....:D

I'll assume you're kidding, because if you're serious, you need to present evidence to that effect, because that's the first time I've ever heard that accusation.

Ziggurat

11th June 2006, 12:09 PM

So there's a difference between coalition forces disguising themselves to blend in with the general population and the (yet to be convicted) terrorists doing the same?

Yes. There's a difference between undercover cops and the criminals they chase, too. Don't have to invoke Geneva conventions to figure that one out, though.

ETA: Is it agreed that if Al-Queda caught these SAS guys, the Geneva conventions would not apply?

Al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, so there's no reason to expect them to abide by it, and they never have in the past. Their very existence is set up precisely to defy such conventions: that's what terrorist organizations are. Looking to the Geneva conventions to protect our soldiers captured by terrorist organizations has never been anything more than a fevered delusion. Whatever your opinion of what we should be doing, it is a grave mistake to not recognize this fundamental aspect of our enemy.

Elind

11th June 2006, 12:24 PM

I thought they were kept isolated...so how did they synchronise their deaths?

No, they are not all isolated. That would be cruel; but one wonders if they had lost their faith since suicide is supposed to be a no no for true Muslims, unless they kill someone else in the process. Maybe they figured they killed each other?

Mycroft

11th June 2006, 12:42 PM

Rules that must be followed? Requirement for uniform?

These guys (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/20/wirq20.xml) weren't dressed as tourists.

From the article:

Why have one standard when you can have two!

Do you know why these people were out of uniform?

Until you can answer that question, how can you assert there is a double standard?

Mycroft

11th June 2006, 12:52 PM

Firing squads happened AFTER A TRIAL. Even enemy saboteurs and spies get a trial. Even the military hold courts martial before sentences are carried out. Sure, it could be a show trial like Stalin, or in camera like the UK, but it's a trial nonetheless. Every domestic spy caught by the Allies in WW2 did have a trial before being executed or gaoled.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Gitmo detainees were seen by a military tribunal, which constitutes a trial.

Zbu

11th June 2006, 12:54 PM

The Rear Admiral's statementsa bout 'asymmetrical warfare' just go to show that he's a complete idiot and that the Right-Wingers are trying to make a pathetic case that caring about brown people who kill themselves is just a PR stunt by the Left-Wing in order to undermine the current Administration. Which goes to show that Fourth Generation warfare is alive and well and currently being used by the Administration against the whole of America instead of Al Qaeda.

BPSCG

11th June 2006, 01:30 PM

kalen

11th June 2006, 02:44 PM

Al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, so there's no reason to expect them to abide by it, and they never have in the past.

Exactly. So why is Wildcat (and a lot of other people, too) suggesting that their not wearing uniforms is illegal? What law are they breaking with respect to that issue?

Ziggurat

11th June 2006, 02:56 PM

Exactly. So why is Wildcat (and a lot of other people, too) suggesting that their not wearing uniforms is illegal? What law are they breaking with respect to that issue?

I think the point Wildcat is trying to get at is that they are not protected by the Geneva conventions - the technicalities of why (them losing those protections because they violate the terms of the treaty vs. them never falling under the treaty to begin with) are, I suspect, secondary to what he's really interested in. But I'm only guessing here.

But their actions are illegal, even if the uniforms aren't part of why: they're violating the laws of the countries that they are operating in (for example, Iraq).

rjh01

11th June 2006, 03:20 PM

Some people are suggesting that the prisoners are common criminals. That would mean they should have a fair trial. After three odd years it is a long time to wait. Military Justice would not apply.

Ziggurat

11th June 2006, 03:59 PM

Some people are suggesting that the prisoners are common criminals. That would mean they should have a fair trial. After three odd years it is a long time to wait. Military Justice would not apply.

Sure, some people contend that. Some people contend that they are NOT common criminals, but instead are enemy combatants not covered by the Geneva conventions, which would mean that they should have fewer rights than POW's, not more. And POW's can be held indefinitely without charges - ergo, we should not expect or demand any such treatment for Guantanamo prisoners.

Zep

11th June 2006, 04:21 PM

Australia's treatment of it's illegal immigrants and asylum seekers is an absolute disgrace. And to think John Howard was quite happy to demonise them to win an election....AND to farm their detention out on neighbouring countries, presumably with the carrot of "added aid" being dangled.

Shameful.

Elind

11th June 2006, 04:38 PM

...AND to farm their detention out on neighbouring countries, presumably with the carrot of "added aid" being dangled.

Shameful.

Is that what you call Aussie rendition? ;)
And those neighbors did what to them?

Zep

11th June 2006, 04:38 PM

Sure, some people contend that. Some people contend that they are NOT common criminals, but instead are enemy combatants not covered by the Geneva conventions, which would mean that they should have fewer rights than POW's, not more. And POW's can be held indefinitely without charges - ergo, we should not expect or demand any such treatment for Guantanamo prisoners."Enemy" by definition only.

Then again, I still have a problem with the above definition. Let's allow that Al-Quaeda is a recognised military entity, despite it having no nationality. Enemies can either be combatants or non-combatants. The USA IS a signatory to the Geneva Convention, even if Al-Quaeda is not. So I would hope it does not think it can excuse itself entirely from its requirements on the grounds its enemies are not signatories.

Put all together: Combatant enemy are protected by the Geneva Convention. As POWs, they have certain rights, as do their captors have certain responsibilities towards them. Unlimited detention on serious military charges without trial is not one of these. Non-combatant enemy are civilians, and so subject to civil law, which does not usually entail unlimited detention without trial.

In short, such behaviour at Gitmo is inventing a legal loophole where there isn't room to invent one. It's why even the US military legal defence teams for these prisoners are resigning in protest at the shabby and trumped-up treatment of prisoners.

It's true. :(

Zep

11th June 2006, 04:51 PM

Is that what you call Aussie rendition? ;)
And those neighbors did what to them?They allowed the Australian government to set up prison-camps on their island to house asylum-seekers. The idea was modeled after Gitmo in Cuba. Seeing as they are only small Pacific island nations, there was not a lot they could do to resist. The implied threat was that if these nations did not comply, existing Australian aid would be withdrawn.

Recently, the last of these asylum-seekers on one island-nation was admitted to Australia as a resident (they all were, as it turns out). That nation has now said they will accept no more, aid or no aid, and the camp is being disbanded. Good for them!

I have no problem with detaining illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers so they can be properly processed or returned. But not in what are effectively concentration camps, not foisted on other countries, and not for years on end.

Ziggurat

11th June 2006, 04:54 PM

Then again, I still have a problem with the above definition. Let's allow that Al-Quaeda is a recognised military entity, despite it having no nationality. Enemies can either be combatants or non-combatants. The USA IS a signatory to the Geneva Convention, even if Al-Quaeda is not. So I would hope it does not think it can excuse itself entirely from its requirements on the grounds its enemies are not signatories.

Of course the US is excused from applying Geneva conventions to Al Qaeda. The Geneva convention is a treaty. It is, by its own declarations, ONLY binding for conflicts between parties to the treaty. By its own words, the treaty can not and does not apply.

It is a DIFFERENT argument if you want to claim that the principles of the treaty are worth abiding by even outside the context of the treaty. But that argument is one of what principles we should follow, and NOT one of what our legal obligations are.

Put all together: Combatant enemy are protected by the Geneva Convention.

Nope.

As POWs, they have certain rights, as do their captors have certain responsibilities towards them. Unlimited detention on serious military charges without trial is not one of these.

Wrong again, and doubly so. Not only do the Geneva conventions not apply, but even if they did, this requirement simply does not exist. The Geneva conventions allow for indefinite detentions of POW's without trial. In fact, that's the general procedure: POW's are not, as a rule, charged with anything, and they are, in fact, held indefinitely. You have invented a right for POW's which simply never existed.

In short, such behaviour at Gitmo is inventing a legal loophole where there isn't room to invent one.

Quite simply wrong, for the reasons stated above. You're wrong about the applicability and, more dramatically, the actual contents of the Geneva conventions.

Kopji

11th June 2006, 04:56 PM

I have no doubt that the terrorists get a propaganda benefit from all the hysteria about Gitmo. But I question this conclusion, because quite frankly our side isn't going to talk about the value it really gets out of Gitmo. We're not going to reveal what intelligence we receive from these guys, how effective our efforts there are, etc. It's an asymmetrical situation, to be sure, but I don't think we on the outside really have all the information necessary to conclude that Gitmo is "of far more value to terrorists than us". I doubt it, though, for the very simple reason that I think the military would ask to close it (and almost certainly get their request granted) if they thought they weren't getting more benefit from it than it cost.
You make a good point, but there is a sense that what we know is always incomplete. We still need to decide how to act rightly. We cannot avoid making ethical or moral choices because we don't know everything there is to know. So it is valid for me to say "of far more value to terrorists than us" with the evidence at hand. Sure, when we say we 'know' it is always more or less tentative.

We have already learned that many generals and military leaders keep silent until retirement. They seem supportive of the US war strategy until they feel it is safe to freely speak their minds.

The evidence supports that it is far more likely everyone involved would just like Gitmo to go away but can't do it because of the political cost of looking like they made a big mistake. (The mistake transcends political parties).

It is hard to just let them go somewhere, they could indeed be quite dangerous by now if they were not before. If nothing else they know lots of the latest interrogation techniques.

Meanwhile they serve as an inspiration to terrorist recruiters, by martyrdom if not by the symbol of their suffering.

rjh01

11th June 2006, 05:07 PM

Are there any parallels between this and how the British treated the IRA people it captured? I thought they were all put on trial.
Any thoughts?

a_unique_person

11th June 2006, 05:08 PM

Zep

11th June 2006, 05:37 PM

Of course the US is excused from applying Geneva conventions to Al Qaeda. The Geneva convention is a treaty. It is, by its own declarations, ONLY binding for conflicts between parties to the treaty. By its own words, the treaty can not and does not apply.Because the US says so? Because it has invented a purely ideologically and politically motivated category of "enemy" not covered by that treaty, specifically to avoid its perceived restrictions? Here's a question: Are there likely to be any other laws and treaties they might like to ignore that we should know about now? Before we run to join your side of the fight?

Wrong again, and doubly so. Not only do the Geneva conventions not apply, but even if they did, this requirement simply does not exist. The Geneva conventions allow for indefinite detentions of POW's without trial. In fact, that's the general procedure: POW's are not, as a rule, charged with anything, and they are, in fact, held indefinitely. You have invented a right for POW's which simply never existed.Please. These "POWs" HAVE been charged, and with serious crimes what's more. That's why they were captured in the first place and are in Gitmo now, and not in a standard POW detention facility on the mainland USA like all the previous POWs have been. There is a whole battallion of army lawyers slogging away in that place, supposedly preparing prosecution and defense cases for each and every one of them.

So don't you think it is high time their trials took place, and we saw the depth of their infamy and convictions? Hmmm? :rolleyes:

Quite simply wrong, for the reasons stated above. You're wrong about the applicability and, more dramatically, the actual contents of the Geneva conventions.I've been reading the applicable thread on it here, before I posted. OK, so it's not a comprehensive instruction in international law nor this convention in particular, but I think I get the point it is trying to make.

Elind

11th June 2006, 05:39 PM

I have no problem with detaining illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers so they can be properly processed or returned. But not in what are effectively concentration camps, not foisted on other countries, and not for years on end.

I would agree in the case when they are not terrorists or POWs, but perhaps the problem is that some people want to let anyone come anytime, and others don't, resulting in the inability to "process" and return?

Why are they not simply returned? How long can that take? In the US hundreds of thousands per year are returned.

Zep

11th June 2006, 05:43 PM

You make a good point, but there is a sense that what we know is always incomplete. We still need to decide how to act rightly. We cannot avoid making ethical or moral choices because we don't know everything there is to know. So it is valid for me to say "of far more value to terrorists than us" with the evidence at hand. Sure, when we say we 'know' it is always more or less tentative.

We have already learned that many generals and military leaders keep silent until retirement. They seem supportive of the US war strategy until they feel it is safe to freely speak their minds.

The evidence supports that it is far more likely everyone involved would just like Gitmo to go away but can't do it because of the political cost of looking like they made a big mistake. (The mistake transcends political parties).

It is hard to just let them go somewhere, they could indeed be quite dangerous by now if they were not before. If nothing else they know lots of the latest interrogation techniques.

Meanwhile they serve as an inspiration to terrorist recruiters, by martyrdom if not by the symbol of their suffering.The strongest reason for Gitmo's existance that would have given it world-wide support would have been the public trial, conviction by incontrovertible evidence, and subsequent punishment of the captive inmates. However even that seems to be going backwards at an alarming rate...

Elind

11th June 2006, 05:48 PM

So don't you think it is high time their trials took place, and we saw the depth of their infamy and convictions? Hmmm? :rolleyes:

There's a practical aspect to this, which is why military trials are used, have been used, and will no doubt continue to be. That is simply that civilian criminal justice can't deal with such issues. We saw the Moussawi (however you spell it) issue take years and cost millions to try, and this is for someone who pled guilty!

If they can't call everyone from Rummy and above to testify and have access to every confidental file in the country the defense will call for a mistrial or acquital. The Germans let someone go free who even they believed was guilty, because the CIA refused to allow his defense access to all their data and prisoners in Gitmo.

I do believe BTW that close to half the Gitmo prisoners have been released, (and some subsequently killed in action), so when you claim that nothing is happening you may not be correct.

THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SITUATION!

a_unique_person

11th June 2006, 05:49 PM

Caps!

How did you do that?

Elind

11th June 2006, 05:55 PM

Trying to get your attention, as usual.

Zep

11th June 2006, 06:24 PM

There's a practical aspect to this, which is why military trials are used, have been used, and will no doubt continue to be. That is simply that civilian criminal justice can't deal with such issues. We saw the Moussawi (however you spell it) issue take years and cost millions to try, and this is for someone who pled guilty!

If they can't call everyone from Rummy and above to testify and have access to every confidental file in the country the defense will call for a mistrial or acquital. The Germans let someone go free who even they believed was guilty, because the CIA refused to allow his defense access to all their data and prisoners in Gitmo.

I do believe BTW that close to half the Gitmo prisoners have been released, (and some subsequently killed in action), so when you claim that nothing is happening you may not be correct.

THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SITUATION!I never said it was a crimial justice situation. But that makes it a military one - they are military legal teams involved, aren't they? So when are they going to pull their fingers out? Ooops - some of them already have - they have resigned rather than pursue trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat in a dodgy process. Not encouraging, is it...

rjh01

11th June 2006, 08:56 PM

The BBC has a better article on the subject. Covers both sides. BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5069230.stm)

Elind

11th June 2006, 09:15 PM

I never said it was a crimial justice situation. But that makes it a military one - they are military legal teams involved, aren't they? So when are they going to pull their fingers out? Ooops - some of them already have - they have resigned rather than pursue trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat in a dodgy process. Not encouraging, is it...

You fooled me there. In what way do you distinguish what you want from a simple criminal issue and what you claim to want?

"trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat"

How do you know that and what does "taken in combat" mean to you? Association with a criminal enterprise is good enough for conviction in a civil criminal court, but not applicable in a military situation? Sounds to me more like a matter of which side you choose to give the benefit of doubt to. I'll give it to my own first.

I know you don't support or condone terrorism, or call it fanatical extremism if you want, but you do seem more inclined to believe in the mistreatment of "trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat" by those on your side, as if they are all a bunch of moronic goons with nothing better to do than amuse themselves with poor little people they were lucky enough to get their hands on.

Next thing I would expect to hear from you is a questioning of how the bombing of AZ was carried out without a trial first, after all, at least one civilian under the age of 16 seems to have been killed in that. So far I haven't seen your tears.

Aepervius

11th June 2006, 09:30 PM

Sorry Zep, but the military is not a democracy, nor is the prosecution of war democratic. The US has decided to hold these illegal combatants alive, rather than putting them before a firing squad as was the norm in the past. They are not being held for trial, as if they were common criminals.

Ever heard of geneva convention ? Well if they were uniformed they have to be prisoner of war. With certain right and treatment. if they were not they have to be tried as civil. I am sorry but the US govt is a disgrace as they are rying to find new and inventive way to interpret and name those prisonner as "illegal enemy combatant" to bypass their own signature of the convention. It does not matter that al quaeda or what not did not sign the geneva convention. What matters is that the US did sign it.

Additionally I do not think the geneva convention allowed you to execute with a firing squad a surrendering enemy combatant. But you could certainly under marshall law and war execute spion and saboteur (usually with a token military trial).

But you know what I find maddening ? That people having 5000+ post here, which I would assume are more or less akin to be critical thinker or interrested into critical thinking, buy into this f(rule8)ing rethoric from the US govt about illegal US combatant, a term invented for the special purpose of justifying something explicitly forbidden by the geneva convention..

Next time US is in a war with another country, even a signator of the geneva convenion, and that country decide to hold any eople (militar or not) as illegal enemy combatant forever or do them treatment contrary to the geneva convention, do not come whining or mouth foaming. You will only get what you seeded.

Aepervius

11th June 2006, 09:44 PM

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Gitmo detainees were seen by a military tribunal, which constitutes a trial.

They did not have any sort of trial, and that is the problem. The military only flagged them as enemy "illegal" combatant (see my previous post on how shameful is this definition). Furthermore military can only try other military enemy combatant involved in a running war. There are other case (like humanity and war crime) but those have special commision. The problem is that in gitmo there isn't only enemy combatant there are also civil caught in a non-military field.

Finally fhere are among all those prisonner, only a few which are (told from your own military) fit for a military tribunal/trial.

AS for the "assymetrical warfare", don't get me started on that. For crying loud those guys are prisonner without term and trial. Like the british told in cnn in an interview in 2004 "you are getting told everyday that you will never get out of there". Frankly this is reason enough for suicide.
What hope do they have ? Do you know how people react when there is no hope anymore ? That's right. Suicide. look at the number of attempt for the nmber of prisonner. What is surprising is that none succeeded until now...

Bottom line if those guy were prisonner of war (afghan/Iraq war), since the war is finished then release them. if those guy are ****tard terrorist then try them , and send them to execution or life prison afterward. Using indefinite prison and breaking treaty makes you only look like facist fools from a banana republic.

a_unique_person

11th June 2006, 11:03 PM

rjh01

12th June 2006, 12:40 AM

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5070514.stm)

One of the three men who committed suicide at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay was due to be released - but did not know it, says a US lawyer.
...
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said procedures at Guantanamo Bay violated the rule of law and undermined the fight against terrorism.Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said procedures at Guantanamo Bay violated the rule of law and undermined the fight against terrorism.

This base needs to be closed now.

Mycroft

12th June 2006, 01:47 AM

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5070514.stm)

This base needs to be closed now.

I believe that reaction was the goal of these suicides.

armageddonman

12th June 2006, 02:05 AM

Nothing?
We know that they were sincere believers in the "religion of peace". We know that they were picked up on the battlefield and despite there being no trial I believe that our military had good reason to suspect that they had no peaceful intentions towards us, the infidels. We know that they placed little or no value on even their own lives. We have good reason to believe that they subscribed to all that crap about a heavenly reward of virgins for their "sacrifice"

To say that we know nothing about them is just plain silly.

Yo :yo-yo:

We now also know that at least one of the men who committed suicide was due to be released. That makes him an innocent who was jailed without trial for several years and who subsequently killed himself.

So, you were wrong with your assumptions. There are still innocent people held in Gitmo.

Mycroft

12th June 2006, 02:12 AM

We now also know that at least one of the men who committed suicide was due to be released. That makes him an innocent who was jailed without trial for several years and who subsequently killed himself.

How does that follow? Many of those released so far were not innocent. Some even turned up fighting against coalition forces later on.

So, you were wrong with your assumptions. There are still innocent people held in Gitmo.

Evidence?

armageddonman

12th June 2006, 02:17 AM

How does that follow? Many of those released so far were not innocent. Some even turned up fighting against coalition forces later on.

So the US releases known terrorists? Why?

Evidence?

I stand corrected: since a lot of people have been releases without being tried and convicted of anything and have thus to be assumed innocent (which they have to be anyway as long as they are not tried and convicted), it's logical to assume that not all detainees are actually guitly.

Isn't it one of the foremost principles of US law that a suspect is assumed innocent until proven guilty? Why should that not apply to the Gitmo prsinoers?

rjh01

12th June 2006, 02:35 AM

How about this.
The USA captures some innocent men, send them to the base. After a few years the USA works out they have done nothing wrong and release the men. However in the meantime they have been converted into terrorists. So they go and fight the USA.

Either that or this.
The USA captures some guilty men, send them to the base.After a few years the USA are so incompetent they cannot find any evidence to say they are terrorists so they are released. They then go back to fight the USA.

Take your pick. The USA is incompetent or the base is a recruitment camp for terrorists. Unless someone can give me a third option?

andyandy

12th June 2006, 02:40 AM

How does that follow? Many of those released so far were not innocent. Some even turned up fighting against coalition forces later on.

I thought innocent til proven guilty was a major tennant of the western democratic system.....

If they weren't innocent why were they released? If the US had any evidence against them, then why weren't they tried?

What evidence do you have for "Many of those released were not innocent"?

There seems to have been a very small number who have been released incorrectly. Does this mean it is acceptable to operate a drag net policy under which innocent people are incorrectly detained?

a_unique_person

12th June 2006, 03:14 AM

Zep

12th June 2006, 04:48 AM

You fooled me there. In what way do you distinguish what you want from a simple criminal issue and what you claim to want?In no way was I setting out to fool anyone. I'm merely looking for clarification. The problem I keep running up against is that, once I ceased viewing the situation through the blinkers of the current US administration, the Gitmo situation started looking as crooked as a dog's hind leg.

I could accept that it could be a POW camp, provided the inmates WERE genuine POWs (not Hogan's Heroes or Stalag Luft III, of course). But the military prosecutions simply doesn't fit that bill, and we have all seen that the inmates have not been accorded POW status or priviledges. Further, military legal teams are there now preparing to try them on various charges. So that means they are being held as accused criminals, and military criminals at that.

So the obvious question is: What is their accused crime, such that they would be captured by the US military in another country and kept in close confinement by thjem without trial in another? I don't have an answer to that question. The only thing I can say with any certainty is that they are military criminals.

"trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat"

How do you know that and what does "taken in combat" mean to you? Association with a criminal enterprise is good enough for conviction in a civil criminal court, but not applicable in a military situation? Sounds to me more like a matter of which side you choose to give the benefit of doubt to. I'll give it to my own first.Once again... It's not a matter of "sides" or trumping stuff up. If there is adequate solid evidence that these people committed heinous military crimes then get it out at trial, get them convicted, get them gaoled or hanged or whatever is legislated, and make an end of it!

It's not their guilt or innocence that concerns me, it's the constant delays and excuses for not doing what Gitmo was set up for in the first place - processing military criminals. The army seemed to be able to gather sufficient evidence, try and convict the Abu Graibh offenders fast enough. So surely these "clearly heinous criminals" in Gitmo would be a snap?

Read about the two Australians held at Gitmo, including one "captured" in Pakistan, shipped to Egypt, tortured, denied representation, and then handed over to the US authorities in Afghanistan to ship to Gitmo. One of these men has since been released for total lack of evidence. Guess which one... (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511152004?open&of=ENG-USA)

I know you don't support or condone terrorism, or call it fanatical extremism if you want, but you do seem more inclined to believe in the mistreatment of "trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat" by those on your side, as if they are all a bunch of moronic goons with nothing better to do than amuse themselves with poor little people they were lucky enough to get their hands on.

Next thing I would expect to hear from you is a questioning of how the bombing of AZ was carried out without a trial first, after all, at least one civilian under the age of 16 seems to have been killed in that. So far I haven't seen your tears.Please don't be silly. This is not about sides or name-calling. What happened at Abu Graibh may also be happening at Gitmo now, and many, many reports say it is. But I cannot subscribe to that completely without solid evidence being produced.

If you believe in the right of an accused to a fair and prompt trial, and I hear that so often from the US members of this forum and from other sources, why is that same process not being extended to the Gitmo prisoners? Or do you see it as somehow "right" that they should be convicted and imprisoned without trial on the mere say-so of the US government?

I did say before that I would have preferred to have seen AZ in TV in handcuffs going into Gitmo (and tried and convicted - that one would have been a gimme). That he died the way he did is unfortunate in a strategic sense only - a great propaganda opportunity like capturing Saddam was passed up in favour of a quick result. Then again, I would imagine AZ would not have come quietly anyway, so maybe it was the only way to get him at all. But another mindless Jordanian thug dies by the sword...so what. They kill themselves as readily as anyone else. But that others died with him, and because of him, is regrettable.

An Australian newspaper's view of the AZ situation. (http://network.news.com.au/image/0,10114,5166506,00.jpg)

Belz...

12th June 2006, 04:56 AM

a_unique_person

12th June 2006, 05:04 AM

You fooled me there. In what way do you distinguish what you want from a simple criminal issue and what you claim to want?

"trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat"

How do you know that and what does "taken in combat" mean to you? Association with a criminal enterprise is good enough for conviction in a civil criminal court, but not applicable in a military situation? Sounds to me more like a matter of which side you choose to give the benefit of doubt to. I'll give it to my own first.

I know you don't support or condone terrorism, or call it fanatical extremism if you want, but you do seem more inclined to believe in the mistreatment of "trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat" by those on your side, as if they are all a bunch of moronic goons with nothing better to do than amuse themselves with poor little people they were lucky enough to get their hands on.

Next thing I would expect to hear from you is a questioning of how the bombing of AZ was carried out without a trial first, after all, at least one civilian under the age of 16 seems to have been killed in that. So far I haven't seen your tears.

A third US military prosecutor has quit the military commission process under which Australian David Hicks will be tried, over concerns it is unfair.

US Air Force Captain Carrie Wolf has chosen to take a reassignment along with other prosecutors, ABC radio reports.

The news follows the release of emails by two former prosecutors who say the Guantanamo prosecutions are rigged to ensure guilty verdicts against mainly low-level suspects.

Some of those imprisoned were brought in for rewards.

If you are worried about why the issue of trials and law comes into this, that is perhaps because that is supposed to be what happens. The US military is claiming it will try these people.

rjh01

12th June 2006, 05:17 AM

If I was caught committing any offence I would expect
1. To know what charges I am being held for
2. My trial to start within a year or so of my arrest.
3. If I am being held on a minor charge then bail given to me.
4. Be held in the country that either captured me or where I committed the offences and subject to that countries laws.
5. A fair trial where the prosecution lawyers do not resign because of the process

None of these are being given to the prisoners.

BPSCG

12th June 2006, 05:19 AM

We now also know that at least one of the men who committed suicide was due to be released. That makes him an innocent...
The Pentagon identified the three as Saudi Arabians Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi al-Utaybi, 30, and Yassar Talal al-Zharani, 22, and Ali Abdullah Ahmed of Yemen, who was 29 or 30.

Ahmed, the Pentagon said, was a "mid- to high-level al-Qaeda operative." It said he was "hostile" during his time at Guantanamo Bay and was a "long-term hunger striker" from late 2005 to last month.

The Pentagon identified Shaman Turki as a militant who worked as a recruiter for al-Qaeda and who had been part of Jamaat Tabligh, which it said had been banned in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s. He had been recommended for transfer to the custody of another country before his suicide, the Pentagon said. It said he would also have been under detention there.

Yassar Talal was said to have been a front-line fighter for the Taliban who was captured by Afghan forces, then in November 2001 participated in a prison uprising in Mazar-e Sharif in which Johnny "Mike" Spann, a CIA officer, was killed.Which one was the "innocent" one "due to be released"?

andyandy

12th June 2006, 05:48 AM

The Pentagon identified the three as Saudi Arabians Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi al-Utaybi, 30, and Yassar Talal al-Zharani, 22, and Ali Abdullah Ahmed of Yemen, who was 29 or 30.

Ahmed, the Pentagon said, was a "mid- to high-level al-Qaeda operative." It said he was "hostile" during his time at Guantanamo Bay and was a "long-term hunger striker" from late 2005 to last month.

The Pentagon identified Shaman Turki as a militant who worked as a recruiter for al-Qaeda and who had been part of Jamaat Tabligh, which it said had been banned in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s. He had been recommended for transfer to the custody of another country before his suicide, the Pentagon said. It said he would also have been under detention there.

Yassar Talal was said to have been a front-line fighter for the Taliban who was captured by Afghan forces, then in November 2001 participated in a prison uprising in Mazar-e Sharif in which Johnny "Mike" Spann, a CIA officer, was killed.
Which one was the "innocent" one "due to be released"?

If there was so much evidence on them, why weren't they charged?

Mycroft

12th June 2006, 06:02 AM

So the US releases known terrorists? Why?

If the assertion is there are innocent men detained at gitmo then the evidence needs to be brought to support that. As far as why an innocent man might be released without being prosecuted, there are any number of explanations that might suffice. For example, that nut-case from Australia may simply have not been guilty of enough to make his prosecution worthwhile.

Isn't it one of the foremost principles of US law that a suspect is assumed innocent until proven guilty?

Which is a legal designation, which may or may not correlate to their actual guilt or innocence.

Why should that not apply to the Gitmo prsinoers?

Because they are not US citizens and are not protected by constitutional rights. Just like Canadian citizens are not protected by the US Constitution.
You're talking guilt or innocence under the law.

BPSCG

12th June 2006, 06:03 AM

If there was so much evidence on them, why weren't they charged?You (and others) talk about them like they should be treated as common criminals, with all the due process rights accorded to common criminals.

That is not what they are. They are being treated as POWs. Once you've been captured as a POW, you stay a POW until the war is over. They should be happy with that status, because as "unlawful combatants," and as part of an organization that does not subscribe to the Geneva Conventions, their fates could justifiably have been far worse.

If you think they should be treated as common criminals, what civil crimes do you believe they should be charged with?

BPSCG

12th June 2006, 06:05 AM

You're talking guilt or innocence under the law.I think it might be more accurate to say, "You're talking guilt or innocence under civil, as opposed to military, law."

Ziggurat

12th June 2006, 06:42 AM

Because the US says so?

No. I already stated, the treaty itself specifies that under the conditions we face fighting Al Qaeda, the treaty does not restrict our actions. That's not us saying so, that's the treaty itself.

Because it has invented a purely ideologically and politically motivated category of "enemy" not covered by that treaty, specifically to avoid its perceived restrictions?

Again, the treaty itself already specifies when it does NOT apply, and this (by the treaty's own terms) is one of those situations. So Al Qaeda are already a category of enemy not covered by the treaty. You can argue all you want to about how we should treat this different class of enemy, but you're simply inventing things which do not exist if you think the Geneva conventions restricts our treatment of Al Qaeda.

Here's a question: Are there likely to be any other laws and treaties they might like to ignore that we should know about now?

Sorry, but the burden is on you to find such a law or treaty that is applicable. You can't even show how the Geneva conventions apply. I can show how they don't: the conventions specify explicitly that in a conflict between a signatory to the treaty (the US) and a non-signatory (Al Qaeda), if the non-signatory does not abide by the conduct specified in the treaty (which they haven't, especially during the 9/11 attacks themselves), then the signing party has no obligations under the treaty towards that non-signing party. Can you come up with an argument that the treaty still applies to this conflict? No, I don't think you can. All you can do is insist, with neither argument nor evidence, that it must.

Ziggurat

12th June 2006, 06:50 AM

What a convenient technicality.

What a convenient non-argument. It's wonderful how you can just dismiss something by calling it a "technicality", as if that label alone makes something irrelevant. I should try that myself. Get caught speeding by the police? But officer, being 30 mph over the limit is just a technicality. Shoplift something? Oh, it's just a technicality that I didn't pay for it before leaving the store. Didn't make my rent payment on time? I'm sure my landlord will understand that's just a technicality.

If you have an argument to make, make it. Otherwise, spare us the useless commentary.

andyandy

12th June 2006, 07:05 AM

You (and others) talk about them like they should be treated as common criminals, with all the due process rights accorded to common criminals.

That is not what they are. They are being treated as POWs. Once you've been captured as a POW, you stay a POW until the war is over. They should be happy with that status, because as "unlawful combatants," and as part of an organization that does not subscribe to the Geneva Conventions, their fates could justifiably have been far worse.

If you think they should be treated as common criminals, what civil crimes do you believe they should be charged with?

The trouble with that idea is that "The War on Terror" is as all-encompassing, ill-defined and un-winnable as a "war on drugs" a "war on crime" or a "war on poverty." When will the "war on terror" be won? When there isn't a single person left standing who wishes to bring harm to the US or the West? You may as well just admit that the current detainees should remain in detention for the rest of their lives....

If the captured men are al-qaeda terrorists, and there is evidence to support the claim, then they should be prosecuted under American law. US law is capable of prosecuting those who plan to harm the nation - and so it should be used :)

rocketdodger

12th June 2006, 07:08 AM

I would venture to say that if there is anyone innocent at gitmo, they are pretty bad communicators. I don't think the military is interested in keeping people there when they can't get anything out of them, and they can't get anything out of innocent people.

Most likely, if someone innocent was picked up and shipped there, all they would need to do is adamantly insist that they have nothing to do with all this baloney and honestly answer all the questions put to them. My guess is that the people who have remained there are either guilty of something or else really are innocent but are too hard headed to say so, and in the latter case it would be their fault for being hard headed. Of course, that is just a guess.

Elind

12th June 2006, 07:10 AM

do not come whining or mouth foaming.

Pretty much sums up what I would say to you.

ImaginalDisc

12th June 2006, 07:12 AM

Most likely, if someone innocent was picked up and shipped there, all they would need to do is adamantly insist that they have nothing to do with all this baloney and honestly answer all the questions put to them. My guess is that the people who have remained there are either guilty of something or else really are innocent but are too hard headed to say so, and in the latter case it would be their fault for being hard headed. Of course, that is just a guess.
How would these people be easily distinguishable from actual terroists who are pretending to be innocent?

andyandy

12th June 2006, 07:15 AM

rocketdodger

12th June 2006, 07:21 AM

you reckon? Guantanamo's something like this....?

"But I'm innocent officer!"

"oh alright then, sorry about the mix up."

:D

lol no, I am sure it is pretty rough.

But my point is that I don't see why anyone, even the idiots that make up the military, would keep someone for 3 years if they didn't get any evidence from them the entire time that they were guilty.

Actually, I take that back, because I can easily see the jerks in the military keeping people they know are innocent in order to avoid having to admit they made a mistake.... oh man now I don't know what to think...

My official stance is that this gitmo situation is something that we definitely need more information on, and in that respect the military is very wrong in denying us access.

Ziggurat

12th June 2006, 07:26 AM

BPSCG

12th June 2006, 07:26 AM

The trouble with that idea is that "The War on Terror" is as all-encompassing, ill-defined and un-winnable as a "war on drugs" a "war on crime" or a "war on poverty." When will the "war on terror" be won? When there isn't a single person left standing who wishes to bring harm to the US or the West? You may as well just admit that the current detainees should remain in detention for the rest of their lives....As you wish. Please note that it was al Qaeda that lauched the initial attacks against the U.S., not vice-versa, and, as such, its fighters are not in much of a position to complain about their treatment, being members of a group that is not a signatory to the Geneva Accords.

There's a story about Union General Benjamin Butler during the American Civil War. A slave had escaped from a Virginia plantation and made his way into the Union lines. His owner went to General Butler and demanded that his property be returned.

Butler responded that he had no authority to deal with the slaveowner's claim; it was his misfortune, Butler remarked, to be taken at his word when he claimed to be the citizen of a foreign country. Now, if the slaveowner wanted to acknowledge that he was a citizen of the United States, not the Confederate States...

The POWs at Guantanamo are in a similar situation. By not being a signatory to the Geneva Accords, they are proclaiming, "The rules of war do not apply to us." It is their misfortune that the United States government is taking them at their word.

ImaginalDisc

12th June 2006, 07:35 AM

As you wish. Please note that it was al Qaeda that lauched the initial attacks against the U.S., not vice-versa, and, as such, its fighters are not in much of a position to complain about their treatment, being members of a group that is not a signatory to the Geneva Accords.

It is up to the U.S. military to show a link between the prisoners and al Qaeda. While legally subject to military justice, you can certainly understand that many people object to the possibility that there are inmates at gitmo who not even charged with a crime.

Elind

12th June 2006, 07:59 AM

The American lawyer for Australian inmate David Hicks, who has been held at Guantanamo for four-and-a-half years and is in isolation, said solitary confinement may have been a factor in the men's deaths.
The lawyer, Major Michael Mori, said Hicks had spent long periods in solitary and was in poor health.
The Defence Department said one of the men who committed suicide had ties to al-Qaeda, another fought for the Taliban and a third was cleared to be transferred, the Defence Department alleges.

What we believe depends on what we read, or how much we read, I suppose.

As I understand it the only ones in real solitary are the same as those in US prisons, who try to harm themselves or anyone who comes near them.

The others can communicate regularly, obviously, they have written communications with their homes and visits from the Red Cross and their own country from time to time.

The third as you misrepresent above was not "cleared" according the news I read. He was to be transfered to his country with no guarantee of freedom there, and he would most probably have known that this was pending before trying to make his last piece of propaganda.

Ziggurat

12th June 2006, 08:02 AM

If the captured men are al-qaeda terrorists, and there is evidence to support the claim, then they should be prosecuted under American law. US law is capable of prosecuting those who plan to harm the nation - and so it should be used :)

That standard has never been applied to war before. Why does it need to be applied now?

Japanese and German soldiers who were captured during WWII were not, as a rule, charged with any crimes. About the only ones where were tried were those who committed war crimes, and who were tried in order to execute them rather than just hold them prisoner. I see no reason why any prosecution is necessary for detainment of enemy soldiers, because that's never been a requirement in the past.

FreeChile

12th June 2006, 08:03 AM

lol no, I am sure it is pretty rough.

But my point is that I don't see why anyone, even the idiots that make up the military, would keep someone for 3 years if they didn't get any evidence from them the entire time that they were guilty.

Actually, I take that back, because I can easily see the jerks in the military keeping people they know are innocent in order to avoid having to admit they made a mistake.... oh man now I don't know what to think...
Isn't it also possible that someone who has been wrongfully detained for months would become embittered and seek revenge against the US afterwards? Or seek millions in restitution? Or seek that those who detained him pay for their crimes? And imagine all that in the midst of what is percieved to be a war.

Elind

12th June 2006, 08:03 AM

My official stance is that this gitmo situation is something that we definitely need more information on, and in that respect the military is very wrong in denying us access.

And what access would you want? Full access to all interrogations, cross referenced of course, statements from the soldiers in the field at time of capture, from guards during incarceration? Run your own trial in your own time at everyones expense.

Or perhaps you would be happy with the bleeding heart approach?:rolleyes:

Just interview all the prisoners. Take anything they say at face value, and get Amnesty to put it in an international report?

ImaginalDisc

12th June 2006, 08:04 AM

That standard has never been applied to war before. Why does it need to be applied now?

Japanese and German soldiers who were captured during WWII were not, as a rule, charged with any crimes. About the only ones where were tried were those who committed war crimes, and who were tried in order to execute them rather than just hold them prisoner. I see no reason why any prosecution is necessary for detainment of enemy soldiers, because that's never been a requirement in the past.
Japanese and German soldiers, taken prisoner in uniform, were unambiguously part of the Japanese and German miltiary. As the current forces facing the United States frequently hide amoung the general population, and the military proactively takes prisoner suspected terrorists, it behooves the military to ensure that those people taken prisoner do in fact, have links to the forces fighting us.

andyandy

12th June 2006, 08:05 AM

That standard has never been applied to war before. Why does it need to be applied now?

Japanese and German soldiers who were captured during WWII were not, as a rule, charged with any crimes. About the only ones where were tried were those who committed war crimes, and who were tried in order to execute them rather than just hold them prisoner. I see no reason why any prosecution is necessary for detainment of enemy soldiers, because that's never been a requirement in the past.

you know your argument's in trouble when you have to give examples from the Nazis and the Japanese treatment of prisoners in WWII.......:)

Elind

12th June 2006, 08:05 AM

Isn't it also possible that someone who has been wrongfully detained for months would become embittered and seek revenge against the US afterwards? Or seek millions in restitution? Or seek that those who detained him pay for their crimes? And imagine all that in the midst of what is percieved to be a war.

Do you think that there is anyone who doesn't claim wrongful detention? Well maybe a few mach diehards admit it all, including being tortured of course. I understand that the majority of common criminals in jail also claim to be innocent.

daredelvis

12th June 2006, 08:08 AM

You (and others) talk about them like they should be treated as common criminals, with all the due process rights accorded to common criminals.

That is not what they are. They are being treated as POWs. Once you've been captured as a POW, you stay a POW until the war is over. They should be happy with that status, because as "unlawful combatants," and as part of an organization that does not subscribe to the Geneva Conventions, their fates could justifiably have been far worse.

Congress has passed a formal declaration of war? I must have missed that.

Not the issue. The whole Gitmo affair flies in the face of what many think the U.S. stands for, me included. I believe (and “believe” is all one can do with the information released by the government about these prisoners) that many of these people should be locked up. I am also concerned that many of these prisoners were handed over for very large cash rewards.

If the government has evidence of guilt it is time to come out with it and hold trials. The terrorist set out to destroy America, and in a way they are succeeding.

Daredelvis

Also, much is said about “unlawful combatants”. Again, I am not defending the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, but what uniform would you put on if a foreign country invaded?

BPSCG

12th June 2006, 08:09 AM

you know your argument's in trouble when you have to give examples from the Nazis and the Japanese treatment of prisoners in WWII.......:)andyandy, I think you need to go back and re-read the post you were replying to, then try to figure out if your reply makes any sense.

FreeChile

12th June 2006, 08:21 AM

Maybe not. Maybe it'll end when the structures that prop it up collapse, and maybe confronting it aggressively will hasten that day.Maybe, maybe, maybe ... Why so much uncertainty on your part?

andyandy

12th June 2006, 08:27 AM

andyandy, I think you need to go back and re-read the post you were replying to, then try to figure out if your reply makes any sense.

ooops....

no it doesn't.....

guess i should read posts a little slower :D

Deus Ex Machina

12th June 2006, 09:11 AM

We don't even know if they were guilty of anything, as there has been no trial.

well they were certainly guilty of being extremely stupid.

Deus Ex Machina

12th June 2006, 09:15 AM

lol no, I am sure it is pretty rough.

But my point is that I don't see why anyone, even the idiots that make up the military, would keep someone for 3 years if they didn't get any evidence from them the entire time that they were guilty.

probably to exploit idiots like you.

Actually, I take that back, because I can easily see the jerks in the military keeping people they know are innocent in order to avoid having to admit they made a mistake.... oh man now I don't know what to think...

Probably because the jerks who think the military are inept have a hard time thinking, period.

My official stance is that this gitmo situation is something that we definitely need more information on, and in that respect the military is very wrong in denying us access.

Why do you need access? How much access do you have to your local state and federal penitentiaries? how many have you visited?

Deus Ex Machina

12th June 2006, 09:25 AM

I thought innocent til proven guilty was a major tennant of the western democratic system.....[quote]

not be pedantic (being myself a maestro of the typo) the word is tenet, not tennant.

[quote]
If they weren't innocent why were they released?

Ther were deemed to not be a threat. Far from the word "innocent".

If the US had any evidence against them, then why weren't they tried?

Are you serious or merely misguided? People taken under arms or on battlefields without uniforms should be tried like they were robbing a bank or something?

That they didn't just get shot out of hand - which would not be a violation of the Geneva accords - says volumes (of good) about the US and its military. that they have been fed and quartered and even allowed outside verification of their conditions says even more.

This is not a civilian/police environment. Its a war.

What evidence do you have for "Many of those released were not innocent"?

probably about as much as you have evidence they were.

There seems to have been a very small number who have been released incorrectly. Does this mean it is acceptable to operate a drag net policy under which innocent people are incorrectly detained?

Its not a "dragnet" policy. When wars happen and people get rounded up its called "stopping them shooting at you". Now granted it is possible that one of the people rounded up on the battlefield was, in fact, just popping down to the local store for a bottle of camel's milk from the Afghan equivalent of a 7-11.

The ones that hanged themselves were from Saudi Arabia - captured in Afghanistan. Hmm. Guess they must have taken the wrong turn for Disney World and distraught at missing Mickey and Minnie have now hanged themselves.

Ziggurat

12th June 2006, 09:31 AM

Japanese and German soldiers, taken prisoner in uniform, were unambiguously part of the Japanese and German miltiary. As the current forces facing the United States frequently hide amoung the general population, and the military proactively takes prisoner suspected terrorists, it behooves the military to ensure that those people taken prisoner do in fact, have links to the forces fighting us.

You point to a genuine and substantive issue. There's a balancing act that has to take place: on the one hand, it's not good to hold innocent people, but on the other hand, not only is it bad to let the guilty go, but it's ALSO bad to spend a lot of resources processing the guilty. And the terrorists know that: they know that they do us harm even by tying up cases in courts, they know it costs us a whole lot of money, and they try to do that as much as possible. Opponents of Guantanamo have been focused almost solely on the problem of holding innocents. But what about the latter problems? What happens when you willingly provide the enemy with a reward for creating exactly this sort of confusion? The enemy will create more of this sort of confusion. Encourage bad behavior, and you get more of it. And that behavior endangers innocent civilians just as much as overzealous prosecutions, if not moreso, since hiding among civilians gets those civilians killed. Even on the basis of concern for innocents abroad (and not the risk or cost to ourselves), it isn't clear that maximum possible diligence to the rights of prisoners actually provides the most protection.

So, how exactly should we balance this? That's a legitimate question, and there simply are no easy answers. But pretending like only one of those problems exists is a pretty sure-fire way to arrive at the wrong answer.

FreeChile

12th June 2006, 09:33 AM

Do you think that there is anyone who doesn't claim wrongful detention? Well maybe a few mach diehards admit it all, including being tortured of course. I understand that the majority of common criminals in jail also claim to be innocent.
I don’t see how this is connected to the statements I made. Can you please clarify?

In any case, let’s reverse your comments to see if you make any sense. Do you think that any military personnel would admit to torturing detainees or mistreating them?

Ziggurat

12th June 2006, 09:40 AM

In any case, let’s reverse your comments to see if you make any sense. Do you think that any military personnel would admit to torturing detainees or mistreating them?

Not the relevant comparison. Rather, do you think that any military personnel would file complaints if other personnel were torturing or mistreating detainees?

I don't know what you think, but military personnel would complain when other personnel engage in such activity. How do I know? Because it's already happened.

Belz...

12th June 2006, 09:48 AM

What a convenient non-argument. It's wonderful how you can just dismiss something by calling it a "technicality", as if that label alone makes something irrelevant. I should try that myself. Get caught speeding by the police? But officer, being 30 mph over the limit is just a technicality. Shoplift something? Oh, it's just a technicality that I didn't pay for it before leaving the store. Didn't make my rent payment on time? I'm sure my landlord will understand that's just a technicality.

If you have an argument to make, make it. Otherwise, spare us the useless commentary.

Hit a nerve ?

You're claiming that those prisoners exist in some form of legal limbo that would allow the US to do whatever the hell they wanted with them. I'm not sure such a limbo exists. If they're POWs are some suggest, then they should be protected by the geneva convention, which, I hope, include the right to a fair trial or something. If they aren't, then they should be tried by a conventional court. Either way, they should have rights.

If I'm wrong, and the middle ground exists, then someone should make sure it CEASES to exist. Everyone has rights. I do believe that's one of the basic principles of western civilisation.

Belz...

12th June 2006, 09:53 AM

You point to a genuine and substantive issue. There's a balancing act that has to take place: on the one hand, it's not good to hold innocent people, but on the other hand, not only is it bad to let the guilty go, but it's ALSO bad to spend a lot of resources processing the guilty. And the terrorists know that: they know that they do us harm even by tying up cases in courts, they know it costs us a whole lot of money, and they try to do that as much as possible. Opponents of Guantanamo have been focused almost solely on the problem of holding innocents. But what about the latter problems? What happens when you willingly provide the enemy with a reward for creating exactly this sort of confusion? The enemy will create more of this sort of confusion. Encourage bad behavior, and you get more of it. And that behavior endangers innocent civilians just as much as overzealous prosecutions, if not moreso, since hiding among civilians gets those civilians killed. Even on the basis of concern for innocents abroad (and not the risk or cost to ourselves), it isn't clear that maximum possible diligence to the rights of prisoners actually provides the most protection.

So, how exactly should we balance this? That's a legitimate question, and there simply are no easy answers. But pretending like only one of those problems exists is a pretty sure-fire way to arrive at the wrong answer.

That, however, I can agree with.

Ziggurat

12th June 2006, 10:23 AM

You're claiming that those prisoners exist in some form of legal limbo that would allow the US to do whatever the hell they wanted with them.

Not quite. My claim is that we have no treaty obligations that specify how we must treat them. But then, we don't have treaty obligations for how we treat most ordinary criminals either.

If they're POWs are some suggest, then they should be protected by the geneva convention, which, I hope, include the right to a fair trial or something.

But there is no such requirement in the Geneva conventions, as I keep pointing out. POW's are not tried for any crimes: they are simply held prisoner. That right does not exist, and has never existed.

If they aren't, then they should be tried by a conventional court. Either way, they should have rights.

That doesn't necessarily follow. I agree that they should have SOME rights, I just disagree that they should have more rights than POW's, or even the same rights. And since POW's are NOT entitled to trials, I see no reason to entitle these prisoners to such trials either.

Skeptic

12th June 2006, 10:34 AM

They killed themselves as an act of warfare?

Take that USA! It'll be awhile before you recover from this devastating blow to freedom!

Between this "People's front of Judea suicide squad" and Al-Quaeda having a formal meeting to discuss if to continue the Jihad (they voted yes), the conflict is beginning to have rather significant "Life of Brian" overtones.

DaChew

12th June 2006, 10:39 AM

The Pentagon identified the three as Saudi Arabians Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi al-Utaybi, 30, and Yassar Talal al-Zharani, 22, and Ali Abdullah Ahmed of Yemen, who was 29 or 30.

I'm just wondering if any of them DID think that they were going to be returned back to their original countries. I would imagine they would not have lived long after being returned to Saudi Arabia or Yemen. In fact, it's likely they'd have been beheaded which is a very unpleasant and dishonorable way to die I'm lead to believe (Nick Berg, Danny Perle etc.).

Perhaps they felt this was their last, best chance to do any sort of damage to the U.S.. Then try and make their case for virgins in the afterlife on the premise that their actions did harm the infidels. You know, try and cut a deal. I figure they could start with a full demand for the 72 then let Allah zionist them down to like 45 or something.

DaChew

12th June 2006, 10:41 AM

Between this "People's front of Judea suicide squad" and Al-Quaeda having a formal meeting to discuss if to continue the Jihad (they voted yes), the conflict is beginning to have rather significant "Life of Brian" overtones.

Let me guess: Arlen Specter voted "Not Proven".

Mycroft

12th June 2006, 10:57 AM

The trouble with fighting communism is that "The Cold War" is as all-encompassing, ill-defined and un-winnable as a "war on drugs" a "war on crime" or a "war on poverty." When will the "Cold War" be won? When there isn't a single person left standing who subscribes to communist ideology?

Maybe not. Maybe it'll end when the structures that prop it up collapse, and maybe confronting it aggressively will hasten that day.

Most likely when Saudi Arabia is under new management.

Mycroft

12th June 2006, 10:59 AM

It is up to the U.S. military to show a link between the prisoners and al Qaeda...

Unless there were some reason to classify that information. Military justice is not the same as civilian justice, nor should it be.

ImaginalDisc

12th June 2006, 11:10 AM

Unless there were some reason to classify that information. Military justice is not the same as civilian justice, nor should it be.
They can be tried in military court by officers cleared to review such classified information.

Elind

12th June 2006, 11:11 AM

I don’t see how this is connected to the statements I made. Can you please clarify?

I guess that may be true. You are repeating the common suggestion that all or most of the detainees are innocent and that only those with big gentle souls like you are capable of determining the truth and that you think all military people are sadistic nazis. What can I say?

In any case, let’s reverse your comments to see if you make any sense. Do you think that any military personnel would admit to torturing detainees or mistreating them?

There have been some who admitted that when they were reported, but that is obviously an aberration in the mind of the gentle folk like you. I presume you are one of those who think that shouting and other psychological techniques of interrogation are torture. I even heard one interview with a released detainee who said the food was bad. No doubt there are many children in this country being tortured by having to eat cafeteria food.

I think you are a wimp who couldn't fight yourself out of a wet paper bag.

Mycroft

12th June 2006, 11:34 AM

They can be tried in military court by officers cleared to review such classified information.

And you know they're not how...?

ImaginalDisc

12th June 2006, 11:57 AM

And you know they're not how...?

The miltiary has no issued any statements indicating that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion. I cannot merely assume it is being done in the absence of any indication thereof by the military, or independant verification from other sources.

DaChew

12th June 2006, 12:12 PM

The miltiary has no issued any statements indicating that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion. I cannot merely assume it is being done in the absence of any indication thereof by the military, or independant verification from other sources.

None? None whatsoever?
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2006/Feb/10-165879.html

ImaginalDisc

12th June 2006, 01:26 PM

None? None whatsoever?
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2006/Feb/10-165879.html
There are many more than seven detainees. That does not asuage my worry that the prisoners are being treated in an inhumane manner.

Elind

12th June 2006, 03:21 PM

There are many more than seven detainees. That does not asuage my worry that the prisoners are being treated in an inhumane manner.

Inhumane
adj : lacking and reflecting lack of pity or compassion;

Your pity and compassion makes you feel real good about yourself, I suppose.:boggled:

ImaginalDisc

12th June 2006, 03:32 PM

Inhumane
adj : lacking and reflecting lack of pity or compassion;

Your pity and compassion makes you feel real good about yourself, I suppose.:boggled:

What does that have to do with the subject at hand?

Elind

12th June 2006, 03:40 PM

What does that have to do with the subject at hand?

You have to question that??
You used the emotive word inhumane. You tell us why you have pity and compassion for our enemies who show none, even for their own? Is inhumane one of your code words for torture perhaps? Happy happy prisoners is what want. Love them and they will love us. ?? Am I close?

ImaginalDisc

12th June 2006, 04:41 PM

You have to question that??
You used the emotive word inhumane. You tell us why you have pity and compassion for our enemies who show none, even for their own? Is inhumane one of your code words for torture perhaps? Happy happy prisoners is what want. Love them and they will love us. ?? Am I close?
I'll use small words so you understand.

Some of them may not be the bad guys. Until they are put on trial we don't know.

Elind

12th June 2006, 04:49 PM

I'll use small words so you understand.

Some of them may not be the bad guys. Until they are put on trial we don't know.

We know plenty, but the information doesn't come from your comfort zone so it must be lies. No doubt you think OJ is a good guy too.

The Painter

12th June 2006, 05:11 PM

Zep

12th June 2006, 05:24 PM

These terrorists are not backed by any one country. So it’s difficult to blame one. A while ago there were problems with pirates. Pirates were not beholden to any country. I say we treat terrorists, like pirates. According to international law, it’s basically; hang them where you find them.Let's just say I found where you lived and pointed you out to the appropriate US authorities and said to them, "Look! He's Al Quaeda! GET HIM!" Would you be likely to object at all if they strung you up to the nearest telephone pole without a by-your-leave?

C'mon. Let's be civilised, hmmm?

Zep

12th June 2006, 05:32 PM

The POWs at Guantanamo are in a similar situation. By not being a signatory to the Geneva Accords, they are proclaiming, "The rules of war do not apply to us." It is their misfortune that the United States government is taking them at their word.Then they are NOT POWs, they are plain old criminals. So the US military should not be detaining them, nor should they be instituting military trials.

So put them in US jails, and charge them under international or even internal US civil laws with treason, sedition, felony, robbery, buggery, avoiding customs, or the murder of Rasputin - whatever - but get the heck on with it and quickly.

ETA: Also, them just saying "the rules of war don't apply to us" is no particular reason why the US does not have to either. In Vietnam, the rules of war prevented the US from various acts of engagement which they complied with, even though the enemy didn't follow them. Why do you have to get down in the gutter with them?

a_unique_person

12th June 2006, 05:46 PM

Elind

12th June 2006, 05:47 PM

Elind

12th June 2006, 05:48 PM

And how do you know they are our enemies?
Because my brothers said they were trying to kill them:boggled:

ImaginalDisc

12th June 2006, 06:13 PM

We know plenty, but the information doesn't come from your comfort zone so it must be lies. No doubt you think OJ is a good guy too.
Are you finished with the absurdities? Read what I said about a trial.

Elind

12th June 2006, 06:15 PM

Then they are NOT POWs, they are plain old criminals. So the US military should not be detaining them, nor should they be instituting military trials.

So put them in US jails, and charge them under international or even internal US civil laws with treason, sedition, felony, robbery, buggery, avoiding customs, or the murder of Rasputin - whatever - but get the heck on with it and quickly.

I think the point that some, including me, are trying to make is that we live in a real world, not one of fixed immutable definitions that we have no control over or ability to change.

POW definitions were created to add some basis of commonality between nations armies even while they tried their damndest to kill each other. The US claims it applies most of those principles to terrorist prisoners, even though they are obviously not POWs in the original sense.

You talk of possible innocence of some. It's conceivable, but just as likely as some POW in WWII saying he just put on the uniform of a dead soldier because his clothes were torn, and somebody just asked him to hold the grenades for a while, and could he please go home now?

If any were innocent they will have been among the many already released, but from what I have heard of some of them, I doubt it.

However your biggest mistake, that you do repeat often along with many others, is that they are "plain old" criminals if not POWs. Why is it so impossible for you to accept that times have changed somewhat? Are you too young or too old?

As I've said many times, we have ample proof that our criminal justice system cannot deal with such cases well, to a large extent because it cannot, and should not, have access to all the information that the criminal justice system says should be available to the defense. Additionally, I doubt very much that those who plead for pity and compassion for our enemies (alleged) would believe any US military person testifying to anything that didn't fit their mindset.

If a policeman says he saw the guy shoot, that pretty much guarantees a conviction in civilian court unless the defense can find something very very clearly says that is a lie.

In these cases I suspect you would dismiss any statement by the military witnesses as unreliable and perhaps biased. What's more, I suspect you would give more weight to the thousands who would volunteer to swear on the Koran that so and so had nothing to do with terrorism and just happened to be taking some sheep to market that day; and they beat him for "no reason" (I see that a lot in print) just like they did with AZ, and they saw it all from just a few miles away with their telescopes.

:confused:

Arghh. I'm going to talk about religion for a while. So much harder to understand some stuff over there.

Elind

12th June 2006, 06:18 PM

Are you finished with the absurdities? Read what I said about a trial.

I did. Never mind. Moving on.

BPSCG

12th June 2006, 06:27 PM

Then they are NOT POWs, they are plain old criminals.Um, you hold up a liquor store, that makes you a criminal.
You shoot at U.S. soldiers on a battlefield, that makes you a POW (or a corpse).
ETA: Also, them just saying "the rules of war don't apply to us" is no particular reason why the US does not have to either. You're right. It means we can pick and choose whatever standards we deem appropriate, without regard to whether they are covered under the Geneva Accords. That's because the enemy has already told us, "We don't want to be subject to the rules and protections of the Geneva Accords." Just giving them what they want.

Mycroft

12th June 2006, 06:56 PM

The miltiary has no issued any statements indicating that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion. I cannot merely assume it is being done in the absence of any indication thereof by the military, or independant verification from other sources.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/01/gitmo-tribunal-proceedings-resume-amid.php

Or maybe you just haven't looked.

Edited to add: How are the prisoners released if not after a review of a military tribunal?

ImaginalDisc

12th June 2006, 07:01 PM

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/01/gitmo-tribunal-proceedings-resume-amid.php

Or maybe you just haven't looked.

Edited to add: How are the prisoners released if not after a review of a military tribunal?
From the aricle off that link

[JURIST] US military commission proceedings against two of a handful of charged prisoners at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive], originally scheduled to restart Tuesday, have been pushed back to Wednesday in recognition of the the Feast of the Sacrifice, a Muslim holy day.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/01/guantanamo-military-commission.php
Wow, a handful, really making progress there with the wheels of justice.

Mycroft

12th June 2006, 07:03 PM

Let's just say I found where you lived and pointed you out to the appropriate US authorities and said to them, "Look! He's Al Quaeda! GET HIM!" Would you be likely to object at all if they strung you up to the nearest telephone pole without a by-your-leave?

C'mon. Let's be civilised, hmmm?

This is absurd. One can imagine all kinds of scenarios where bad and unfair things happen to us, but what does it prove?

Suppose you were accused of a crime you didn't commit and were sentenced to jail? How would you like that!!! Are you now in favor of scrapping our entire criminal justice system merely because we can’t guarantee that no innocent man will ever be falsely convicted?

Of course not.

Then they are NOT POWs, they are plain old criminals.

That's an assertion without evidence, and one I strongly disagree with.

a_unique_person

12th June 2006, 07:03 PM

Because my brothers said they were trying to kill them:boggled:

But that is not the case. Some are there after being handed in for rewards, for example.

Mycroft

12th June 2006, 07:07 PM

But that is not the case. Some are there after being handed in for rewards, for example.

Show us your evidence that this happens.

Do you honestly think the US military doesn't take reasonable precautions -if for no other reason than to conserve valuable prison space for real terrorists- to avoid that?

rjh01

12th June 2006, 07:22 PM

It has been four years since some of them have been put in the place. Only a handful have even been charged with anything. The rest are being held indefinitely without even knowing when they will be charged, and how long they will be held for.

Yes some of them will be guilty of serious crimes. Others are guilty of only a minor offence. Others are guilty of being stupid. Others are innocent. But it takes an independent review to work out which ones are guilty or otherwise. AND IN NO CASE HAS THIS HAPPENED. This includes the three people who hanged themselves. I do not care what type of independent review it is. It needs to happen and it is way overdue.

daredelvis

12th June 2006, 07:36 PM

Um, you hold up a liquor store, that makes you a criminal.
You shoot at U.S. soldiers on a battlefield, that makes you a POW (or a corpse).

You know or believe that all of the inmates are guilty of that?

Daredelvis

Elind

12th June 2006, 07:49 PM

But that is not the case. Some are there after being handed in for rewards, for example.

I strongly support the principle of rewards for wanted blokes, or gals for that matter.

Elind

12th June 2006, 07:56 PM

You know or believe that all of the inmates are guilty of that?

Daredelvis

It's funny how people trying to have a rational conversation about important issues are always posed the question of the posssible mistake of whatever kind that supposedly invalidates the entire issue.

I remember once telling a kid, an Arab actually, to stop shooting the birds on my street with slignshots (something I once had done myself until I realized one day how pitiful it was). His answer was that there are people being killed every day, what does it matter? I told him to go away, I didn't have a smart answer. That's how I feel here sometimes.

Elind

12th June 2006, 08:00 PM

Zep

12th June 2006, 08:02 PM

This is absurd. One can imagine all kinds of scenarios where bad and unfair things happen to us, but what does it prove? Of course it is absurd! So I'm glad to see you are getting the the point. It's quite absurd that people can be accused of crimes, snatched from another country by force, and imprisoned in close confinement another for years or even indefinitely without trial on the unfounded say-so of some unknown accusers, or even just for reward! But this is exactly what has happened with Gitmo, OK?

Suppose you were accused of a crime you didn't commit and were sentenced to jail? How would you like that!!! Are you now in favor of scrapping our entire criminal justice system merely because we can’t guarantee that no innocent man will ever be falsely convicted?

Of course not. No, quite the opposite. I'm urging you to ensure that that very process you espouse, a fair criminal justice system including a prompt trial, be enacted immediately if not sooner for the Gitmo prisoners. And to be seen to be doing so. Do you not agree this is desirable?

Elind

12th June 2006, 08:02 PM

You're right. It means we can pick and choose whatever standards we deem appropriate, without regard to whether they are covered under the Geneva Accords. That's because the enemy has already told us, "We don't want to be subject to the rules and protections of the Geneva Accords." Just giving them what they want.
Well, in truth we don't do it because they told us, we do it because it's the only method that make sense, except to.....

Elind

12th June 2006, 08:04 PM

I'm urging you to ensure that that very process you espouse, a fair criminal justice system including a prompt trial, be enacted immediately if not sooner for the Gitmo prisoners. And to be seen to be doing so. Do you not agree this is desirable?

No. I gave reasons I believe are reasonable. Please tell me, specifically where I am wrong.

Zep

12th June 2006, 08:10 PM

Tell us some of those facts that you have about innocence, for example, and tell us without further bull exactly why you think our people are holding them just for the hell of it.I don't think anyone is arguing guilt or innocence - we are arguing process. We simply cannot tell if they are guilty or innocent because they have not been tried and don't look like they will be any time soon! It's been four years in some cases now...

If this was YOUR court case, and YOU were languishing in the cells for three or four years without a trial, wouldn't YOU be mighty pissed off if YOU couldn't see one happening any time in the future? Even if you were guilty?

Does the phrase "piss or get off the pot" make it clearer?

Elind

12th June 2006, 08:17 PM

I don't think anyone is arguing guilt or innocence - we are arguing process. We simply cannot tell if they are guilty or innocent because they have not been tried and don't look like they will be any time soon! It's been four years in some cases now...

If this was YOUR court case, and YOU were languishing in the cells for three or four years without a trial, wouldn't YOU be mighty pissed off if YOU couldn't see one happening any time in the future? Even if you were guilty?

Does the phrase "piss or get off the pot" make it clearer?
Not what I call a specific answer to a post that made two of my fingertips sore.

If I was guilty I'd be pissed that I got caught. You seem to think I'd be pissed only because I haven't had my psycho rant day in court so I can recruit more of the believers.

If I was innocent I would be really really sad that I chose that day to herd the goats (goats are more common than sheep. I correct my earlier post), and I would be really mad at all those college educated interrogators who keep asking be about this OBL guy. (By the way, what is college?)

Zep

12th June 2006, 08:18 PM

No. I gave reasons I believe are reasonable. Please tell me, specifically where I am wrong.Even arch-bastard and prolific murderer Stalin used to send zeks to the gulags ASAP with at least a show-trial. You are demonstrating you are not prepared to do even that much.

Doesn't that bother you?

a_unique_person

12th June 2006, 08:18 PM

I strongly support the principle of rewards for wanted blokes, or gals for that matter.

And how do you know that they really are wanted, and not just some taxi driver who has kidnapped?

Mycroft

12th June 2006, 08:21 PM

Of course it is absurd! So I'm glad to see you are getting the the point. It's quite absurd that people can be accused of crimes, snatched from another country by force, and imprisoned in close confinement another for years or even indefinitely without trial on the unfounded say-so of some unknown accusers, or even just for reward! But this is exactly what has happened with Gitmo, OK?

Sometimes rewards are offered in the US too, but the police don't just go and grab whoever is fingered. The mere fact that a reward is given is not evidence that a person was falsley accused.

No, quite the opposite. I'm urging you to ensure that that very process you espouse, a fair criminal justice system including a prompt trial, be enacted immediately if not sooner for the Gitmo prisoners. And to be seen to be doing so. Do you not agree this is desirable?

No. These people are not the same as common criminals. You don’t wage an international war against civilization and then claim constitutional protections.

Zep

12th June 2006, 08:30 PM

If I was guilty I'd be pissed that I got caught. You seem to think I'd be pissed only because I haven't had my psycho rant day in court so I can recruit more of the believers.So? You get a psycho-rant in court. Happens every day - look at Saddam; he's off his tiny trolley, but do you see the crowds gathering to HIS cause much now that he's facing court and having a spray? Because he is being shown up for what he really is - an insane little warlord, guilty of all sorts of horrible crimes.

Oh, btw, HE'S getting his day in court...so what about the rest of them?

If I was innocent I would be really really sad that I chose that day to herd the goats (goats are more common than sheep. I correct my earlier post), and I would be really mad at all those college educated interrogators who keep asking be about this OBL guy. (By the way, what is college?)Yep, let's all stereotype them to subhumanise them. The only good Gitmo prisoner is a dead Afghani goat-herder who didn't speak the language and complained. :rolleyes:

I asked you to consider if it was YOU in their situation - incarcerated without trial for years. Have you a reasoned response?

Zep

12th June 2006, 08:40 PM

Sometimes rewards are offered in the US too, but the police don't just go and grab whoever is fingered. The mere fact that a reward is given is not evidence that a person was falsely accused. Whoopsie. Available evidence contradicts this. Did you read the reference I gave about the two Australian suspects detained in Gitmo? And do you think that is the only case?

Revolutions are the perfect time to have your argumentative neighbour "dealt with". What's another prisoner, another body, when you can get someone else to deal with them for you? And even make untold money out of it? Peh!

No. These people are not the same as common criminals. You don’t wage an international war against civilization and then claim constitutional protections.So you propose abandoning civilisation yourself in order to combat this activity? If you do, what then makes you any better than them? Or any more worthy of enforcing your way on them? Claus asked where "the line" between them and you was - looks like you want to eradicate that line...

They DO have rights, human rights, international rights (much as you might detest them); Gitmo shows you are simply choosing to ignore them.

Like I said before, if they are so goddamned guilty, show the world: Try them, convict them, punish them. Don't do it backwards, like now.

Elind

12th June 2006, 09:30 PM

And how do you know that they really are wanted, and not just some taxi driver who has kidnapped?

And I am to believe that "our" people just kidnap taxi drivers and then spent millions to fly them to Cuba and feed them for 4 years and give them the only medical care they have had all their lives, just for fun?

Elind

12th June 2006, 09:39 PM

I asked you to consider if it was YOU in their situation - incarcerated without trial for years. Have you a reasoned response?

I asked you to comment on a number of very practical and realistic issues.

You have not.

I've been here longer than you, but you have 5 times the number of posts. I'm begining to think you have a competition with your few fellow Aussies for scores and just don't have time to respond with the intellect you pretent to have; just the slogan skills.

We haven't had much exchange the past 4 years (your years) but I'm starting to think it's better for me to revert to dismissing you as an irritant.:mad:

Mycroft

12th June 2006, 09:43 PM

Whoopsie. Available evidence contradicts this. Did you read the reference I gave about the two Australian suspects detained in Gitmo? And do you think that is the only case?

I must have missed your evidence. Please present it again.

Revolutions are the perfect time to have your argumentative neighbour "dealt with". What's another prisoner, another body, when you can get someone else to deal with them for you? And even make untold money out of it? Peh!

Evidence?

So you propose abandoning civilisation yourself in order to combat this activity? If you do, what then makes you any better than them? Or any more worthy of enforcing your way on them?

I think there is some middle ground between abandoning civilization entirely and simply recognizing that these people are something other than common criminals or POWs.

…Claus asked where "the line" between them and you was - looks like you want to eradicate that line...

Straw-man.

They DO have rights, human rights, international rights (much as you might detest them); Gitmo shows you are simply choosing to ignore them.

I’m not willing to assert rights not in evidence.

Like I said before, if they are so goddamned guilty, show the world: Try them, convict them, punish them. Don't do it backwards, like now.

Sure. Unless, possibly, they have more value in other ways.

Zep

12th June 2006, 09:59 PM

And I am to believe that "our" people just kidnap taxi drivers and then spent millions to fly them to Cuba and feed them for 4 years and give them the only medical care they have had all their lives, just for fun?*sigh* Have you read the link gave about the Australian Gitmo detainees? You may be surprised to learn that your incredulity is badly misplaced...

Zep

12th June 2006, 10:01 PM

I asked you to comment on a number of very practical and realistic issues.

You have not.

I've been here longer than you, but you have 5 times the number of posts. I'm begining to think you have a competition with your few fellow Aussies for scores and just don't have time to respond with the intellect you pretent to have; just the slogan skills.

We haven't had much exchange the past 4 years (your years) but I'm starting to think it's better for me to revert to dismissing you as an irritant.:mad:Please yourself. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Or perhaps the view from outside the burning house is just better than that from the inside...

Elind

12th June 2006, 10:21 PM

Please yourself. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Or perhaps the view from outside the burning house is just better than that from the inside...

You could have attempted a debate. You choose not to. Thank you for the enlightenment.

Zep

12th June 2006, 10:23 PM

I must have missed your evidence. Please present it again. Please go find it yourself. It's a thumping big paragraph-sized link. Better still, look up the case of Mamdou Habib.

I think there is some middle ground between abandoning civilization entirely and simply recognizing that these people are something other than common criminals or POWs.I agree. But simply dropping them in a hole and deliberately trying to forget them without even the appearance of due process of any sort is simply not defensible.

I’m not willing to assert rights not in evidence. Last I heard, the US was a member of the United Nations. Now, I'm well aware of the contempt in which you and others hold that organisation, but each member of the UN has agreed to abide by its covenants, namely...The United Nations
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

...

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment.
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html#Article%209

Sure. Unless, possibly, they have more value in other ways.Are we talking Soylent Green here???

ETA; Fix link a bit

Zep

12th June 2006, 10:25 PM

You could have attempted a debate. You choose not to. Thank you for the enlightenment.You could have listened to someone else's pov without telling them they are what they are not, and then deriding them for it.

Mycroft

12th June 2006, 10:57 PM

Please go find it yourself. It's a thumping big paragraph-sized link. Better still, look up the case of Mamdou Habib.

He’s been the topic of discussion on JREF before. He’s not innocent, he’s just inept.

I agree. But simply dropping them in a hole and deliberately trying to forget them without even the appearance of due process of any sort is simply not defensible.

A military tribunal counts as due process.

Last I heard, the US was a member of the United Nations. Now, I'm well aware of the contempt in which you and others hold that organisation, but each member of the UN has agreed to abide by its covenants, namely...
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html#Article%209

”No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.”

Who said these arrests are arbitrary?

”…shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release…”

I believe a military officer qualifies as an other officer authorized by law.

”…Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful…”

Again, I believe a tribunal qualifies as such a court.

I think the issue here isn’t that the law isn’t being followed, but that you don’t like how it’s being followed.

Are we talking Soylent Green here???

I’m sure that’s not Halal. I was thinking intel.

rjh01

12th June 2006, 11:35 PM

For Mycroft. Can you please define promptly as it is used in your post. Use the Guantanamo inmates as an example to illustrate your point.

rjh01

13th June 2006, 12:20 AM

For light relief another BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5074216.stm

The International Committee of the Red Cross is to make a special visit to Guantanamo Bay following the suicides of three detainees over the weekend.

Mycroft

13th June 2006, 12:24 AM

For Mycroft. Can you please define promptly as it is used in your post. Use the Guantanamo inmates as an example to illustrate your point.

Sure. The prisoner is brought promptly before an "other officer authorized by law" before the decision is even made to send him to Gitmo. Once there, ongoing trials can be read about in this website:

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/gitmo/

Zep

13th June 2006, 03:23 AM

Sure. The prisoner is brought promptly before an "other officer authorized by law" before the decision is even made to send him to Gitmo. Once there, ongoing trials can be read about in this website:

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/gitmo/Finish that sentence, please, or be guilty of quoting out of context:
Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.Unless you think four years is "reasonable"??
I think the issue here isn’t that the law isn’t being followed, but that you don’t like how it’s being followed.Almost right - how fast it's being followed as well.

Based on Gitmo, one would certainly be forced to believe that the USA now endorses long-term detention without trial as a matter of government policy. I seem to recall the USA has previously chided other nations for doing exactly that. So sauce for the goose...?

BPSCG

13th June 2006, 05:05 AM

Finish that sentence, please, or be guilty of quoting out of context:

Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. Let's look at the beginning of that sentence, also. These guys are not being held on criminal charges. As such, your cite is completely irrelevant.

Here's a cite that is just as relevant:
'Twas the night before Christmas
And all through the house,
Not a creature was stirring,
Not even a mouse.
Now, if you want to argue that these guys are being held for breaking and entering, or for holding up a liquor store...

DaChew

13th June 2006, 05:37 AM

That does not asuage my worry that the prisoners are being treated in an inhumane manner.

But you, never the less, concede that the military HAS issued statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion? Correct? They HAVE issued statements? Which would be contrary to your claim right?

If you want to claim that the reviews are not happening according to your personal timeline and are not up to your personal standards, that can be dealt with as well. The military HAS issued statements though.

a_unique_person

13th June 2006, 05:57 AM

But you, never the less, concede that the military HAS issued statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion? Correct? They HAVE issued statements? Which would be contrary to your claim right?

They can claim what they want, David Hicks, for one, has been there for about 4 years now, IIRC, with not a trial date in site.

ImaginalDisc

13th June 2006, 06:03 AM

But you, never the less, concede that the military HAS issued statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion? Correct? They HAVE issued statements? Which would be contrary to your claim right?

If you want to claim that the reviews are not happening according to your personal timeline and are not up to your personal standards, that can be dealt with as well. The military HAS issued statements though.
Excuse me, handfuls, picked and chosen few do not represent the majority of the inmates held without charges, and without a trial in sight.

DaChew

13th June 2006, 06:34 AM

They can claim what they want, David Hicks, for one, has been there for about 4 years now, IIRC, with not a trial date in site.

And this has something to do with the claim that the military has NOT issued any statements how?

By the way: Nonsense concerning David Hicks.
First, you'll recall that Australia and the U.S. agreed that military tribunals were the proper way to deal with detainees who were Australian citizens.
Second, you'll also recall that Hicks military trial (among others) was postponed until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the legality of the military tribunals.
Third, You'll again recall that the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding that issue this passed March and a decision is pending.

David Hicks IS being represented in the justice system. That there is a challenge to the legality of the military tribunals is part of the way the wheels of justice turn. That his military trial is not coming about according to your personal timeline is, well, a bummer to be sure.

Further, if you don't actually recall any of the above (which I'm sure you do considering how interested you are in the subject) I invite you to do some homework on the site link I previously provided.

DaChew

13th June 2006, 06:38 AM

Excuse me, handfuls, picked and chosen few do not represent the majority of the inmates held without charges, and without a trial in sight.

You are excused. What does that have to do with your claim that "the military has issued no statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion."

I showed that they have and asked you if you concede that they have which renders your claim that they hadn't false. Again, if you want to claim that the reviews are not happening according to your personal timeline and are not up to your personal standards, that can be dealt with as well. The military HAS issued statements though.

a_unique_person

13th June 2006, 06:39 AM

And this has something to do with the claim that the military has NOT issued any statements how?

By the way: Nonsense concerning David Hicks.
First, you'll recall that Australia and the U.S. agreed that military tribunals were the proper way to deal with detainees who were Australian citizens.
Second, you'll also recall that Hicks military trial (among others) was postponed until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the legality of the military tribunals.
Third, You'll again recall that the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding that issue this passed March and a decision is pending.

David Hicks IS being represented in the justice system. That there is a challenge to the legality of the military tribunals is part of the way the wheels of justice turn. That his military trial is not coming about according to your personal timeline is, well, a bummer to be sure.

Further, if you don't actually recall any of the above (which I'm sure you do considering how interested you are in the subject) I invite you to do some homework on the site link I previously provided.

The reason it is delayed is that the whole process is built on a fraud, that Guantanamo is not US soil and hence not subject to US laws, at which a US military tribunal will carry out a trial that it's own prosecutors disowned.

ImaginalDisc

13th June 2006, 06:47 AM

You are excused. What does that have to do with your claim that "the military has issued no statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion."

I showed that they have and asked you if you concede that they have which renders your claim that they hadn't false. Again, if you want to claim that the reviews are not happening according to your personal timeline and are not up to your personal standards, that can be dealt with as well. The military HAS issued statements though.
My personnal standard? How about standards in line with the USCMJ and the Constitution? In what way is detetaining inmates indefinately, and without charges, just?

DaChew

13th June 2006, 06:49 AM

The reason it is delayed is that the whole process is built on a fraud, that Guantanamo is not US soil and hence not subject to US laws, at which a US military tribunal will carry out a trial that it's own prosecutors disowned.

And this has something to do with the claim that the military has NOT issued any statements how?

The reason it is delayed
Ah, there we go. Now the trials are "delayed".

fraud
Evidence?

Guantanamo is not US soil
Of course it is.

not subject to US laws
The U.S. Supreme Court is not U.S. law?

a_unique_person

13th June 2006, 06:55 AM

And this has something to do with the claim that the military has NOT issued any statements how?

Ah, there we go. Now the trials are "delayed".

Evidence?

Of course it is.

Not according to Bush and Co.

DaChew

13th June 2006, 06:56 AM

My personnal standard? How about standards in line with the USCMJ and the Constitution? In what way is detetaining inmates indefinately, and without charges, just?

Since you continue to evade the question as to whether you concede that "the military HAS issued statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion." rendering your claim false, I'm at a loss as to why I should answer this question.

However, I refer you to the post above in response to AUP as to the current situation regarding the military trials.

a_unique_person

13th June 2006, 06:59 AM

Since you continue to evade the question as to whether you concede that "the military HAS issued statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion." rendering your claim false, I'm at a loss as to why I should answer this question.

However, I refer you to the post above in response to AUP as to the current situation regarding the military trials.

The reason it is delayed is the illegality of the trials. Did you read my previous link, the US's own prosecutors walked out on the process. Justice delayed is justice denied. If they cannot assert the process is legal, they should just acknowledge, as their prosectors did, that it is illegal.

DaChew

13th June 2006, 07:07 AM

The reason it is delayed is the illegality of the trials. Did you read my previous link, the US's own prosecutors walked out on the process. Justice delayed is justice denied. If they cannot assert the process is legal, they should just acknowledge, as their prosectors did, that it is illegal.

The prosecuters don't decide the law. The Supreme Court will decide the issue. As it is in the process of doing right now. As I showed you. Justice is not being delayed. Justice is being acted upon right now. As I showed you.

Who is this "they" that you refer to who should be deciding this legality? Certainly you refer to the U.S. Supreme Court and NOT anyone else. They, of course, have jurisdiction over this matter. Which, as I have shown you, they are working on right now.

Ziggurat

13th June 2006, 07:14 AM

Some of them may not be the bad guys. Until they are put on trial we don't know.

I didn't see anyone address this claim, which I suspect is really at the heart of your complaint, so let me do so.

Is a trial the only way to determine facts? No, it simply is not. In fact, trials aren't even the only way to ensure that the person in question has a chance to defend themselves either. Trials are ONE particular method of doing so, but they are NOT the only method. They are only special because they are constitutionally required for criminal cases, but these aren't criminal cases.

So your complaint really boils down to you being ignorant of what method they DO use to determine the facts surrounding each detainee. Your preference for a particular method is irrelevant, and has no basis in law.

Ziggurat

13th June 2006, 07:16 AM

In what way is detetaining inmates indefinately, and without charges, just?

In what way is it unjust? That is STANDARD treatment for prisoners of war, even under the Geneva conventions. You keep ignoring that point, as if it didn't exist, but it does. And it undermines your entire argument.

DaChew

13th June 2006, 07:28 AM

In what way is it unjust? That is STANDARD treatment for prisoners of war, even under the Geneva conventions. You keep ignoring that point, as if it didn't exist, but it does. And it undermines your entire argument.

Agree. And further, I'm not aware of any time when an enemy combatant was captured from the battlefield and charged with crimes and tried. This idea would be entirely unprecedented. Enemy combatants have always been held until hostilities end or their release negotiated.

Mycroft

13th June 2006, 08:23 AM

Based on Gitmo, one would certainly be forced to believe that the USA now endorses long-term detention without trial as a matter of government policy. I seem to recall the USA has previously chided other nations for doing exactly that. So sauce for the goose...?

Look, I've posted links showing the trials these people are having. Can you lay that to rest now?

Bacchanal

13th June 2006, 10:03 AM

I realize I am somewhat late to the thread, but I believe that new evidence which has surfaced is relevant to the arguments which have been presented here. I do not have enough posts to make links, but copying and pasting the following to the address bar of a browser should suffice: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5070514.stm

The relevant text:

BBC News said:
Mark Denbeaux, who represents some of the foreign detainees said the man [who was one of the three who committed suicide] was among 141 prisoners due to be released.
[...]
The Pentagon named the prisoner who had been recommended for transfer as 30-year-old Saudi Arabian Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi Al-Utaybi.
[...]
"These people are told they'll be 50 by the time they get out, that they have no hope of getting out. They've been denied a hearing, they have no chance to be released," he [Denbeaux] said.
[...]
Utaybi had been declared a "safe person, free to be released" but the US needed a country to send him to, Professor Denbeaux said.

"His despair was great enough and in his ignorance he went and killed himself," he said.

I am quoting these portions selectively only due to relevance, not due to an attempt to mischaracterize the issue nor the intent of the article (and such an attempt would be transparent anyway, as the location of the full text of the article has been provided).

Given the context of this new information, do those in this thread who agree with the position stated by those in the original article (i.e. "This is an act of asymmetrical warfare"), or those who have stated a position of (roughly) "good riddance" still maintain their position? If so, why?

The Painter

13th June 2006, 05:07 PM

Geopolitical Review has noticed an AP story reporting that a Taliban commander who'd been interned at Guantanamo, and then released, returned to Afghanistan where he has been killed in action against Afghan government forces.

We let him go and then he goes right back to the fight.

So much for letting them go.

WildCat

13th June 2006, 05:26 PM

In what way is it unjust? That is STANDARD treatment for prisoners of war, even under the Geneva conventions. You keep ignoring that point, as if it didn't exist, but it does. And it undermines your entire argument.
Indeed, these guys are demanding favorable treatment that lawful combatants in a war aren't able to get.

In my view, the only thing they have a right for a hearing for is whether or not they were combatants in the war. If they are, then in Gitmo they stay until the war is over.

a_unique_person

13th June 2006, 06:52 PM

We let him go and then he goes right back to the fight.

So much for letting them go.

Logical fallacy, hasty generalisation.

Elind

13th June 2006, 07:09 PM

You could have listened to someone else's pov without telling them they are what they are not, and then deriding them for it.

I gave what I thought was an honest and practical analysis of the issue and was open to a critique of those points. Simple. Instead you proceed with the same POV that I was trying to critique in the first place. Perhaps you missed the post?

Elind

13th June 2006, 07:13 PM

We let him go and then he goes right back to the fight.

So much for letting them go.
I believe there has been quite a few more than one killed in action. Statistically that means what? Either they truly were the dumbest of the dumb or statistically speaking there must be another 4 or 5 or 10 for each of the dead ones waiting in the wings.

Of coures some will try to tell us that this is only because they were tortured and before that they just played with consenting sheep and hurt nobody.

mumblethrax

13th June 2006, 07:25 PM

We let him go and then he goes right back to the fight.

So much for letting them go.
Tom suspects that Peter holds him in low regard. So the next time they meet, Tom punches him in the nose.

Peter: Ow! What did you do that for, you jerk?!

Tom: Ah-ha! I knew you didn't like me.

rjh01

14th June 2006, 12:26 AM

Indeed, these guys are demanding favourable treatment that lawful combatants in a war aren't able to get.

In my view, the only thing they have a right for a hearing for is whether or not they were combatants in the war. If they are, then in Gitmo they stay until the war is over.

If they were combatants then they should be classified as POWs. This gives them certain rights. However they have not been given this status. That is part of the problem and one of the reasons why 'The war on terror' will not be won. It is not the fact that it is a hopeless war, it is the fact that it is not being fought correctly.

The only thing that will win the war is if you win the hearts and minds of both sides.

Study history or repeat its mistakes.

Zep

14th June 2006, 01:50 AM

Look, I've posted links showing the trials these people are having. Can you lay that to rest now?O RLY?

The links you posted show that the inmates have either been released for lack of evidence (which invites the question: What shabby evidence put them in there in the first place?), or that their trials are "ongoing". None, as far as I'm aware, have had their trials completed, but I'll gladly accept your evidence that they have.

Please tell me when David Hicks, an Australian citizen, is going to come to trial? He's not a towel-head, he doesn't ride camels, he's Aryan...

He's been in there four years already, and three times his military-appointed legal teams have quit because they realised the trial process was illegal (and they didn't want anything to do with it because it would harm their legal careers, presumably).

Hicks' rap-sheet could match just about every third person in the Middle East these days, but somehow we don't see them in Gitmo, but he gets nabbed. Can we spell "too dumb and too slow to get out of the way"? How about "captive of opportunity"?

Intel of value from Hicks? Don't make me laugh! I probably know more about what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan today than he does, and I'm pretty clueless about it all, apparently! And what intel of value can he offer now anyway, after four years out of the loop? He's a squeezed-dry lemon, surely? So isn't it time to get closure on him, and try and convict him?

The Australian government agreed that Gitmo is OK by them? C'mon! What choice did they have? Do you think Bush would have made any changes in the situation whatsoever on L'il Johnny's behalf? No, I didn't think so either... We have to like it or lump it, so our pollies just have to make the best face of it to their constituents. L'il Johnny's only real ability is to blow with the political wind, so "agreeing" to an inevitable and irrevocable situation is typical of him. It's like agreeing to gravity.

Sorry about this, but this is like being a pestering friend to a smoker who refuses to quit, even though he knows it is bad for him. The excuses just get sillier and sillier...

Zep

14th June 2006, 02:04 AM

Indeed, these guys are demanding favorable treatment that lawful combatants in a war aren't able to get.

In my view, the only thing they have a right for a hearing for is whether or not they were combatants in the war. If they are, then in Gitmo they stay until the war is over.Unfortunately, there are powers greater than you or I who disagree.

Look, if you want to keep them out of the "war" then by all means do so. But do the right thing and make them POWs, then you can stick them in a POW camp in the middle of Nevada or somewhere for as long as you like. Just feed and house them and treat them like proper POWs - not a big ask, surely.

And if there are war criminals among them, there's proper processes for dealing with them too - just go by the book, like they did at Nuremburg. I don't think you will get any objection to that from anyone here.

Is this too hard to understand?

a_unique_person

14th June 2006, 02:34 AM

14th June 2006, 04:02 AM

Even arch-bastard and prolific murderer Stalin used to send zeks to the gulags ASAP with at least a show-trial. You are demonstrating you are not prepared to do even that much.

Actually, a rather large proportion of them did not get even a show trial. Most got an audience with a "troika", a group of three party officials who would read the case documents and assign a sentence based on them. The troika might give the accused a chance to plead his or her case, but that was an exception and not a rule and didn't matter in any case.

Zep

14th June 2006, 04:34 AM

Actually, a rather large proportion of them did not get even a show trial. Most got an audience with a "troika", a group of three party officials who would read the case documents and assign a sentence based on them. The troika might give the accused a chance to plead his or her case, but that was an exception and not a rule and didn't matter in any case.Yep, but it wasn't usually three years plus from arrest to arrival above the Arctic Circle.

BPSCG

14th June 2006, 04:44 AM

Actually, a rather large proportion of them did not get even a show trial. Most got an audience with a "troika", a group of three party officials who would read the case documents and assign a sentence based on them. The troika might give the accused a chance to plead his or her case, but that was an exception and not a rule and didn't matter in any case.

Yep, but it wasn't usually three years plus from arrest to arrival above the Arctic Circle.So you (Zep) are saying that the U.S. justice system at Guantanamo is worse than Stalin, is that it?

Just wanted to check where you were coming from.

Belz...

14th June 2006, 04:50 AM

Not quite. My claim is that we have no treaty obligations that specify how we must treat them. But then, we don't have treaty obligations for how we treat most ordinary criminals either.

But there is no such requirement in the Geneva conventions, as I keep pointing out. POW's are not tried for any crimes: they are simply held prisoner. That right does not exist, and has never existed.

That doesn't necessarily follow. I agree that they should have SOME rights, I just disagree that they should have more rights than POW's, or even the same rights. And since POW's are NOT entitled to trials, I see no reason to entitle these prisoners to such trials either.

I stand corrected, then. Still, I believe everyone, POWs and all, should be entitled to fair trial. Otherwise, something's wrong.

WildCat

14th June 2006, 04:56 AM

Unfortunately, there are powers greater than you or I who disagree.
Really? Please quote the relevant US Supreme Court decision on this.

Look, if you want to keep them out of the "war" then by all means do so. But do the right thing and make them POWs, then you can stick them in a POW camp in the middle of Nevada or somewhere for as long as you like. Just feed and house them and treat them like proper POWs - not a big ask, surely.
And by what definition of POW as put forth in the GC are they entitled to the rights of POW's whoe were lawful combatants?

And if there are war criminals among them, there's proper processes for dealing with them too - just go by the book, like they did at Nuremburg. I don't think you will get any objection to that from anyone here.
Nuremburg isn't happening any more. Just look at the whole milosevic fiasco. And besides, the Gitmo prisoners aren't being held for crimes against humanity, but for crimes against the US.

Is this too hard to understand?
Apparently it is.

WildCat

14th June 2006, 04:57 AM

I stand corrected, then. Still, I believe everyone, POWs and all, should be entitled to fair trial. Otherwise, something's wrong.
Where is it the norm to try POW's for crimes? Isn't this specifically prohibited by the GC and before that by the generally accepted laws of warfare?

rjh01

14th June 2006, 05:14 AM

Really? Please quote the relevant US Supreme Court decision on this.

I think the powers Zep was referring to were the US government.

Nuremberg isn't happening any more. Just look at the whole milosevic fiasco. And besides, the Gitmo prisoners aren't being held for crimes against humanity, but for crimes against the US.

If they are being held for crimes against the US they should be sent to the US and given a trial. The trial should start within a reasonable time. Three years is not a reasonable time.

DaChew

14th June 2006, 05:27 AM

O RLY?

The links you posted show that the inmates have either been released for lack of evidence (which invites the question: What shabby evidence put them in there in the first place?), or that their trials are "ongoing". None, as far as I'm aware, have had their trials completed, but I'll gladly accept your evidence that they have.

Please tell me when David Hicks, an Australian citizen, is going to come to trial? He's not a towel-head, he doesn't ride camels, he's Aryan...

He's been in there four years already, and three times his military-appointed legal teams have quit because they realised the trial process was illegal (and they didn't want anything to do with it because it would harm their legal careers, presumably).

Hicks' rap-sheet could match just about every third person in the Middle East these days, but somehow we don't see them in Gitmo, but he gets nabbed. Can we spell "too dumb and too slow to get out of the way"? How about "captive of opportunity"?

Intel of value from Hicks? Don't make me laugh! I probably know more about what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan today than he does, and I'm pretty clueless about it all, apparently! And what intel of value can he offer now anyway, after four years out of the loop? He's a squeezed-dry lemon, surely? So isn't it time to get closure on him, and try and convict him?

The Australian government agreed that Gitmo is OK by them? C'mon! What choice did they have? Do you think Bush would have made any changes in the situation whatsoever on L'il Johnny's behalf? No, I didn't think so either... We have to like it or lump it, so our pollies just have to make the best face of it to their constituents. L'il Johnny's only real ability is to blow with the political wind, so "agreeing" to an inevitable and irrevocable situation is typical of him. It's like agreeing to gravity.

Sorry about this, but this is like being a pestering friend to a smoker who refuses to quit, even though he knows it is bad for him. The excuses just get sillier and sillier...

As you are well aware, detainees who have been released have undergone a review board process before three military officers and one appointed civilian representative. In the majority of cases the actual reason for their release is not disclosed publicly. They are simply declared of no further strategic use and/or no longer a threat. In about ten percent of the cases the latter, as The Painter has pointed out, turns out to be tragically incorrect. This tells me that detainees have a rather low standard to achieve with regard to proving their "innocence" (note that "innocence" is in quotes. Nobody has been declared innocent)

The disposition of Hicks, as you are also well aware, is currently in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. You can't reasonably challenge the legality of a military tribunal and then complain that your military trial has been delayed too long while your challenge is being adjudicated now can you?

a_unique_person

14th June 2006, 05:31 AM

If they can't assert the legality of their 'court' they should abandon the sham, as your own prosecutors did.

WildCat

14th June 2006, 05:32 AM

I think the powers Zep was referring to were the US government.
But we all know it is the SCOTUS that will have the final say here.

If they are being held for crimes against the US they should be sent to the US and given a trial. The trial should start within a reasonable time. Three years is not a reasonable time.
Where is the precedent for a civilian trial as opposed to a military tribunal?

And 3 years or more is not at all unusual for a trial in the US justice system, especially for a sensitive or serious case.

DaChew

14th June 2006, 05:37 AM

If they are being held for crimes against the US they should be sent to the US and given a trial. The trial should start within a reasonable time. Three years is not a reasonable time.

This may be the problem. They are not being held for crimes against the U.S.. They are being held as enemy combatants. There is no precedent in all of history that I'm aware of in which combatants were captured from the battlefield, charged with crimes and placed on trial. The closest precedent I can find would be the various war crimes trials, Nuremburg et. al., and piracy. These, of course, would not apply to the detainees at Gitmo.

I'd be grateful if you had a reference for any single moment in history when a combatant was captured from the battlefield and tried for crimes.

DaChew

14th June 2006, 05:39 AM

If they can't assert the legality of their 'court' they should abandon the sham, as your own prosecutors did.

Again, I ask you: Who is this "they" that has the power to assert legality over the U.S. Supreme Court?

a_unique_person

14th June 2006, 05:45 AM

The Bush administration set up the whole 'trial' system, and cannot even demonstrate it's legality.

WildCat

14th June 2006, 05:52 AM

The Bush administration set up the whole 'trial' system, and cannot even demonstrate it's legality.
They can't?

eta: A decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld could come as early as this week.

BPSCG

14th June 2006, 05:54 AM

They can't?Not to a_u_p's satisfaction, anyway... :boggled:

DaChew

14th June 2006, 05:55 AM

The Bush administration set up the whole 'trial' system, and cannot even demonstrate it's legality.

Oh well, then you are in a great deal of luck because they have, in fact, offered a demonstration of the legality of the tribunal in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Exactly where they should have. And, as I have explained to you more than once, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently in the process of deciding the legality of those tribunals. This is how our system of justice works.

Certainly you don't have a problem with this system do you?

14th June 2006, 06:14 AM

Yep, but it wasn't usually three years plus from arrest to arrival above the Arctic Circle.

Well, if someone presented me a choice of either waiting for over three years to hear my fate or getting sent to do "general work" in some camp above the Arctic Circle, I think that I would choose the former even if the deal included Gitmo-like conditions.

I wouldn't like it, of course, but then again, being worked to death in six months or less wouldn't be nice, either. [Yes, I know that there were many zeks who managed to survive for years or even decades in "general work" (though most of those who survived long terms managed to get into more comfortable jobs) but I also know that I wouldn't be among them.]

Ziggurat

14th June 2006, 07:43 AM

I stand corrected, then. Still, I believe everyone, POWs and all, should be entitled to fair trial. Otherwise, something's wrong.

Then your complaint isn't really about Guantanamo at all, but about what you consider a fault of the very concept of POW's (including the Geneva conventions). Simply put, no country would agree to providing POW's with such treatment, and that includes not even demanding such treatment of their own soldiers. You are essentially alone in this opinion.

Cylinder

14th June 2006, 09:36 AM

I'd be grateful if you had a reference for any single moment in history when a combatant was captured from the battlefield and tried for crimes.

Sept. 29, 1780. Major John Andre was General Clinton's chief of intelligence. Andre crossed the rebel's line in civilian clothes, negotiated the surrender of West Point with General Arnold and attempted to cross back to British lines at which point he was captured by the New York militia. Gen Washington, upon his authority and CINC, convened a military tribunal which found to be true the facts surrounding Andre's capture. Washington refused Major Andre's request to be shot as a soldier and instead ordered him summarily hung.

BPSCG

14th June 2006, 09:41 AM

Sept. 29, 1780. Major John Andre was General Clinton's chief of intelligence. Andre crossed the rebel's line in civilian clothes, negotiated the surrender of West Point with General Arnold and attempted to cross back to British lines at which point he was captured by the New York militia. Gen Washington, upon his authority and CINC, convened a military tribunal which found to be true the facts surrounding Andre's capture. Washington refused Major Andre's request to be shot as a soldier and instead ordered him summarily hung.Coupla quibbles:

Andre was hanged, not "hung." Okay, maybe he was hung, too, but we'll never know for sure until we see his wife's/mistress's diaries. But when you stretch a guy's neck, the past tense is "hanged."
He was hanged not as a criminal, but as a spy. And that is routinely what happens to spies captured on the battlefield; they get a military tribunal, and if found guilty, are hanged. Happened to Nathan Hale, too, though we 'Murricans hold a better opinion of him than we do of Andre.

Belz...

14th June 2006, 09:42 AM

Where is it the norm to try POW's for crimes? Isn't this specifically prohibited by the GC and before that by the generally accepted laws of warfare?

Prohibited, why ?

If there's a good reason, then sure...

Belz...

14th June 2006, 09:43 AM

Then your complaint isn't really about Guantanamo at all, but about what you consider a fault of the very concept of POW's (including the Geneva conventions). Simply put, no country would agree to providing POW's with such treatment, and that includes not even demanding such treatment of their own soldiers. You are essentially alone in this opinion.

I suppose it WOULD be impractical... but it does provide an interesting loophole, if you can "consider" a prisoner to be a POW...

Mycroft

14th June 2006, 09:52 AM

If they were combatants then they should be classified as POWs. This gives them certain rights. However they have not been given this status. That is part of the problem and one of the reasons why 'The war on terror' will not be won. It is not the fact that it is a hopeless war, it is the fact that it is not being fought correctly.

I don't see a logical connection between giving militants POW status and winning the war on terror. Could you elaborate?

The only thing that will win the war is if you win the hearts and minds of both sides.

Study history or repeat its mistakes.

Can you cite an example from history that has meaning in this situation?

Mycroft

14th June 2006, 10:09 AM

Mycroft

14th June 2006, 10:15 AM

If they can't assert the legality of their 'court' they should abandon the sham, as your own prosecutors did.

They are asserting the legality of their "court", the issue is before the SCOTUS now.

Cylinder

14th June 2006, 02:21 PM

Coupla quibbles:

Andre was hanged, not "hung." Okay, maybe he was hung, too, but we'll never know for sure until we see his wife's/mistress's diaries. But when you stretch a guy's neck, the past tense is "hanged."
He was hanged not as a criminal, but as a spy. And that is routinely what happens to spies captured on the battlefield; they get a military tribunal, and if found guilty, are hanged. Happened to Nathan Hale, too, though we 'Murricans hold a better opinion of him than we do of Andre.

Andre was hanged (thanks for the correction) for violations of the laws of war. On a second read, DaChew may have been asking for examples of civilian charges of which I have none. Sorry if I misread that post.

Cylinder

14th June 2006, 02:38 PM

Prohibited, why ?

If there's a good reason, then sure...

Prisoners of war can be tried for offenses that occurred before or after capture provided that the offense specified would have been a crime for a member of the detaining power at the time of the commission. Trials are required to be held by military tribunal unless at the time of commision, these crimes would have been judged by a civilian court for a member of the detaining power.

Art. 84. A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

Art. 87. Prisoners of war may not be sentenced by the military authorities and courts of the Detaining Power to any penalties except those provided for in respect of members of the armed forces of the said Power who have committed the same acts.

rjh01

15th June 2006, 01:53 AM

Can you cite an example from history that has meaning in this situation?

Try the troubles in Northern Island (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06078/672415-156.stm). It ended? when the people wanted to end it. Not because the British locked up everyone they thought was the enemy.

Not sure how often I will post here. This thread does not appear to be going very far.

a_unique_person

15th June 2006, 02:39 AM

Oh well, then you are in a great deal of luck because they have, in fact, offered a demonstration of the legality of the tribunal in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Exactly where they should have. And, as I have explained to you more than once, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently in the process of deciding the legality of those tribunals. This is how our system of justice works.

Certainly you don't have a problem with this system do you?

Once again, four years, including protracted periods of solitary, demonstrate otherwise. Justice delayed is justice denied. If it take more than four years to demonstrate the legality of a process, (and the judgement still hasn't been given, IIRC), then that is not justice. (With the stacking of the SCOTUS, I am guessing the repeated denials it is just will now change to approval).

So yes, there is a very big problem with this system

As it turns out, all the British prisoners have been released to Britain. David Hicks has a British mother, and has the right to claim British citizenship. All he has to do is swear it to an authorised representative of Britain, and he will be out. Of course, the British consul has been repeatedly denied access to David Hicks to have him perform the process.

Zep

15th June 2006, 02:57 AM

So you (Zep) are saying that the U.S. justice system at Guantanamo is worse than Stalin, is that it?

Just wanted to check where you were coming from.I'm saying that it is being perceived as such. And its conduct w.r.t. procedure and disclosure, and the government attitude to its existence so far, have been reinforcing that perception. Prejudice and loathing feeds heavily on lack of facts.

Zep

15th June 2006, 03:04 AM

Well, if someone presented me a choice of either waiting for over three years to hear my fate or getting sent to do "general work" in some camp above the Arctic Circle, I think that I would choose the former even if the deal included Gitmo-like conditions.

I wouldn't like it, of course, but then again, being worked to death in six months or less wouldn't be nice, either. [Yes, I know that there were many zeks who managed to survive for years or even decades in "general work" (though most of those who survived long terms managed to get into more comfortable jobs) but I also know that I wouldn't be among them.]True, me neither, but I was only using this as a comparison with Gitmo in terms of relative efficiency. Stalinist USSR was able to process millions into "general labour reassignment" in the same time that Gitmo has failed to process what appear to be now only a few dozen remaining inmates.

BPSCG

15th June 2006, 03:14 AM

So you (Zep) are saying that the U.S. justice system at Guantanamo is worse than Stalin, is that it?I'm saying that it is being perceived as such. By whom? You have cites?

BPSCG

15th June 2006, 03:18 AM

True, me neither, but I was only using this as a comparison with Gitmo in terms of relative efficiency. Stalinist USSR was able to process millions into "general labour reassignment" in the same time that Gitmo has failed to process what appear to be now only a few dozen remaining inmates.Yeah, well sorting out the truly dangerous from the non-dangerous and the no-longer-dangerous is a little more time-consuming than just sticking everyone in a cattle car and shipping them to the forced-labor camps.

But if you prefer doing it fast to getting it right, I suppose that could be arranged.

Mycroft

15th June 2006, 03:20 AM

Try the troubles in Northern Island (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06078/672415-156.stm). It ended? when the people wanted to end it. Not because the British locked up everyone they thought was the enemy.

What do you see as the connection between Northern Ireland and the legal issue of Gitmo?

Not sure how often I will post here. This thread does not appear to be going very far.

Well, I hope you answer my question.

Zep

15th June 2006, 03:26 AM

As you are well aware, detainees who have been released have undergone a review board process before three military officers and one appointed civilian representative. In the majority of cases the actual reason for their release is not disclosed publicly. They are simply declared of no further strategic use and/or no longer a threat. In about ten percent of the cases the latter, as The Painter has pointed out, turns out to be tragically incorrect. This tells me that detainees have a rather low standard to achieve with regard to proving their "innocence" (note that "innocence" is in quotes. Nobody has been declared innocent)It's a bit hard to prepare to "gather sufficient evidence of innocence for a legal defence" when you are whisked away by a foreign military to a destination on the other side of the world, bound, possibly tortured, and then kept in close confinement or even isolation, without benefit of access to lawyers, for months. Don't you agee? Others you deride resort to such tactics - must you?

Their innocence or lack thereof is determined at the end of their (yet-to-be-processed) trial, not before it, surely.

The disposition of Hicks, as you are also well aware, is currently in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. You can't reasonably challenge the legality of a military tribunal and then complain that your military trial has been delayed too long while your challenge is being adjudicated now can you?I'm not challenging the legality of the military tribunals per se. In general, I would actually tend to trust their ultimate judgement more than that of a US civil court, if some recent antics in the latter as reported in the news are any guide. I would expect them to be somewhat less likely to indulge in dramatics, rhetoric, and posing as courtroom weapons. But that aside...

My point is I have been urging that these courts convene and try the Gitmo prisoners ASAP, or give up any pretense that even more time is required. How much time is necessary? Justice delayed is justice denied, yes?

However the Supreme Court challenge has focused attention on the gaping holes in either its initial legitimacy, or its conduct, or both. And the announcement from Bush overnight (that he would like to see Gitmo close) is a tacit agreement that an end to Gitmo perhaps should come sooner rather than later. We shall see.

PS. If that happens, I would have no problem with the prisoners being made legit POWs, and subject to appropriate detention. Or legally tried as war-criminals if needs be.

Zep

15th June 2006, 03:44 AM

By whom? You have cites?By ME. Would you like me to cite that for you? It's my opinion.

But then, there's this, from a conservative politician here, in November last year:Let's get real. The case of David Hicks clearly fails the commonsense test. It fails the commonsense test not only in the educated minds of the legal profession, but in the gut feelings of ordinary Australians who believe in a fair go, and who believe that truth and justice and that old hand-me-down from the Magna Carta that says men are innocent until proven guilty, still deserve some currency in our world.

Just like you, just like me, as an Australian, he is entitled to a fair trial without further delay. And, after four years in Guantanamo Bay, if the Americans cannot deliver this to David Hicks, in all fairness, we must ask that he be sent home.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/lets-bring-david-hicks-home/2005/11/11/1131578231210.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Or some of our top legal profession? 3 June 2006, The Australian:Former Federal Court judge Ron Merkel and former NSW Liberal attorney-general and Supreme Court judge John Dowd are among the 76 signatories on an open letter to the Prime Minister arguing that Hicks - who remains in indefinite US detention in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - is being held illegally and deserves a fair trial.

"Whether or not David Hicks is in fact guilty or innocent is not the issue. The illegality lies in the process of indefinite detention and unfair trial by military commission," the lawyers say.

They argue that the federal Government is complicit with the US in breaking international law and "undermining international legal order", and urge Mr Howard to act or lose the war against terrorism.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19345934-2702,00.html

Think this is new? Some considered lawyers' opinions, from August 2003 The status of David Hicks and the others detained at Guantanamo Bay is not known. Justice Mark Weinberg wrote: "The Geneva Convention requires that a competent tribunal be convened to determine POW status of the captured during a military conflict. That requirement has not been met."

Under the rules laid down by Bush's Military Order and Rumsfeld's Rules the process of Hicks' trial will not be fair. The US is reverting to processes that have been discredited for over 150 years.
http://www.lra.org.au/media_releases/hicks.htm

And so on.

This, from your strongest ally in this exercise...

Zep

15th June 2006, 03:51 AM

Yeah, well sorting out the truly dangerous from the non-dangerous and the no-longer-dangerous is a little more time-consuming than just sticking everyone in a cattle car and shipping them to the forced-labor camps.

But if you prefer doing it fast to getting it right, I suppose that could be arranged.You've had four frikken' years! Perhaps you can tell me how much MORE time is necessary? What excuse to delay can you agree to next? Bad star signs?

Lothian

15th June 2006, 04:13 AM

One day, the majority of American’s and then their government will understand that the unlawful detention and torture they are currently engaged in fuels the war on terror as opposed to bringing it to a quicker end.

rjh01

15th June 2006, 04:45 AM

[quote=Mycroft;1705411]What do you see as the connection between Northern Ireland and the legal issue of Gitmo?

The enemy in Northern Ireland were terrorists (just ask the British Government). Just like the people you are trying to fight now. Of course some of these terrorists were captured. They were not sent to Cuba or some other remote place. They were sent to England or left in Ireland. They had a CIVIL trial and then had a prison sentence.

Now compare that to your 'war on terror'. The people who are captured are sent to a remote place outside of the law. Some were released eg the British not because they are innocent but because they are British or certain other nationalities. The rest are left to rot while the US Government tries to work out a system to bring them to Justice.

One thing is similar in both cases the terrorists are not given POW status. In the British system they were common criminals. And treated as such. If the US said they are common criminals and treated them as such then there would be no problem. They would be brought back to the US to face Justice. No exceptions. Yet none have been. In the US system they have a unique status. Yet I have just given one of many examples of where the enemy were terrorists.

Looks like I have just shown how inferior the US system is compared to the British System.

I have given one of my longest posts here. Hope I have made some sense.

Study history (and reap its rewards) or repeat its mistakes