David Hicks The farce of Gitmo continues. [Archive]

The Fool

2nd March 2007, 12:51 AM

well....All the charges against David Dicks have now collapsed for lack of evidence.

Conspiracy to commit warcrimes...oops, dropped for lack of evidence.

Attempted murder (of the coalition armies apparently)...oops, dropped for lack of evidence.

After five years America has decided it doesn't have the evidence after all...

But hang on there......a new charge was levelled (aiding the enemy or something like that). He has broken a law that was put in place after his imprisonment in gitmo. America is not giving up and will charge him with breaking a law written after he did what they say he did......and what did he do? Well lets wait for the story. It should be interesting because hearsay is quite acceptable, as is evidence obtained under torture (or whatever nice word you prefer to use for it).

Hey, I heard that someone heard him say he wanted to do something really really evil....that should be enough....shouldn't it. Lets write a law and then imprison him for breaking it.

What a laughable situation.

All that remains to be seen is how the people responsible for this ongoing farce save face.
Politics will determine what happens to this prisoner....but lets not call him a political prisoner because it makes us sound nasty.

a_unique_person

2nd March 2007, 03:47 AM

The system of justice that is not good enough for Americans, according to Bush.

SimonD

2nd March 2007, 05:23 AM

The system of justice that is not good enough for Americans, according to Bush.

Blair said the same thing months ago. John Howard is a disgrace

rikzilla

2nd March 2007, 05:53 AM

ImaginalDisc

2nd March 2007, 06:11 AM

You mean "Al Qaeda's 24 carat golden boy" (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1592997,00.html) isn't being treated fairly?? Aww, ain't that a terrible shame?? Alas the world can sometimes be harsh...what's a militant jihadi to do?

-z

Last time I checked, holding prisoners without charges for years at a time was a bad thing no matter how despicable the prisoner is.

SimonD

2nd March 2007, 06:26 AM

You mean "Al Qaeda's 24 carat golden boy" (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1592997,00.html) isn't being treated fairly?? Aww, ain't that a terrible shame?? Alas the world can sometimes be harsh...what's a militant jihadi to do?

-z

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1494795.htm

You should read this. It may change your mind. Holding someone for 5 years without a trail is a crime in Australia and the U.S.A.

What ever crimes he has comminted, he desevres to be treated as a human being

rikzilla

2nd March 2007, 06:46 AM

Last time I checked, holding prisoners without charges for years at a time was a bad thing no matter how despicable the prisoner is.

In Hamdan v Rumsfeld (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZC.html) SCOTUS agreed with you ID. But this decision prompted further Congressional review. Here is the result of Hamdan v Rumsfeld in a neat nutshell provided to us by Justice Breyer:
The dissenters say that today’s decision would “sorely hamper the President’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.” Post, at 29 (opinion of Thomas, J.). They suggest that it undermines our Nation’s ability to “preven[t] future attacks” of the grievous sort that we have already suffered. Post, at 48. That claim leads me to state briefly what I believe the majority sets forth both explicitly and implicitly at greater length. The Court’s conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a “blank check.” Cf. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion). Indeed, Congress has denied the President the legisla-tive authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.

Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation’s ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation’s ability to determine—through democratic means—how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our Court today simply does the same.

...and so here we are. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is simply the child of Hamdan v Rumsfeld. "The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our Court today simply does the same."

Looks to me like the system works. IMHO as always...

-z

rikzilla

2nd March 2007, 07:00 AM

But hang on there......a new charge was levelled (aiding the enemy or something like that). He has broken a law that was put in place after his imprisonment in gitmo. America is not giving up and will charge him with breaking a law written after he did what they say he did..

Creating factories of death in Nazi Germany similarly broke no extant German law. This did not stop the Nuremburg convictions and executions. When you live by the sword it is rather unseemly to cry when facing the sword yourself. I have no sympathy for this terrorist. None.

-z

ImaginalDisc

2nd March 2007, 07:12 AM

Creating factories of death in Nazi Germany similarly broke no extant German law.

"Conspiracy to commit murder" springs to mind.

SimonD

2nd March 2007, 07:20 AM

WildCat

2nd March 2007, 09:12 AM

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1494795.htm

You should read this. It may change your mind. Holding someone for 5 years without a trail is a crime in Australia and the U.S.A.

What ever crimes he has comminted, he desevres to be treated as a human being
OK, I read it. Hicks admits training w/ al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The US is at war w/ al Qaeda, Hicks was captured and can be held for the duration of the war - and doesn't ever have to be charged w/ anything. And this is the way it's always been done in warfare, and is not illegal in the US. Does Australia typically appoint enemies captured in a war lawyers and trry them? I doubt it. If so, could you provide examples?

SimonD

2nd March 2007, 10:01 AM

OK, I read it. Hicks admits training w/ al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The US is at war w/ al Qaeda, Hicks was captured and can be held for the duration of the war - and doesn't ever have to be charged w/ anything. And this is the way it's always been done in warfare, and is not illegal in the US.

Has the USA declared war on Al Qaeda? I have not heard of offical declaration. I have heard of a war on Terror, but you can't declare a war on a word.

The way in which he is being held goes against the Genova convention. IMHO, I believe he is being held as a scapegoat. The English got their citzens out on camp X-ray because they believed that their people would not be given a fair trail.

Does Australia typically appoint enemies captured in a war lawyers and trry them? I doubt it. If so, could you provide examples?

Lawyers were assigned to the trails for both the German and Japanese high command.

No offense wildcat, but what's up with 'w/' instead of 'with'? I had to read that a couple of times before it made sense

SimonD

2nd March 2007, 11:43 AM

This just in

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/deal-to-bring-hicks-home/2007/03/02/1172338885123.html

ImaginalDisc

2nd March 2007, 11:45 AM

This just in

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/deal-to-bring-hicks-home/2007/03/02/1172338885123.html

DAVID HICKS could walk out of Guantanamo Bay a free man and return to Australia if he agrees to plead guilty to the lesser charge of supporting a terrorist group, the Federal Government believes.
Was that even illegal when he was originally arrested?

geni

2nd March 2007, 11:48 AM

Was that even illegal when he was originally arrested?

Probably. In some countries anyway.

rikzilla

2nd March 2007, 12:04 PM

Was that even illegal when he was originally arrested?

Apparently in the case of this act it simply doesn't matter. It's retroactive...ex-post facto. It's pretty rare and controversial...but it is legal.

Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

Before, on, or after... otherwise known as "forever and ever, amen."

ImaginalDisc

2nd March 2007, 12:05 PM

Apparently in the case of this act it simply doesn't matter. It's retroactive...ex-post facto. It's pretty rare and controversial...but it is legal.

This sounds like a really opportunity to challenge that.

Darth Rotor

2nd March 2007, 12:07 PM

Has the USA declared war on Al Qaeda?
Not required for the consideration in question. If a state of war exists, non declaration on the part of one party is irrelevant. The leader of Al Qaeda declared war on the US, in 1996. Since then, a state of war has existed, if you want to pick the fly turds out of the pepper.

The Taliban are quite another matter.

Lead in from PBS: The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Cylinder had a link to the Supreme Court decision and commentary on that a few months ago. If I can find it again, I'll link it. My first look didn't dig it up.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2289369&postcount=30
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2290626&postcount=44

The Thread was called Alberto Gonzalez Hero or Goat (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2288386&postcount=1) and was an interesting discussion.

DR

rikzilla

2nd March 2007, 12:11 PM

ImaginalDisc

2nd March 2007, 12:17 PM

Doubt it...this law is the progeny of a SCOTUS decision in Hamdi v Rumsfeld. It it they pretty much deferred to Congressional review. Hence we have this act voted into law by Congress.

Sure we now have a new Congress...but do you really think any of that group is going to go to bat for Gitmo terrorist detainees in a presidential election season?

Fat chance.
-z

Well, McCain is supposed to be a man of integrity (excuse me while I stifle a guffaw), and Obama still hasn't cut his milk teeth on anything remotely controversial. I have socks older than his senatorial career. Who knows?

Darth Rotor

2nd March 2007, 12:22 PM

Doubt it...this law is the progeny of a SCOTUS decision in Hamdi v Rumsfeld. In it they pretty much deferred to Congressional review. Hence we have this act voted into law by Congress.

Sure we now have a new Congress...but do you really think any of that group is going to go to bat for Gitmo terrorist detainees in a presidential election season?

Fat chance.
-z
Rik, I look at this case and wonder if Mr Hicks' attorney will suggest a problem with him being subject to an ex post facto law. That's right out of Section 9 of Article 1. Granted, this guy isn't a US citizen, but since SCOTUS agreed to review the case, it seems an avenue his side might pursue.

The passage of the law that meets SCOTUS' requirements well after he was taken seems to beg for this appeal.

DR

Ziggurat

2nd March 2007, 12:48 PM

Last time I checked, holding prisoners without charges for years at a time was a bad thing no matter how despicable the prisoner is.

Yeah! When will France learn? The voices of protest against the French practice (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17082-2004Nov1?language=printer) of imprisoning people for years without charges will be heard!

chirp chirp

fishbob

2nd March 2007, 12:49 PM

ImaginalDisc

2nd March 2007, 12:56 PM

Yeah! When will France learn? The voices of protest against the French practice (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17082-2004Nov1?language=printer) of imprisoning people for years without charges will be heard!

chirp chirp

All mistreatment of prisoners is wrong. However, we're presently discussing a specific individual in American custody. If you'd like to return to the conversation, feel free.

rikzilla

2nd March 2007, 01:06 PM

Rik, I look at this case and wonder if Mr Hicks' attorney will suggest a problem with him being subject to an ex post facto law. That's right out of Section 9 of Article 1. Granted, this guy isn't a US citizen, but since SCOTUS agreed to review the case, it seems an avenue his side might pursue.

The passage of the law that meets SCOTUS' requirements well after he was taken seems to beg for this appeal.

DR

The Nuremburg example is still apt. It was a military trial for war crimes which were only defined as crimes after their war was lost. Therefore the Nuremburg convictions were also ex-post facto. Believe me, I do know how controversial ex-post facto laws are...but they do seem to have their place in history. It could also be said that Saddam's trial was based on ex-post facto law as well.

-z

Darth Rotor

2nd March 2007, 01:25 PM

It could also be said that Saddam's trial was based on ex-post facto law as well.

-z
I don't think so, given the Nuremberg precedent and some of the language in the UN Charter.

Nuremberg was "victor's justice," although it was a formally administered version of that practice. "We are gonna hang you, but we'll give you a fair trial first." However, it wasn't a total lynch mob scene. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/verdicts1.html)
Karl Doenitz 10 Years in Prison (You can get a longer sentence on a drug rap these days. Hmmmmmmm)

Hans Frank Sentenced to Hang

Wilhelm Frick Sentenced to Hang

Hans Fritzsche Acquitted

Walter Funk Sentenced to Life in Prison

Hermann Goering Sentenced to Hang

Rudolf Hess Sentenced to Life in Prison

Alfred Jodl Sentenced to Hang

Ernst Kaltenbrunner Sentenced to Hang

Wilhelm Keitel Sentenced to Hang

Erich Raeder Sentenced to Life in Prison

Alfred Rosenberg Sentenced to Hang

Fritz Sauckel Sentenced to Hang

Hjalmar Schacht Acquitted

Artur Seyss-Inquart Sentenced to Hang

Albert Speer 20 Years in Prison (His Inside the Third Reich was a good book)

Julius Streicher Sentenced to Hang

Constantin Von Neurath 15 Years in Prison

Franz Von Papen Acquitted

Joachim von Ribbentrop Sentenced to Hang

Baldur Von Schirach 20 Years in Prison

DR

Cleon

2nd March 2007, 01:28 PM

Apparently in the case of this act it simply doesn't matter. It's retroactive...ex-post facto. It's pretty rare and controversial...but it is legal.

So that bit in the Constitution where it says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" is what, then? A suggestion?

What amazes me about this whole thing is not people trying to end-runs around the constitution, looking for excuses to hold people without trial, torture, pass ex-post facto legislation...People have been doing that since John Adams signed the Alien & Sedition Acts.

What surprises me is that the same people who are looking for any justification for the above are the same ones who will turn around a minute later and declare their unwavering support for "small government."

a_unique_person

2nd March 2007, 01:39 PM

Creating factories of death in Nazi Germany similarly broke no extant German law. This did not stop the Nuremburg convictions and executions. When you live by the sword it is rather unseemly to cry when facing the sword yourself. I have no sympathy for this terrorist. None.

-z

How do you know he's a terrorist? There's been no trial, no evidence presented and tested. How do you know he is not just like one of the German troops, who were not convicted or tried? Nuremberg went for the ring leaders and killers. Hicks hasn't killed anyone.

WildCat

2nd March 2007, 05:35 PM

To summarize:
On the one hand, we have the rule of law - and I notice a whole bunch of scrambling to re-write the law, and on the other hand we have
"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges."
The re-write was to try him, I was responding to the "being held w/o charges" part. Do you agree he can be held until the end of the war (which in this case is as long as al Qaeda exists and they war against us) for the simple fact that he is a wartime enemy and was captured? this is hardly a re-write of any law, it's the way its been done for the entire history of the US.

Why does al Qaeda deserve rights no other captured enemy soldier has enjoyed in the entire history of the US?

WildCat

2nd March 2007, 05:38 PM

Lawyers were assigned to the trails for both the German and Japanese high command.
How about soldiers?

No offense wildcat, but what's up with 'w/' instead of 'with'? I had to read that a couple of times before it made sense
It's a common shorthand, been a habit of mine since taking handwritten notes in middle school.

fishbob

2nd March 2007, 06:21 PM

Do you agree he can be held until the end of the war (which in this case is as long as al Qaeda exists and they war against us) for the simple fact that he is a wartime enemy and was captured? this is hardly a re-write of any law, it's the way its been done for the entire history of the US.

Why does al Qaeda deserve rights no other captured enemy soldier has enjoyed in the entire history of the US?

No, I do not agree.

Legitimate war has always been reserved for combat between nations. Al Qaeda is more like the Mafia.
Since about 12 Sept 2001, I have been of the opinion that a large-scale police action would have been the appropriate response to Al Qaeda, not some trumped up rhetorical use of the word 'war'. These are not enemy soldiers. These are criminals.

a_unique_person

2nd March 2007, 09:43 PM

The re-write was to try him, I was responding to the "being held w/o charges" part. Do you agree he can be held until the end of the war (which in this case is as long as al Qaeda exists and they war against us) for the simple fact that he is a wartime enemy and was captured? this is hardly a re-write of any law, it's the way its been done for the entire history of the US.

Why does al Qaeda deserve rights no other captured enemy soldier has enjoyed in the entire history of the US?

He doesn't get that either. He has been tortured, raped, interrogated, psychologically manipulated and confined in conditions that don't meet those required to hold wartime prisoners.

quixotecoyote

2nd March 2007, 09:48 PM

We need to pick a set of rules:
Are they criminals or are they soldiers?

If crimimals, try them in the court system via the rule of law with all protections in place.

If soldiers, hold them until the end of the war in accordance with how we treat all soldiers with the protections in place for them.

I think the obvious choice is criminals, because most of them don't meet the criteria for soldiers while there are many similaries to mafia types, which someone mentioned earlier.

The Fool

3rd March 2007, 12:00 AM

OK...this is how this is going to run. (I'll apply for the million later)

The US and Australian administration must save face. There is no way this guy is going to walk away. They will ask him if he wants to plead guilty to farting in church or some other low grade offence. This is required to justify putting him in a box for 5 years.

After pleading guilty he will be released to Australia and it will be determined that the time already served is sufficient for the crime of farting in church. He will be given some wonderful new restrictions that the government of australia awarded themselves the power to apply....He will be banned from telephoning Osama bin laden....Osama will not mind as he always thought David was a whinger...

He won't be able to get a visa to America so attending the superbowl is not an option.

Gitmo will remain a black page in American history and future Americans will have trouble understanding how it was allowed to happened. The current crop of cheerleaders and apologists will quietly forget that they enabled it to happen by falling over themselves to applaud the throwing in the gutter of the principles that made thier Nation great. They probably will never be ashamed because they probably will never comprehend...

Close the place down guys....you can achieve it if you try.

SimonD

3rd March 2007, 03:01 AM

How about soldiers?

All soldiers facing a trail are entitled to legal resprestation

SimonD

3rd March 2007, 03:03 AM

SimonD

3rd March 2007, 03:04 AM

WildCat

3rd March 2007, 09:18 AM

No, I do not agree.

Legitimate war has always been reserved for combat between nations. Al Qaeda is more like the Mafia.
Since about 12 Sept 2001, I have been of the opinion that a large-scale police action would have been the appropriate response to Al Qaeda, not some trumped up rhetorical use of the word 'war'. These are not enemy soldiers. These are criminals.
Wow! So al Qaeda fighters deserve more protections than a captured soldier? Amazing!

It's clear that you don't think we are at war, and that this is the basis for your thinking. Perhaps we should just pull our soldiers, marines, and sailors out of Afghanistan and send in the FBI instead?

Treating al Qaeda as a criminal, rather than a military, problem is the kind of thinking that led to 9/11 in the first place.

WildCat

3rd March 2007, 09:20 AM

All soldiers facing a trail are entitled to legal resprestation
If it was up to me I'd keep him locked up until al Qaeda no longer exists, wouldn't even bother w/ charges or a trial. Is this acceptable to you?

SimonD

3rd March 2007, 09:48 AM

If it was up to me I'd keep him locked up until al Qaeda no longer exists, wouldn't even bother w/ charges or a trial. Is this acceptable to you?

My point is that no person should be treated as badly as Hicks has been.

If he is a criminal then he should be given a civil trial.
If he is a soldier then he should be held according to the Genova Convention (no trial necessary).

Azure

3rd March 2007, 10:32 AM

He doesn't get that either. He has been tortured, raped, interrogated, psychologically manipulated and confined in conditions that don't meet those required to hold wartime prisoners.

Tortured...raped?

Who the hell would rape him?

Ugly mutt.

SimonD

3rd March 2007, 10:45 AM

Tortured...raped?

Who the hell would rape him?

Ugly mutt.

Do only good looking people 'deserved' to be raped?

Taken from http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1494795.htm

DEBBIE WHITMONT: When Terry Hicks went to Guantanamo, he says those beatings were the very first thing his son told him about.

TERRY HICKS: David was full on, he was agitated, he was stressed. All he wanted to do is, he just told us, "Listen. Don't say anything, I'll get it out as quick as I can." He had two 10-hour beatings from the Americans. And I said to David, "Sure they were Americans?" - 'cause he said he had a bag over his head - and he said, "Oh look," he said, "I know their accents, they were definitely American." Some pretty horrific things that were done to him.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Are they... sexually embarrassing things?

TERRY HICKS: Yes.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: These sexually-related incidents... does this involve Americans?

TERRY HICKS: Yes.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: David Hicks told his father the Americans gave him injections and then penetrated him anally with various objects. Why does he believe he was taken off a ship by helicopter?

TERRY HICKS: Well, I mean, if they've taken him off... They're taking him off an American ship. So, I suppose if anything happens, the Americans would say, "Well, it didn't happen on our soil."

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Being taken off a warship, it's like a mini-rendition if you like, do you believe that did happen?

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH, MOAZZAM BEGG'S LAWYER: Being taken off a warship is not a mini-rendition, it's a rendition, period. There were all sorts of renditions. There were American renditions to themselves from Pakistan to Afghanistan to torture people, from American ships to Afghanistan to torture people.

Azure

3rd March 2007, 11:04 AM

I guess sarcasm is lost on some people.

I still hold no sympathy for him.

SimonD

3rd March 2007, 11:41 AM

I guess sarcasm is lost on some people.

I still hold no sympathy for him.

Sarcasm I can understand, but about rape? I think you are being a little harsh.

Merko

3rd March 2007, 12:55 PM

If it was up to me I'd keep him locked up until al Qaeda no longer exists, wouldn't even bother w/ charges or a trial. Is this acceptable to you?
I think it would be much better to keep you locked up until terrrorism has ended, in that case. People like you are a much, much bigger threat to democracy and freedom than any al Qaeda symphatiser has ever been. Not that I think anyone should be locked up like that, but if you think we should start somewhere, I say start with yourself.

fishbob

3rd March 2007, 01:13 PM

numbered for my conveniene:
1 - Wow! So al Qaeda fighters deserve more protections than a captured soldier? Amazing!

2 - It's clear that you don't think we are at war, and that this is the basis for your thinking. Perhaps we should just pull our soldiers, marines, and sailors out of Afghanistan and send in the FBI instead?

3 - Treating al Qaeda as a criminal, rather than a military, problem is the kind of thinking that led to 9/11 in the first place.

1 - You are a loony Your response is loony, and completely wrong.

2 - Your response is loony, and completely wrong again.

3 - Your response is again loony, but completely consistent with your previous responses.

WildCat

3rd March 2007, 01:42 PM

numbered for my conveniene:

1 - You are a loony Your response is loony, and completely wrong.

2 - Your response is loony, and completely wrong again.

3 - Your response is again loony, but completely consistent with your previous responses.
1. Captured enemies in wartime do not, and never have, had a right to a lawyer. If you think that's loony show me they have.

2. Then why are you demanding criminal investigations rather than a military campaign? Military personnell don't have the luxury of finding witnesses, gathering evidence, detailing the chain of custody, etc etc while engaged in battle. You apparently think they do?

3. So you don't think the rule preventing the FBI and intelligence agencies from sharing information prior to 9/11 contributed in any way to the success of that terrorist operation?

Loony indeed. :rolleyes:

a_unique_person

3rd March 2007, 01:55 PM

I guess sarcasm is lost on some people.

I still hold no sympathy for him.

You don't have to. You should have some regard for due process. It is one of the cornerstones of modern democracy.

fishbob

3rd March 2007, 02:21 PM

1. Captured enemies in wartime do not, and never have, had a right to a lawyer. If you think that's loony show me they have.

2. Then why are you demanding criminal investigations rather than a military campaign? Military personnell don't have the luxury of finding witnesses, gathering evidence, detailing the chain of custody, etc etc while engaged in battle. You apparently think they do?

3. So you don't think the rule preventing the FBI and intelligence agencies from sharing information prior to 9/11 contributed in any way to the success of that terrorist operation?

Loony indeed. :rolleyes:

1 - I talked about a police action. I said nothing about lawyers. That is why your response is loony.

2 - I am not demanding criminal investigations, I said I favor a police action.

3 - Yes the rule preventing the FBI and intelligence agencies from sharing information prior to 9/11 probably contributed contributed to Al Q success in New York. However, I said nothing whatsoever about this rule, I suggested a police action. I have also frequently suggested that competence would be useful. I am adding reading comprehension to my list of suggestions.

I listened to a talk by Gen. Barry McCaffrey Details (http://www.sameanchorage.org/tropics-tundra/speaker_info.html) this week in which he discussed world events. His view was that the US fell down badly on treatment of prisoners in the first year or so after Sept 11. His view is that prisoner treatment issues have improved considerably since that time, and that the fallout from the initial screwups will haunt us for a long time. I gather from your posts here that you feel that prisoner treatment has been just hunky-dory.

Hmmm. Which view should I give more credence?

Azure

3rd March 2007, 03:10 PM

Sarcasm I can understand, but about rape? I think you are being a little harsh.

And?

He said himself he was trained in Al Queda camps. How that does not make him a terrorist, I'll never understand.

Azure

3rd March 2007, 03:12 PM

You don't have to. You should have some regard for due process. It is one of the cornerstones of modern democracy.

Oh absolutely I would love a trial. Especially when you have a jury that will look at this poor guy, and what he went through at Gitmo, and let him get off with a light sentence.

We'll just ignore his own testimony.

a_unique_person

3rd March 2007, 03:36 PM

Obtained under torture? He has already said it got to the point he would say anything just to make them stop.

The Fool

3rd March 2007, 03:45 PM

Open question to gitmo apologists.

...have a good think about it.

Why cuba? Why are these people imprisoned in cuba?

You can't have the answer "to avoid US justice" because I've already taken it.

What is wrong with US justice? Or can you think of some other reason for using an offshore location?

Mycroft

4th March 2007, 12:11 AM

A short excerpt from Wikipedia on Hicks:

"In the documentary, Terry Hicks reads out excerpts of David Hicks's letters, in which Hicks says that his training in Pakistan and Afghanistan is designed to ensure "the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim law again". He denounces the plots of the Jews to divide Muslims and make them think poorly of Osama bin Laden and warns his father to ignore "the Jews' propaganda war machine," [25]

Hicks allegedly told fellow recruits at his training camp he wanted to, "go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews","crash a plane into a building", and "go out with that last big adrenalin rush"."

"He once told me in Afghanistan that if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' ect [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out," writes former Camp X-ray inmate Abbasi.[12]"

It goes on. What a piece of human garbage.

The Fool

4th March 2007, 12:34 AM

What a piece of human garbage.

That may very well be correct although I prefer to wait for the evidence before making a conclusion or parroting a pre prepared conclusion.

As I said...Gitmo apologists and cheerleaders probably will never be ashamed of gitmo because they probably will never comprehend how it urinates on the principles thier nation was founded on.

Interested in offering an answer to my open question Mycroft?

a_unique_person

4th March 2007, 12:35 AM

Mycroft

4th March 2007, 01:00 AM

That may very well be correct although I prefer to wait for the evidence before making a conclusion or parroting a pre prepared conclusion.

So in the meantime David Hicks (or Abu Muslim al-Austraili or Mohammed Dawood or whatever he goes by today) needs a resident apologist, I understand perfectly.

As I said...Gitmo apologists and cheerleaders probably will never be ashamed of gitmo because they probably will never comprehend how it urinates on the principles thier nation was founded on.

Which principles are those, exactly?

Interested in offering an answer to my open question Mycroft?

For years I’ve been saying that an international terrorist is not the same as a common criminal and doesn’t deserve to be treated as one. While you personally have never agreed with me on that, fortunately the US government seems to see it more my way. At the moment it seems as though the SCOTUS and the US Congress is going to work out some legal compromise, and I am content to let the process work itself out.

Mycroft

4th March 2007, 01:05 AM

The point has never been that he is innocent of anything...

The point is and always been the question of exactly what he is. An enemy combatant? A criminal? Something else?

The truth is the international terrorist has elements of both. He is a relatively new animal that doesn't easily lend itself to military or civil definitions. It is appropriate, in my opinion, that we recognize this and work out new rules for dealing with new situations.

Schneibster

4th March 2007, 01:06 AM

The point has never been that he is innocent of anything, the point is due process of law. If he is guilty of anti-semitism, or anything else, have a trial. The current process is a dangerous one that undermines the cornerstones of democracy. Not subject to civil law, but not a POW either, which leaves him open to unregulated torture and rape.The treatment of the captive is the responsibility of the captor. This is an abiding moral principle, and whenever it is denied, atrocity ensues, every single time.

Torquemada.

Hitler, and all who rode on him.

Napoleon. (Yes, children, Napoleon did some pretty evil stuff while he was running things- starting with how he got in charge in the first place.)

The Stanford psychological experiment of evil memory. I know someone who was a "guard." He carries the scars on his psyche to this day.

The Khmer Rouge.

That'll do for starters.

I am angry beyond words that these dishonorable acts have been perpetrated in the name of my country. If there were justice, the people who are responsible would pay with their freedom, and perhaps with their lives.

The Fool

4th March 2007, 02:38 AM

The point is and always been the question of exactly what he is. An enemy combatant? A criminal? Something else?

You are the one holding him....how long do you want to take to make up your mind?

The truth is the international terrorist has elements of both. He is a relatively new animal that doesn't easily lend itself to military or civil definitions. It is appropriate, in my opinion, that we recognize this and work out new rules for dealing with new situations.

Five years....you are still trying to figure out what you have in this prison?

I think your administration has already tried some new rules and some of these have been thrown out because they are not compatable with the old rules. That you can be charged with breaking a law prior to the law existing is one of the new rules....not I good new rule in my opinion but it appears to be all thats left standing in the case of David Hicks.

Any thoughts yet on the open question? Why hold them in cuba? what is the point of that?

Zep

4th March 2007, 04:02 AM

No, I do not agree.

Legitimate war has always been reserved for combat between nations. Al Qaeda is more like the Mafia.
Since about 12 Sept 2001, I have been of the opinion that a large-scale police action would have been the appropriate response to Al Qaeda, not some trumped up rhetorical use of the word 'war'. These are not enemy soldiers. These are criminals.But a "police action" would mean having to get police involved, and in this case, an "international" police force...

Here's a hint: Korea, 1950-1953, was actually a police action sanctioned and particpated by...?? Anyone?

Schneibster

4th March 2007, 04:15 AM

The U.N. supported the ROK; China and the Soviet Union supported the DPRK.

Zep

4th March 2007, 04:19 AM

The point is and always been the question of exactly what he is. An enemy combatant? A criminal? Something else?

The truth is the international terrorist has elements of both. He is a relatively new animal that doesn't easily lend itself to military or civil definitions. It is appropriate, in my opinion, that we recognize this and work out new rules for dealing with new situations.Wouldn't that have been a really good thing to have sorted out BEFORE you put people in jail for years at a time, use solitary confinement for years, deny them trial and justice, and torture them?

I'll second the calls here, and it has been repeated a number of times over the last few years too: If there is sufficient evidence that David Hicks is a convictable terrorist, killer, consorter with heathens, whatever that he did before he was captured that is considered illegal and has landed him in captivity, get him on trial without delay, produce the evidence in public, convict him, and sentence him appropriately.

It's taken five years, FIVE YEARS!*, just to charge him! And that's with some trumped up offence that, until only a few months ago, didn't even exist! After dropping every single serious charge but this!

Seriously, Mycroft: Who is writing the laws in the USA regarding Guantanamo Bay prisoners? Judge Roy Bean? Fifty Cent? Mel Brooks??

* That's 60 months and still counting. Here's a comparison: From Pearl Harbour to Hiroshima was less than 50 months. From VE day to Nuremberg finishing up was less that 30 months. Desert Storm, 7 months...

Zep

4th March 2007, 04:21 AM

The U.N. supported the ROK; China and the Soviet Union supported the DPRK.Thank you.

Y'know, I could have put the Google link to Wikipedia, but I had hopes of there being some research and realisation in some quarters...

Schneibster

4th March 2007, 04:36 AM

Seriously, Mycroft: Who is writing the laws in the USA regarding Guantanamo Bay prisoners? Judge Roy Bean? Fifty Cent? Mel Brooks??Would you believe... George Walker Bush?

Badum-bum.

Actually, that's a canard. Truth be told, it's more likely Darth Cheney or Gonzo.

Note that charging someone with a crime they committed when the alleged act was not illegal is called an ex post facto law, and is illegal under our Constitution.

You'll have to handle Mycroft; not that you're likely to find it any great strain, let's just say he's not exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier. I personally can't stand to read what he spews, and commend you on your strong stomach.

Schneibster

4th March 2007, 04:38 AM

Thank you.

Y'know, I could have put the Google link to Wikipedia, but I had hopes of there being some research and realisation in some quarters...I repeat one of the most well-known misquotes of Santayana: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

The whippings will continue until morale improves.

Zep

4th March 2007, 04:51 AM

Would you believe... George Walker Bush?

Badum-bum. I can appreciate the irony. But I can only wonder what the response would be if it were a US citizen who was captured in Pakistan, mysteriously shipped to Egypt and handed over to a foreign power, who entombed him in some awful place without trial. I suspect a full battle fleet would have been despatched long ago...

Actually, that's a canard. Truth be told, it's more likely Darth Cheney or Gonzo. I sincerely doubt it is the ex-Yale cheerleader or any of his Evul Crue doing the drafting. They just drop hints and suggestions...

Note that charging someone with a crime they committed when the alleged act was not illegal is called an ex post facto law, and is illegal under our Constitution. Understood. But that seems to not be a problem for the current administration. My list of legal draughtsmen was carefully chosen, not just for irony value.

You'll have to handle Mycroft; not that you're likely to find it any great strain, let's just say he's not exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier. I personally can't stand to read what he spews, and commend you on your strong stomach.He's OK. Patriotism is fine and commendable. It's when it becomes jingoism that it grates.

Schneibster

4th March 2007, 05:06 AM

I can appreciate the irony. But I can only wonder what the response would be if it were a US citizen who was captured in Pakistan, mysteriously shipped to Egypt and handed over to a foreign power, who entombed him in some awful place without trial. I suspect a full battle fleet would have been despatched long ago...Depends on whether he's got a rich mommy and daddy who don't contribute to teh evul Demorat Party. Yep, nothing like a nice free market in justice.

I sincerely doubt it is the ex-Yale cheerleader or any of his Evul Crue doing the drafting. They just drop hints and suggestions...Actually, despite looking like a complete idiot, the man is relatively smart. And Gonzo is, of course, the head lawyer. Which may or may not be a recommendation.

Understood. But that seems to not be a problem for the current administration. My list of legal draughtsmen was carefully chosen, not just for irony value.I'm watching this unfold and wondering how long it's going to take to undo the damage these people are doing. But if you get right down to it, it's a matter of what Ben said, and I'll warn you I'm going to misquote it: those who would surrender essential freedom to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither. The patriots are all over spilling their blood in Iraq, and the tyrants don't seem to be doing any dying over here. The tree of liberty is, in consequence, apparently withering. I hope some people around here grow some cojones some time soon.

He's OK. Patriotism is fine and commendable. It's when it becomes jingoism that it grates.Yep. You hit that one out of the park.

Mycroft

4th March 2007, 11:13 AM

You are the one holding him....how long do you want to take to make up your mind?

Five years....you are still trying to figure out what you have in this prison?

IIRC, they did that from the beginning. Remember? They made up their minds that he was an "enemy combatant."

I think your administration has already tried some new rules and some of these have been thrown out because they are not compatable with the old rules. That you can be charged with breaking a law prior to the law existing is one of the new rules....not I good new rule in my opinion but it appears to be all thats left standing in the case of David Hicks.

I think ultimately it's going to be up to your country to put him on trial, isn't it? That is if he's ever released from his "enemy combatant" status.

Any thoughts yet on the open question? Why hold them in cuba? what is the point of that?

I tend to agree with your assessment. The difference is our respective opinions on how things should be.

Mycroft

4th March 2007, 11:19 AM

Wouldn't that have been a really good thing to have sorted out BEFORE you put people in jail for years at a time, use solitary confinement for years, deny them trial and justice, and torture them?

Is GITMO jail? I thought it was a military prison. You know, for enemy combatants.

I personally would like to see other evidence that he was tortuerd other than his own word.

I'll second the calls here, and it has been repeated a number of times over the last few years too: If there is sufficient evidence that David Hicks is a convictable terrorist, killer, consorter with heathens, whatever that he did before he was captured that is considered illegal and has landed him in captivity...

There it is again, the insistance that he be treated as a common criminal, with all the legal protections a criminal gets. That's what the dispute is about, remember?

rikzilla

4th March 2007, 12:16 PM

Obtained under torture? He has already said it got to the point he would say anything just to make them stop.

Obtained under what torture? Is there any evidence of torture besides the hearsay of terrorists or friends and family of terrorists?

The testimony given by Hicks's fellow terrorist is filled with detail, if the guy is making all this up about him then he should be writing screenplays for "24".

Hicks is AQ. That's enough to put him up against a wall as far as I'm concerned. If he was just some bloke playing at being Taliban then maybe he could be cut some slack. Hicks was OBL's wet dream, a nice white Aussie citizen that could travel freely in the west without raising an eyebrow. Just what do you think he was being groomed for anyway? Peace ambassador?

-z

The Fool

4th March 2007, 01:43 PM

Obtained under what torture? Is there any evidence of torture besides the hearsay of terrorists or friends and family of terrorists?

No...just like there is not any evidence besides hearsay of terrorists or friends and family of terrorists for the things you gladly accept as true...

The testimony given by Hicks's fellow terrorist is filled with detail, if the guy is making all this up about him then he should be writing screenplays for "24".

Hicks is AQ. That's enough to put him up against a wall as far as I'm concerned.

Hmmm...all AQ? The cleaning ladies too?

There is enough "hearsay of terrorists or friends and family of terrorists" for you to execute this guy. You find the statements of fellow prisoners delightfully convincing when they are what you want to hear....but not if they speak of torture.

If he was just some bloke playing at being Taliban then maybe he could be cut some slack. Hicks was OBL's wet dream, a nice white Aussie citizen that could travel freely in the west without raising an eyebrow. Just what do you think he was being groomed for anyway? Peace ambassador?

-z
Thats why he was captured doing the key task of guarding a tank....yep, OBL's blue eyed boy, a key figure in AQ. Guarding a clapped out tank in the middle of nowhere....how will AQ survive without him?

Funny you mention the nice white Aussie bit.....I think that gets to the core of why he is where he is. If he was Just another Afghan he would not be in gitmo.....but he was worth a deal of money to the northern alliance who were payed a bounty for handing him over. I wonder if they talked him up for the reward money? I doubt it....I think they probably had too much honesty and integrity to want to squeeze a few more dollars out of the US taxpayer. I wonder if The US payed a premium for a westerner?

Anyway...its nice to see we have contributers here who are even more extremist that George bush. Georgie just wants to avoid having to give this
guy US justice....Rick wants to put a bullet in him. Luckily, people with less violent viewpoints are not going to let you put a bullet in him.

The Fool

4th March 2007, 01:51 PM

IIRC, they did that from the beginning. Remember? They made up their minds that he was an "enemy combatant."

No....this whole farce was set up specifically to avoid having to treat these people as "enemy combatants"....

I think ultimately it's going to be up to your country to put him on trial, isn't it? That is if he's ever released from his "enemy combatant" status.

He can't be put on trial here because he has not broken any Australian laws...and we have not passed any retrospective laws to cover things he did in the past. Thats the problem.....you can't give him to us because our Justice system would not allow what you are doing. And he is not an "enemy combatant" so he can't be released from that.

ETA: Mycrfoft...on re-reading this post I think you may have just mistyped? Did you mean "illegal" combatant rather than "enemy"?

fishbob

5th March 2007, 12:38 AM

[QUOTE=Mycroft;2396669]For years I’ve been saying that an international terrorist is not the same as a common criminal and doesn’t deserve to be treated as one. QUOTE]

Why? Because they are scarier?
Kind of like the 'assault weapons' of the criminal world?

athon

5th March 2007, 02:40 AM

It goes on. What a piece of human garbage.

I'm not going to say much here, because politics is often a place where people speak with emotion rather than reason, and reasonable argument goes out of the window. But, for some reason I feel obliged to post.

When I was 13, a close friend of mine was raped and beaten to death with a hammer and her body was left on a dirt track a few kilometres from my house. They found the guy and sentenced him to life, which was 25 years. He'll be out in about a decade.

That was human garbage. People decided once that the sort of things he did were unacceptable, evidence for his actions were presented and the claim that he was responsible was upheld in a court of law.

In my home city in Queensland, was a case of an 18 month old baby stolen from its crib, sexually assaulted, murdered, and its body was flung onto the roof of a toilet block. It's killer was matched from teeth marks on the child's leg, demonstrated in a rational process in a court of law according to laws previously written to say that such a thing is not acceptable.

That was human garbage.

Is David Hicks human garbage? He wished for Muslim law to be upheld across all nations, and that for this to happen, Americans should die. Murder was justified in his mind in order for this to happen. Yes, he is garbage, just as anybody who believes torture and death are par for course in any universal implementation of values they beleive in; democracy, freedom...any value.

Garbage or not, even those baby killers and rapists were trialled. Not for respect of them or their actions, but for respect of the process we have which says there is a due process every person deserves to demonstrate they have done wrong, and that we will endeavour to stop that from happening again.

Think with rage if you wish. I'll continue to campaign that we use reason and rational process to address issues such as these.

Athon

The Fool

5th March 2007, 03:39 AM

If you want an interesting listen...Here is a presentation By David Hicks' US appointed Lawyer. Maj Michael Dante "Dan" Mori USMC.

When I have, at times, reached the point of despair With the US on this issue it is Maj Dan Mori that has refreshed my spirit and faith in US Justice. If you are american you should take pride in the fact that this man can do what he is doing. Of course....he has just been threatened with being charged for what he has said here....that is something you may want to consider not being so proud of.

go here and click on the link to the lecture..

http://info.anu.edu.au/Discover_ANU/News_and_Events/Public_Lectures/_Major_Mori.asp

Zep

5th March 2007, 03:48 AM

Well said, Athon.

Cleon

5th March 2007, 07:04 AM

Mycroft

5th March 2007, 09:00 AM

Funny you mention the nice white Aussie bit.....I think that gets to the core of why he is where he is. If he was Just another Afghan he would not be in gitmo.....but he was worth a deal of money to the northern alliance who were payed a bounty for handing him over. I wonder if they talked him up for the reward money? I doubt it....I think they probably had too much honesty and integrity to want to squeeze a few more dollars out of the US taxpayer. I wonder if The US payed a premium for a westerner?

That's an amazing theory.

Any evidence?

Mycroft

5th March 2007, 09:15 AM

I'm not going to say much here, because politics is often a place where people speak with emotion rather than reason, and reasonable argument goes out of the window. But, for some reason I feel obliged to post.

When I was 13, a close friend of mine was raped and beaten to death with a hammer and her body was left on a dirt track a few kilometres from my house. They found the guy and sentenced him to life, which was 25 years. He'll be out in about a decade.

That was human garbage. People decided once that the sort of things he did were unacceptable, evidence for his actions were presented and the claim that he was responsible was upheld in a court of law.

In my home city in Queensland, was a case of an 18 month old baby stolen from its crib, sexually assaulted, murdered, and its body was flung onto the roof of a toilet block. It's killer was matched from teeth marks on the child's leg, demonstrated in a rational process in a court of law according to laws previously written to say that such a thing is not acceptable.

That was human garbage.

Is David Hicks human garbage? He wished for Muslim law to be upheld across all nations, and that for this to happen, Americans should die. Murder was justified in his mind in order for this to happen. Yes, he is garbage, just as anybody who believes torture and death are par for course in any universal implementation of values they beleive in; democracy, freedom...any value.

Garbage or not, even those baby killers and rapists were trialled. Not for respect of them or their actions, but for respect of the process we have which says there is a due process every person deserves to demonstrate they have done wrong, and that we will endeavour to stop that from happening again.

Think with rage if you wish. I'll continue to campaign that we use reason and rational process to address issues such as these.

Athon

Very well said.

But imagine for a moment that these baby-killers and rapists were religiously motivated by a perverted version of one of the worlds great religions, politically active in that they wanted their practices to be protected by law, even had success in making this happen in many countries around the world, and were funded in secret by people willing to put forth millions to advance their cause?

I don't advocate treating them different from common criminals because their crimes are any worse or because they're scarier. I say they're different because they see themselves differently. They see themselves as an army fighting a holy war, an army that draws strength from breaking the rules of civilized behavior.

They are, by their own definitions, holy warriors that don't recognize the GCs, and that's how they should be treated.

Earthborn

5th March 2007, 09:40 AM

They are, by their own definitions, holy warriors that don't recognize the GCs, and that's how they should be treated.So they should be treated the way they see themselves? That makes no sense at all. Suppose they saw themselves as the nicest people in the world and that they deserve biscuits and lemonade? Would you then advocate treating them as the nicest people in the world and serve them biscuits and lemonade? I don't think you would. Suppose they saw themselves as acting out the Will of God... Would you then treat them as if they are acting out the Will of God, by not hindering them? One should not go against the Will of God, after all...

I don't think a criminal's self identification should matter at all in the way they are tried for anything or not. What should matter is what is considered an appropriate treatment.

rikzilla

5th March 2007, 10:30 AM

Anyway...its nice to see we have contributers here who are even more extremist that George bush. Georgie just wants to avoid having to give this
guy US justice....Rick wants to put a bullet in him. Luckily, people with less violent viewpoints are not going to let you put a bullet in him.

I won't be putting a bullet in him Fool. I only hope the person who does is a very good shot. BTW, I wouldn't count so much on those "people with less violent viewpoints". We're in an election cycle you know, and they're not likely to do very well as the "FREE THE GITMO DETAINEES" candidate. Even if the Dems somehow capture the WH, do you really think they'd have the cajones to author and sign the releases of these violent jihadi nuts?

Furloughed recidivistic Massachusetts murderers for 1,000 alex!!!

Hell, the weenies you support so blindly aren't even capable of getting Leonard Peltier released! But hey, if you are a billionaire criminal living overseas with campaign cash to sling.... But alas, I don't think your jihadi friends currently domiciled in Cuba have that kind of coin.

-z

Mycroft

5th March 2007, 10:46 AM

So they should be treated the way they see themselves? That makes no sense at all. Suppose they saw themselves as the nicest people in the world and that they deserve biscuits and lemonade? Would you then advocate treating them as the nicest people in the world and serve them biscuits and lemonade?

I don't remember saying every violent psychopath should be treated they way they see themselves. I only remember saying that those who see themselves as holy soldiers who don’t obey the Geneva Conventions should be treated as soldiers who don’t obey the Geneva Conventions.

I thought I had made that clear.

athon

5th March 2007, 01:03 PM

Very well said.

Thanks.

But imagine for a moment that these baby-killers and rapists were religiously motivated by a perverted version of one of the worlds great religions, politically active in that they wanted their practices to be protected by law, even had success in making this happen in many countries around the world, and were funded in secret by people willing to put forth millions to advance their cause?

I don't see how that suddenly means we lose our process; one where we look at the individual's actions, demonstrate through evidence that they were personally responsible for them and then decide without passion or emotion how to prevent such actions from taking place again in the future.

We're trying to create a world where individuals or communities cannot impose their values on others using the threat of violence. The 'tu quoque' response from apologists who feel that this situation deserves us to abandon reason and process is insane. Because extremists use violence to impose their views, suddenly we're allowed to as well? Sorry, this ain't the playground.

We don't have this process because it's simply being nice to each other. We have it because it delcares reason as the most positive and useful response to the threats of danger we face in our modern world.

I don't advocate treating them different from common criminals because their crimes are any worse or because they're scarier. I say they're different because they see themselves differently. They see themselves as an army fighting a holy war, an army that draws strength from breaking the rules of civilized behavior.

You say we should treat them differently because they are inspired by different influences? The fact that they are inspired by religious zealotry means they don't 'deserve' the same process as a child rapist? Religious thinking might be powerful, and I agree it's of concern, but that just means we need to keep a reasonable view and need a calculated system more now than ever in our history. Emotional responses which see us dismantling regimes and creating hotspots of chaos, and eye-for-an-eye thinking is not going to rationally address this threat.

I wish I could say this view of yours revolts me, but again, politics seems to have a sign above the door which says 'leave your ability to rationalise without passion here' as you enter.

Again, due process where somebody should be systematically demonstrated to be guilty and dealt with in a manner which reflects our wish that such actions will be prevented from occuring again in the future is not out of personal love of an individual or a respect for their past. It is because it delcares reason as the most positive and useful response to the threats of danger we face in our modern world.

They are, by their own definitions, holy warriors that don't recognize the GCs, and that's how they should be treated.

Laws are not flexible in response to the attitude of the criminal. 'Eye for an Eye' thinking was abandoned a long time ago because it was a response born of desire for retribution and not something that was reasonable.

Athon

The Fool

5th March 2007, 01:36 PM

That's an amazing theory.

Any evidence?
Its pretty well outlined by David Hicks Lawyer in the link I posted, you should listen to it. It underlines the incompetent farce that this process has been.

The Fool

5th March 2007, 01:43 PM

I won't be putting a bullet in him Fool. I only hope the person who does is a very good shot.

People with violent extremist views such as yours are not even allowed to get other people to do the killing that they would like to see happen. Not this time....sorry.

Did you get time to listen to Major Mori's summation?

Giz

5th March 2007, 04:24 PM

I'm not going to say much here, because politics is often a place where people speak with emotion rather than reason, and reasonable argument goes out of the window. But, for some reason I feel obliged to post.

When I was 13, a close friend of mine was raped and beaten to death with a hammer and her body was left on a dirt track a few kilometres from my house. They found the guy and sentenced him to life, which was 25 years. He'll be out in about a decade.

That was human garbage. People decided once that the sort of things he did were unacceptable, evidence for his actions were presented and the claim that he was responsible was upheld in a court of law.

In my home city in Queensland, was a case of an 18 month old baby stolen from its crib, sexually assaulted, murdered, and its body was flung onto the roof of a toilet block. It's killer was matched from teeth marks on the child's leg, demonstrated in a rational process in a court of law according to laws previously written to say that such a thing is not acceptable.

That was human garbage.

Is David Hicks human garbage? He wished for Muslim law to be upheld across all nations, and that for this to happen, Americans should die. Murder was justified in his mind in order for this to happen. Yes, he is garbage, just as anybody who believes torture and death are par for course in any universal implementation of values they beleive in; democracy, freedom...any value.

Garbage or not, even those baby killers and rapists were trialled. Not for respect of them or their actions, but for respect of the process we have which says there is a due process every person deserves to demonstrate they have done wrong, and that we will endeavour to stop that from happening again.

Think with rage if you wish. I'll continue to campaign that we use reason and rational process to address issues such as these.

Athon

Yes, and when the Allies captured Waffen SS in the second world war they should have held them for no more than 48 hours before charging them with war crimes or letting them go - if no evidence (other than hearsay/captured in firefight etc) could be provided.

There is a rather obvious difference between arresting individual "garbage" and going after a large international organisation of heavily armed garbage, Athon. Sorry you decided to speak with "speak with emotion rather than reason".

Azure

5th March 2007, 06:09 PM

The Fool

5th March 2007, 07:58 PM

Schneibster

5th March 2007, 08:22 PM

Well said, Athon.Seconded.

athon

5th March 2007, 08:28 PM

Yes, and when the Allies captured Waffen SS in the second world war they should have held them for no more than 48 hours before charging them with war crimes or letting them go - if no evidence (other than hearsay/captured in firefight etc) could be provided.

Your point being? So the Allies required a process which provided evidence, then addressed the crime alleged to have taken place according to a set of previously established regulations. And this needed to be effectively done inside a 48 hour period. Hicks is in a cell for five years without so much as a trial while laws are established to sentence him retrospectively.

I really don't see where your comment is relevant at all.

There is a rather obvious difference between arresting individual "garbage" and going after a large international organisation of heavily armed garbage, Athon. Sorry you decided to speak with "speak with emotion rather than reason".

How did I speak emotively? Hell, I can't stand the idea of religious zealotry influencing people into spreading their idea of values using the threat of violence. I can't stand political zealotry spreading their values through threat of violence either. It makes me angry. But I know that emotional reasoning varies according to the subjective views of the individual, and varies also with time. Therefore it's a poor way to deal with issues which threaten our wellbeing and our social order.

Now, there are indeed differences between the crimes of a mentally unstable individual and those committed as the result of a socially embraced belief. Yet in each situation, the question that arises in addressing it is the same; how do we prevent these things from occuring?

Supporting the emotive 'I hate Hicks therefore he does not deserve the just proceedings we afford baby-rapists' makes no sense in a society that values rational thought and a reasonable approach to preventing such atrocities from occuring again. And you have said nothing which lends any sort of reason to this mentality.

Athon

Giz

5th March 2007, 08:38 PM

Do you know the difference between 48 hours and 5 years? Can you tell me if we still had waffen SS in prison in 1950 still figuring out how we were going to try them? Can you tell me how many there were that we could not offer any evidence of warcrimes committed so we charged them with "Aiding Germany" a crime we wrote into the statutes after the war was over?

I understand that Nazi comparisons are nice for emotional impact but they should at least be vaguely comparable

We didn't hold them for more than 5 years after the fighting stopped. Has the fighting stopped?

Zep

5th March 2007, 11:57 PM

We didn't hold them for more than 5 years after the fighting stopped. Has the fighting stopped?Hasn't it? Thought Bush said "Mission Accomplished" AFTER David Hicks was captured, and that was 5 years ago or so. Now it's still the "mopping up"... And only last week was Hicks even CHARGED, and that with a ludicrous offence that was no offence when he was captured.

If you really want the comparison, German prisoners in WW2 were immediately and automatically treated as POWs from the moment of capture. They had certain rights and priviledges, including receiving adequate food and lodgings, freedom to move around and associate and to wear their uniforms, and NOT being subject to torture or put in solitary confinement for extended periods. Their captors also had certain obligations to uphold, which, in the main, they did. In short, any Waffen SS prisoners had a clearly defined status under the Geneva Convention.

It was at the end of the war that some enemy soldiers (and civilians) were charged with criminal offences such as "crimes against humanity", then were tried, and sentenced. Some of them were, indeed, already POWs at the armistice. So they transitioned from being POWs to formally charged suspects thence to sentenced criminals, and throughout, certain rights were always accorded them.

None of which David Hicks has been accorded...

Crossbow

6th March 2007, 05:34 AM

We didn't hold them for more than 5 years after the fighting stopped. Has the fighting stopped?

The fighting has not stopped, but the danger posed by the person has may well have stopped.

And since at least a couple of hundred of other detainees have been released is essentially an official concession that it is quite possible that some of the other detainees may no longer pose a danger either and should be released as well.

In any event, these other releases and current long-term detentions clearly show that at least some sort of legal review is needed to determine just what the detainees have done in the past, and what there current status is.

WildCat

6th March 2007, 06:13 AM

Hasn't it? Thought Bush said "Mission Accomplished" AFTER David Hicks was captured, and that was 5 years ago or so.
Even if you assume that was an official "the war is over" statement, which it wasn't, it was an entirely different war. Hicks is being held for the war in Afghanistan, not Iraq. No one captured in the Iraq war is being held in Gitmo.

WildCat

6th March 2007, 06:16 AM

If you really want the comparison, German prisoners in WW2 were immediately and automatically treated as POWs from the moment of capture.
Only the ones who wore a uniform, wore insignia clearly identifying them as combatants, openly carried arms, etc etc per the rules of warfare.

Those who wore no uniform, displayed no insignia could and often were summarily executed, with or without a court martial.

Tell us Zep, was Hicks wearing a uniform? It's a simple question.

rikzilla

6th March 2007, 08:03 AM

People with violent extremist views such as yours are not even allowed to get other people to do the killing that they would like to see happen. Not this time....sorry.

Did you get time to listen to Major Mori's summation?

Well Hicks is just an innocent Aussie right? But I am a person with "violent extremist views"???

Just thought I'd reiterate that part Fool. It illustrates the fact that you can forgive a militant muslim mercenary/adventurer who trained in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda pre-9/11....but I am the one you deride as a "violent extremist".

I wonder when your case of SJS is going to kick in Fool? Can't be too far off eh mate?

-z

rikzilla

6th March 2007, 08:14 AM

The fighting has not stopped, but the danger posed by the person has may well have stopped.

And since at least a couple of hundred of other detainees have been released is essentially an official concession that it is quite possible that some of the other detainees may no longer pose a danger either and should be released as well.

In any event, these other releases and current long-term detentions clearly show that at least some sort of legal review is needed to determine just what the detainees have done in the past, and what there current status is.

...and who will be the great emancipator? Which politician of which political ilk is willing to risk the Dukakis syndrome??? If/when David Hicks is released, would you volunteer to live next door to him with your loved ones?

-z

rikzilla

6th March 2007, 08:21 AM

Hasn't it? Thought Bush said "Mission Accomplished" AFTER David Hicks was captured, and that was 5 years ago or so. Now it's still the "mopping up"... And only last week was Hicks even CHARGED, and that with a ludicrous offence that was no offence when he was captured.

If you really want the comparison, German prisoners in WW2 were immediately and automatically treated as POWs from the moment of capture. They had certain rights and priviledges, including receiving adequate food and lodgings, freedom to move around and associate and to wear their uniforms, and NOT being subject to torture or put in solitary confinement for extended periods. Their captors also had certain obligations to uphold, which, in the main, they did. In short, any Waffen SS prisoners had a clearly defined status under the Geneva Convention.

It was at the end of the war that some enemy soldiers (and civilians) were charged with criminal offences such as "crimes against humanity", then were tried, and sentenced. Some of them were, indeed, already POWs at the armistice. So they transitioned from being POWs to formally charged suspects thence to sentenced criminals, and throughout, certain rights were always accorded them.

None of which David Hicks has been accorded...

All of which and more he would have been accorded pre-9/11. 9/11 constituted a sea-change. The post-9/11 world is a far different place. David Hick is Al Qaeda. Just being Al Qeada in a post 9/11 world should be a crime that comes with an automatic trip to death row. As always, just MHO.

-z

rikzilla

6th March 2007, 08:22 AM

Only the ones who wore a uniform, wore insignia clearly identifying them as combatants, openly carried arms, etc etc per the rules of warfare.

Those who wore no uniform, displayed no insignia could and often were summarily executed, with or without a court martial.

Tell us Zep, was Hicks wearing a uniform? It's a simple question.

Cue the crickets.

Earthborn

6th March 2007, 08:53 AM

I don't remember saying every violent psychopath should be treated they way they see themselves.I don't remember saying that you did.

I thought I had made that clear.You did not make clear that you think whether or not "psychopaths" should be treated the way they see themselves should depend on random variables.

Axiom_Blade

6th March 2007, 09:08 AM

They are, by their own definitions, holy warriors that don't recognize the GCs, and that's how they should be treated.

Why?
Do the conventions say that they can be ignored if the enemy refuses to follow them?

WildCat

6th March 2007, 09:14 AM

Why?
Do the conventions say that they can be ignored if the enemy refuses to follow them?
The GC gives more protections to soldiers who follow the provisions than it does to those who don't. The GC was implemented primarily to protect civilians in wars, thus the rules requiring uniforms, insignias, etc. Combatants who ignore those rules and deliberately attempt to disguise themselves as civilians have consequences to suffer, as Hicks et al have discovered.

Crossbow

6th March 2007, 11:34 AM

...and who will be the great emancipator? Which politician of which political ilk is willing to risk the Dukakis syndrome??? If/when David Hicks is released, would you volunteer to live next door to him with your loved ones?

-z

What an incredibly absurd posting!

No one is advocating an unconditional release of Hicks, instead what 'rikzilla' and his fine eye for detail has failed to notice is that there are several people in this thread who simply want some sort of legal due process for Hicks and the other detainees.

Some of these folks have been held for months, in some cases years, without and sort of review that can withstand any sort of public scrutiny. That is just the sort of thing that this nation used to be opposed to for decades, but thanks to Bush, the USA is now an advocate of this sort treatment.

WildCat

6th March 2007, 12:01 PM

That is just the sort of thing that this nation used to be opposed to for decades, but thanks to Bush, the USA is now an advocate of this sort treatment.
Can you specify which decades in US history enemies captured in a war were released prior to war's end, or given legal review? What would FDR have done, for example?

The Fool

6th March 2007, 01:46 PM

Well Hicks is just an innocent Aussie right? But I am a person with "violent extremist views"???

Thats correct rik. Hicks is innocent. Its a presumption that your nations legal system is based on and that you wish to throw in the gutter. And yes, you are a person who expresses violent extremist views on this forum. Its what you do.

Just thought I'd reiterate that part Fool. It illustrates the fact that you can forgive a militant muslim mercenary/adventurer who trained in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda pre-9/11....but I am the one you deride as a "violent extremist".

please point out where I have forgiven anyone and then tell me if your claim is based on ignorance of my statements here or dishonesty. And yes, I deride violent extremist views such as yours, I don't know of any other rational approach to violent extremist views.

I wonder when your case of SJS is going to kick in Fool? Can't be too far off eh mate?

-z
If you find it difficult to discuss the topic try not to revert to personal attacks.

Cleon

6th March 2007, 01:51 PM

Just being Al Qeada in a post 9/11 world should be a crime that comes with an automatic trip to death row.

Even the cleaning ladies?

Look, Rik, if you're going to say stuff like this, don't complain when someone calls your views "violent" or "extremist."

The Fool

6th March 2007, 01:53 PM

The GC gives more protections to soldiers who follow the provisions than it does to those who don't. The GC was implemented primarily to protect civilians in wars, thus the rules requiring uniforms, insignias, etc. Combatants who ignore those rules and deliberately attempt to disguise themselves as civilians have consequences to suffer, as Hicks et al have discovered.
so the US combatants...CIA, special forces etc....That wore a grab bag of clothing with no insignia don't count? Do they have consequences to suffer?

really wildcat....this crap about the enemy in this war not dressing smartly enough is just a tired old joke. You have also made some vague reference that Hicks current fate is in some way related to his standard of clothing...can you expand on that claim as its new to me....

The Fool

6th March 2007, 01:59 PM

dupe.

Schneibster

6th March 2007, 02:31 PM

All of which and more he would have been accorded pre-9/11. 9/11 constituted a sea-change. The post-9/11 world is a far different place. Ohrilly? Hmmm, let's see what kind of place you think it should be:

David Hick is Al Qaeda. Just being Al Qeada in a post 9/11 world should be a crime that comes with an automatic trip to death row. As always, just MHO.

-z"Just being Al Qaeda," huh? So, you wanna have a trial first, or not?

athon

6th March 2007, 03:03 PM

Just thought I'd reiterate that part Fool. It illustrates the fact that you can forgive a militant muslim mercenary/adventurer who trained in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda pre-9/11....but I am the one you deride as a "violent extremist".

As if I needed any more evidence that people lose their ability to rationalise when it comes to politics...

Nobody is forgiving Hicks of anything. Hicks personally does not really enter into the equation; his situation and the method of dealing with it is under focus here. Hicks could be rubbing himself over in his own faeces singing 'I'm Henry the 8th' after laughingly admitting that he was plotting the downfall of humanity starting with the Queen of England... and it still wouldn't change the conversation. His innocence or lack thereof doesn't make one lick of difference; the process with which we address such issues is being questioned.

Of course, that doesn't allow you to express your rage quite as easily, now does it? Oh well, burn that strawman good!

The process of seeking evidence in relation to a crime described by a legal system and trialling the individual in a reasonable amount of time is based on the fact that using reason to address social threats is more conducive to a safe, just and fair society. You might argue that it doesn't, but hell, modern law is based on it. Argue that you want to return to medieval courts and eye-for-an-eye justice then.

Athon

Mycroft

6th March 2007, 03:03 PM

I don't remember saying that you did.

You did not make clear that you think whether or not "psychopaths" should be treated the way they see themselves should depend on random variables.

Random variables?

I named one specific factor. That's not random, that's not even a variable.

You're a very smart woman. This semantic play is beneath you.

Mycroft

6th March 2007, 03:13 PM

so the US combatants...CIA, special forces etc....That wore a grab bag of clothing with no insignia don't count? Do they have consequences to suffer?

Sometimes, yes. Isn't that the way of it? The clandestine operations done by un-uniformed personal carry an extra factor of risk.

really wildcat....this crap about the enemy in this war not dressing smartly enough is just a tired old joke. You have also made some vague reference that Hicks current fate is in some way related to his standard of clothing...can you expand on that claim as its new to me....

Does the Geneva Conventions address the issue, yes or no? If yes, what does the GC say?

You can’t squawk about the GC not being followed when you want it and then call it a “tired old joke” when it allows for something you don’t like. If you want to make a legal argument then we must pay attention to what the law says. If not, then just be honest and tell us your only saying how you want things should be done.

WildCat

6th March 2007, 03:30 PM

so the US combatants...CIA, special forces etc....That wore a grab bag of clothing with no insignia don't count? Do they have consequences to suffer?
Now you're catching on! Yes, there is great risk being a CIA agent, that's why they make the big bucks. Many have been killed after capture, and the public never even gets to know the details.

really wildcat....this crap about the enemy in this war not dressing smartly enough is just a tired old joke. You have also made some vague reference that Hicks current fate is in some way related to his standard of clothing...can you expand on that claim as its new to me....
Have you ever read the GC? There are those protected by its provisions, and those who are not. Hicks and the rest of the Gitmo guests fall into the "not" category. Sometimes it sucks to be a terrorist, don't it?

The Fool

6th March 2007, 03:31 PM

Sometimes, yes. Isn't that the way of it? The clandestine operations done by un-uniformed personal carry an extra factor of risk.

its not clandestine....its combatants in open combat....wearing a ragtag of whatever clothing they wish....Us "contractors" in Iraq behaving as combatants.....shooting people....clothing by Levi Strauss....lets get real here. Whining because nobody dresses up properly is laughable.

Does the Geneva Conventions address the issue, yes or no? If yes, what does the GC say?

Not sure how this is relevant...Hicks is not charged with any war crimes or any breach of the Geneva conventions. It just seems to be a popular diversion to pull out on a regular basis...the "they don't dress properly" distraction.

You can’t squawk about the GC not being followed when you want it and then call it a “tired old joke” when it allows for something you don’t like.

The claim that I called the Geneva convention a "tired old joke" is a fabrication...is it deliberate?

If you want to make a legal argument then we must pay attention to what the law says. If not, then just be honest and tell us your only saying how you want things should be done.
If you want to quote the geneva convention then please please please tell me what part of the geneva convention you are charging David hicks with breaching. You have not been able to round up a charge of any war crime...any breach of any international laws of war GC or any other. The charge you have left standing is breaking a law that you wrote when he was already locked up.

gtc

6th March 2007, 03:36 PM

Thats correct rik. Hicks is innocent.

By the same token Rikzilla also has to be treated as innocent.

Also, people in criminal cases are treated AS innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean that they ARE innocent.

And yes, you are a person who expresses violent extremist views on this forum. Its what you do.

Do you concede that Hicks is a man who expresses violent extremist views and acts on them, by his own admission?

Mycroft

6th March 2007, 03:37 PM

Thanks.

I don't see how that suddenly means we lose our process; one where we look at the individual's actions, demonstrate through evidence that they were personally responsible for them and then decide without passion or emotion how to prevent such actions from taking place again in the future.

Who says we lose our process? We follow that process whenever we deal with criminals. Those that declare themselves to be holy warriors are something else and get a different process; one that gives them much fewer rights.

We're trying to create a world where individuals or communities cannot impose their values on others using the threat of violence.

When and where was this goal adopted?

The 'tu quoque' response from apologists who feel that this situation deserves us to abandon reason and process is insane. Because extremists use violence to impose their views, suddenly we're allowed to as well? Sorry, this ain't the playground.

I don’t see anyone abandoning reason; they’re just applying reasoning you disagree with.

We don't have this process because it's simply being nice to each other. We have it because it delcares reason as the most positive and useful response to the threats of danger we face in our modern world.

And there are some situations where this process doesn’t apply. One of those situations is with enemy combatants.

You say we should treat them differently because they are inspired by different influences? The fact that they are inspired by religious zealotry means they don't 'deserve' the same process as a child rapist?

No, not because they are inspired by “different influences” and not because they are inspired by religious zealotry.

Because they wage war. That’s the reason.

Religious thinking might be powerful, and I agree it's of concern, but that just means we need to keep a reasonable view and need a calculated system more now than ever in our history. Emotional responses which see us dismantling regimes and creating hotspots of chaos, and eye-for-an-eye thinking is not going to rationally address this threat.

I’m not concerned about religious thinking, I’m concerned about sub-national groups waging war on civilization. If we were talking about neo-Nazis, communist saboteurs, Survivalists or Reverend Fred Phelp’s church members training themselves in secret terrorist camps in Afghanistan to kill civilians by the thousands, the same would apply to them.

I wish I could say this view of yours revolts me, but again, politics seems to have a sign above the door which says 'leave your ability to rationalise without passion here' as you enter.

You understand I could say the same about you, right? The Bill of Rights and the US criminal justice system applies to US citizens who commit crimes within the United States. This conversation is about a foreign born non-citizen who waged war against us abroad. Common sense should tell you that a different set of rules might apply.

Again, due process where somebody should be systematically demonstrated to be guilty and dealt with in a manner which reflects our wish that such actions will be prevented from occuring again in the future is not out of personal love of an individual or a respect for their past. It is because it delcares reason as the most positive and useful response to the threats of danger we face in our modern world.

There is nothing unreasonable in saying that those who wage war against us get different treatment from those who merely break our laws.

Laws are not flexible in response to the attitude of the criminal. 'Eye for an Eye' thinking was abandoned a long time ago because it was a response born of desire for retribution and not something that was reasonable.

Athon

I think your evaluation of our criminal justice system is a bit utopian. In all honesty we punish our criminals and hope they won’t want to be criminals anymore. The civilizing factor is that it takes the revenge factor away from the individual and places it in the hands of the government. Maybe someday we will be more civilized yet and work on rehabilitation.

The Fool

6th March 2007, 03:41 PM

Have you ever read the GC? There are those protected by its provisions, and those who are not. Hicks and the rest of the Gitmo guests fall into the "not" category. Sometimes it sucks to be a terrorist, don't it?
let me get this clear....are you claiming that breaches of the GC are one of the justifications of Hicks detention? Are you claiming they form any part of any charge against him? In what way are they relevant??

I encourage you to listen to Major Mori's presentation on these very issues. Hicks is not charged with any war crime.He is not charged with killing or attempting to kill anyone. He is not charged with anything other than providing support to an enemy of the US.....which leads me to ask....is it now simply illegal to resist the armed forces of the US who are invading someone? I can understand if you charged a US subject supporting an enemy of the US.........Jeebus, if the US was to invade New Zealand would I be committing a crime if I, an Australian, went there and helped them fight?

gtc

6th March 2007, 03:53 PM

If the US was to invade New Zealand would I be committing a crime if I, an Australian, went there and helped them fight?

No, I am sure the Americans would be grateful for any help you can give them. Of course the invasion would probably be over by lunch time.

Wait, are you saying you would be fighting FOR New Zealand?

Zep

6th March 2007, 04:07 PM

Even if you assume that was an official "the war is over" statement, which it wasn't, it was an entirely different war. Hicks is being held for the war in Afghanistan, not Iraq. No one captured in the Iraq war is being held in Gitmo.If you want to get into the "where he was captured" business, perhaps you should think again.

For the record, Hicks was captured in PAKISTAN, not Afghanistan. He was handed over by the Pakistanis to the Egyptians (his first interrogation was in Cairo), and thence to the Americans.

If this same process was applicable consistently, surely the Pakistanis should have handed over Bin Laden by now. It is on reasonably good grounds that he is hiding out in "friendly" areas of Pakistan most of the time, and they know damn well where he is. And presumably can put their finger on him if needs be.

So your own argument is actually undermining your position here.

Zep

6th March 2007, 04:09 PM

let me get this clear....are you claiming that breaches of the GC are one of the justifications of Hicks detention? Are you claiming they form any part of any charge against him? In what way are they relevant??

I encourage you to listen to Major Mori's presentation on these very issues. Hicks is not charged with any war crime.He is not charged with killing or attempting to kill anyone. He is not charged with anything other than providing support to an enemy of the US.....which leads me to ask....is it now simply illegal to resist the armed forces of the US who are invading someone? I can understand if you charged a US subject supporting an enemy of the US.........Jeebus, if the US was to invade New Zealand would I be committing a crime if I, an Australian, went there and helped them fight?

Ahem. The Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s for 50, please, Alex.

WildCat

6th March 2007, 04:24 PM

let me get this clear....are you claiming that breaches of the GC are one of the justifications of Hicks detention?
Are you unable to read? I never claimed any such thing. His role in al Qaeda, with which the US is at war, is the reason for his detention. The GC spells out who is protected under its provisions, and Hicks does not qualify.

WildCat

6th March 2007, 04:27 PM

If you want to get into the "where he was captured" business, perhaps you should think again.

For the record, Hicks was captured in PAKISTAN, not Afghanistan. He was handed over by the Pakistanis to the Egyptians (his first interrogation was in Cairo), and thence to the Americans.
The US is at war w/ al Qaeda, it really doesn't matter where we find them or who captures them in the first place. Once the US has them the Gitmo option is available.

If this same process was applicable consistently, surely the Pakistanis should have handed over Bin Laden by now. It is on reasonably good grounds that he is hiding out in "friendly" areas of Pakistan most of the time, and they know damn well where he is. And presumably can put their finger on him if needs be.
Lot of assumptions there, but is there any evidence to back those assumptions? You're sounding like a 9/11 CTist now.

SimonD

6th March 2007, 04:35 PM

And?

He said himself he was trained in Al Queda camps. How that does not make him a terrorist, I'll never understand.

Nobody should have to suffer the crime of rape. No matter how much we think they might.

Mycroft

6th March 2007, 04:48 PM

its not clandestine....its combatants in open combat....wearing a ragtag of whatever clothing they wish....Us "contractors" in Iraq behaving as combatants.....shooting people....clothing by Levi Strauss....lets get real here. Whining because nobody dresses up properly is laughable.

So are you claiming that un-uniformed armed security guards get the same rights as soldiers under the Geneva Conventions?

If so, please cite the relevant passages.

Not sure how this is relevant...Hicks is not charged with any war crimes or any breach of the Geneva conventions. It just seems to be a popular diversion to pull out on a regular basis...the "they don't dress properly" distraction.

Nobody claimed he broke the GC, the claim is that he is not protected by it.

The claim that I called the Geneva convention a "tired old joke" is a fabrication...is it deliberate?

No, it comes from your statement. You apparently feel that the GC is a “tired old joke” when it distinguishes between uniformed and non-uniformed combatants.

Or am I wrong? Is the uniform important in the GC or not?

If you want to quote the geneva convention then please please please tell me what part of the geneva convention you are charging David hicks with breaching.

Again, I never made the claim he was charged with breaking the GC.

You have not been able to round up a charge of any war crime...any breach of any international laws of war GC or any other. The charge you have left standing is breaking a law that you wrote when he was already locked up.

You seem to have forgotten that I’m not advocating charging him with anything. What I am saying is that due to his status as illegal combatant, there is nothing wrong with having held him for five years without charge.

Mycroft

6th March 2007, 04:49 PM

Nobody should have to suffer the crime of rape. No matter how much we think they might.

Was he?

Edited to add:

I know he claims he was, but is there any evidence other than his claim?

Mycroft

6th March 2007, 05:01 PM

He is not charged with anything other than providing support to an enemy of the US.....

Which makes him an enemy of the US, which is why we're treating him as one.

which leads me to ask....is it now simply illegal to resist the armed forces of the US who are invading someone?

If you get caught doing it you might find yourself detained until the end of the war. That's the way wars are.

I can understand if you charged a US subject supporting an enemy of the US.........Jeebus, if the US was to invade New Zealand would I be committing a crime if I, an Australian, went there and helped them fight?

You might find yourself in an American camp such as GITMO.

I mean, duh! If you make yourself an enemy combatant you become...an enemy combatant!

But don't feel bad, it works the other way too. If Australia invaded the United States and I went and helped the US repel the invasion, an Australian unit just might capture me and make me a prisoner! Heck, they might even kill me, even though I hadn't broken any law!

The Fool

6th March 2007, 05:05 PM

You seem to have forgotten that I’m not advocating charging him with anything. What I am saying is that due to his status as illegal combatant, there is nothing wrong with having held him for five years without charge.

which is a status the US has created. it has no foundation in any international law or convention, it is an invention of the US government who now Apparently wish to proclaim that it is illegal to resist an American invasion. Thats handy.

Mycroft

6th March 2007, 05:18 PM

which is a status the US has created. it has no foundation in any international law or convention, it is an invention of the US government who now Apparently wish to proclaim that it is illegal to resist an American invasion. Thats handy.

So when you were in Vietnam (as you so often tell us you were) were you at all concerned with the question of if the enemy resisting you were breaking a law in doing so? Or did you just do your job and kill/capture them as you were able?

WildCat

6th March 2007, 05:58 PM

which is a status the US has created. it has no foundation in any international law or convention, it is an invention of the US government who now Apparently wish to proclaim that it is illegal to resist an American invasion. Thats handy.
Do you just make this up as you go along? Just because there may not be a treaty to cover what to do w/ captured combatants not covered by the GC doesn't mean we have to let them go, or allow the international peanut gallery to decide what should be done vis a vis trials. Lacking any convention as to what to do, the nation that holds them is free to do w/ them as their laws and conventions dictate.

Zep

6th March 2007, 06:07 PM

The US is at war w/ al Qaeda, it really doesn't matter where we find them or who captures them in the first place. Once the US has them the Gitmo option is available.I've got a neighbour who I'd like gotten rid of. If I say he is Al Quaeda, invent some nasty rumours about his involvement, "capture" him and turn him over to the US forces, is there a spare room in Gitmo for him?

Lot of assumptions there, but is there any evidence to back those assumptions? You're sounding like a 9/11 CTist now.Um, no assumptions at all. Last I heard, OBL is STILL Target #1, and still out there. And it was US intelligence sources, apparently, who have confirmed OBL hides out in friendly places in Pakistan. (Perhaps that's the problem - believing US intelligence after the WMD fiasco. Still...) So if you can "capture" Hicks by that means, why not OBL?

Incidentally, the facts about David Hicks are as stated. That's public knowledge. If you have any supported info to the contrary, please put them here - we would all be pleased to read them.

CTist, nothing! I repeat (for the umpteenth time): If Hicks is truly guilty of something heinous, get him on trial, convict him, and sentence him - no squeaks from me if the process is fair and the case for conviction is good. BUT QUIT MUCKING ABOUT!

The Fool

6th March 2007, 06:15 PM

Do you just make this up as you go along? Just because there may not be a treaty to cover what to do w/ captured combatants not covered by the GC doesn't mean we have to let them go, or allow the international peanut gallery to decide what should be done vis a vis trials. Lacking any convention as to what to do, the nation that holds them is free to do w/ them as their laws and conventions dictate.
good...we are finally getting to it. You feel you are justified to imprison whoever you wish for as long as you wish and the rest of the world can go jump...that about sum it up?

SimonD

6th March 2007, 06:15 PM

Was he?

Edited to add:

I know he claims he was, but is there any evidence other than his claim?

You are mising the point Mycroft.

I'll say it once again.

Nobody deserves to be raped.

That's it.

WildCat

6th March 2007, 06:23 PM

I've got a neighbour who I'd like gotten rid of. If I say he is Al Quaeda, invent some nasty rumours about his involvement, "capture" him and turn him over to the US forces, is there a spare room in Gitmo for him?
Sure Zep, Gitmo's full of guys like that... :rolleyes:

Um, no assumptions at all. Last I heard, OBL is STILL Target #1, and still out there. And it was US intelligence sources, apparently, who have confirmed OBL hides out in friendly places in Pakistan. (Perhaps that's the problem - believing US intelligence after the WMD fiasco. Still...) So if you can "capture" Hicks by that means, why not OBL?
As I'm sure you're well aware, Pakistan has no control over its tribal areas. Last year they got their asses kicked trying to gain control, and basically surrendered to the Taliban. If you have evidence this isn't the case, present it.

Incidentally, the facts about David Hicks are as stated. That's public knowledge. If you have any supported info to the contrary, please put them here - we would all be pleased to read them.
He's an admitted member of al Qaeda and has been trained as a fighter by them. That's all that is necessary to hoild him until the war w/ al Qaeda is over.

CTist, nothing! I repeat (for the umpteenth time): If Hicks is truly guilty of something heinous, get him on trial, convict him, and sentence him - no squeaks from me if the process is fair and the case for conviction is good. BUT QUIT MUCKING ABOUT!
You miss the point - he doesn't have to be guilty of anything other than being a fighter for al Qaeda, and in fact he admits as much. The US is under no obligation whatsoever to put him on trial, or even charge him. He can be held until the end of hostilities w/ al Qaeda, even if he dies of old age before that happens.

WildCat

6th March 2007, 06:24 PM

You are mising the point Mycroft.

I'll say it once again.

Nobody deserves to be raped.

That's it.
Thank you Mr. Obvious. :confused:

Azure

6th March 2007, 06:27 PM

Nobody should have to suffer the crime of rape. No matter how much we think they might.

Rape is much worse than just a crime, so I agree with you there.

The Fool

6th March 2007, 06:41 PM

You miss the point - he doesn't have to be guilty of anything other than being a fighter for al Qaeda, and in fact he admits as much. The US is under no obligation whatsoever to put him on trial, or even charge him. He can be held until the end of hostilities w/ al Qaeda, even if he dies of old age before that happens.
Under what law or regulation can you hold him until "the end of hostilities with al Qaeda"? I would politely ask if you could be quite specific on this....what law, regulation, convention or treaty?

The Fool

6th March 2007, 06:43 PM

So when you were in Vietnam (as you so often tell us you were)
Rubbish and you know it.......you have earned ignore status again.

SimonD

6th March 2007, 09:38 PM

Thank you Mr. Obvious. :confused:

Please read the entire thread - it will make sense then

Zep

6th March 2007, 10:56 PM

Sure Zep, Gitmo's full of guys like that... :rolleyes: There is? OK, great! I'll prepare the letter to the US government right now. Where will the helicopters like to land?

As I'm sure you're well aware, Pakistan has no control over its tribal areas. Last year they got their asses kicked trying to gain control, and basically surrendered to the Taliban. If you have evidence this isn't the case, present it.But they were perfectly able to find and capture David Hicks in the same area? Strange, no?

He's an admitted member of al Qaeda and has been trained as a fighter by them. That's all that is necessary to hoild him until the war w/ al Qaeda is over.With respect, what utter bullshyte. If it's a war, as highlighted in your response, he's a POW. So treat him as such. POWs can indeed be held until cessation of hostilities, but they also have rights not being accorded to Hicks.

You miss the point - he doesn't have to be guilty of anything other than being a fighter for al Qaeda, and in fact he admits as much. The US is under no obligation whatsoever to put him on trial, or even charge him. He can be held until the end of hostilities w/ al Qaeda, even if he dies of old age before that happens.See above.

gumboot

7th March 2007, 12:06 AM

is it now simply illegal to resist the armed forces of the US who are invading someone? I can understand if you charged a US subject supporting an enemy of the US.........Jeebus, if the US was to invade New Zealand would I be committing a crime if I, an Australian, went there and helped them fight?

Yes, it would be a crime. Unless, of course, you were a member of the Australian Armed Forces and Australia was supporting New Zealand. However, under the International Laws of Armed Conflict, were you a private Australian citizen partaking in an armed conflict in New Zealand between New Zealand and the United States, you would be classified as a "mercenary" and not a protected person. As a mercenary, you would be protected by the Geneva Conventions until such time as a tribunal determined your status. If this tribunal determined that you were a mercenary you would be an unlawful combatant, and a criminal. As such, you would not have Prisoner of War status, would not be repatriated, and, depending on the laws of the detaining power, would likely face execution.

Thus tis the law.

-Gumboot

gumboot

7th March 2007, 12:11 AM

With respect, what utter bullshyte. If it's a war, as highlighted in your response, he's a POW. So treat him as such. POWs can indeed be held until cessation of hostilities, but they also have rights not being accorded to Hicks.

I think, on the matter of these alleged Al Qaeda detainees, it is very important to make a clear distinction between whether they can be detained, for how long, under what premise, and how they are treated WHILE detained.

For example, some might argue that these people can be detained indefinately, whilst others might argue there must be a swift trial and then either release or sentencing. Certainly some may also argue they should all just be let go.

However I think most sane people would agree that until such time as these individuals are released (if they ever are) they certainly shouldn't, for example, be raped and fed dog excrement instead of food.

-Gumboot

Zep

7th March 2007, 12:37 AM

Yes, it would be a crime. Unless, of course, you were a member of the Australian Armed Forces and Australia was supporting New Zealand. However, under the International Laws of Armed Conflict, were you a private Australian citizen partaking in an armed conflict in New Zealand between New Zealand and the United States, you would be classified as a "mercenary" and not a protected person. As a mercenary, you would be protected by the Geneva Conventions until such time as a tribunal determined your status. If this tribunal determined that you were a mercenary you would be an unlawful combatant, and a criminal. As such, you would not have Prisoner of War status, would not be repatriated, and, depending on the laws of the detaining power, would likely face execution.

Thus tis the law.

-GumbootFacts are good to have - thanks.

I've not seen Hicks charged with being a mercenary, and being protected by the GC accordingly. So the evidence for that case seems not to exist either.

And the case for "unlawful combatant" seems to have evaporated too.

What's left? The murder of Rasputin? :boggled:

Zep

7th March 2007, 12:40 AM

I think, on the matter of these alleged Al Qaeda detainees, it is very important to make a clear distinction between whether they can be detained, for how long, under what premise, and how they are treated WHILE detained.

For example, some might argue that these people can be detained indefinately, whilst others might argue there must be a swift trial and then either release or sentencing. Certainly some may also argue they should all just be let go.

However I think most sane people would agree that until such time as these individuals are released (if they ever are) they certainly shouldn't, for example, be raped and fed dog excrement instead of food.

-GumbootExactly. If he is to be detained indefinitely, what's the point (let alone the right) of the dastardly detaining conditions? Even high security common criminals are not treated this bad.

gumboot

7th March 2007, 01:24 AM

I've not seen Hicks charged with being a mercenary, and being protected by the GC accordingly. So the evidence for that case seems not to exist either.

And the case for "unlawful combatant" seems to have evaporated too.

No, no... a mercenary IS an unlawful combatant and ISN'T protected by the Geneva Conventions.

But here's the real problem... under international law he can't be classified as a mercenary (unlawful combatant) until he has been the subject of a military tribunal. And the US Supreme Court ruled that the USA aren't ALLOWED to put him through a military tribunal. So they're pretty much [rule8]ed.

-Gumboot

gumboot

7th March 2007, 01:31 AM

Exactly. If he is to be detained indefinitely, what's the point (let alone the right) of the dastardly detaining conditions? Even high security common criminals are not treated this bad.

I agree...

Either:

1) He's a mercenary, in violation of international law, as determined by a military tribunal (okay, so the Supreme Court won't let them do this, but let's pretend for a moment...) and should be executed accordingly (or whatever the US punishment is for being a mercenary)

OR

2) He's an enemy combatant, and thus a POW, and should be detained until such time as the "War of Terror" ends, at which point, once it is determined he nolonger follows the ideology of Radical Islam (ha!) he should immediately be repatriated to Australia.

OR

3) He's just a random Australian and should be sent home.

Until such time as one of the above happens, the United States Government is obliged to provide him all of the rights and protections afforded to protected persons under the Geneva Conventions.

-Gumboot

Crossbow

7th March 2007, 05:22 AM

Can you specify which decades in US history enemies captured in a war were released prior to war's end, or given legal review? What would FDR have done, for example?

Yes, I can do that!

But first, may come as news to you, but FDR died before World War II ended, therefore it is problematic to compare his polices (which involved a mutually declared state of war between various nations) and Bush (which does not involve a declared state of war).

And perhaps this is news to you as well, but there have already been scores of people who have been released from Guantamo. Therefore, the case you are making about holding the prisoners until all hostilities has already been thoroughly invalidated.

But if you are looking for examples showing how different things are now, then I refer you to the famous case that involved soon after the USA entered the war (when FDR was still alive) where several German saboteurs were caught, then tried, then convicted, and then executed. This was a difficult thing to do, but never the less, the legal system did work the way it was supposed to, as opposed to now, where the Bush Administration has tried so hard to stifle the legal system.

As for other cases of releasing prisoners prior to the end of a war, well there a number of spy exchanges done during the Cold War long before the Cold War was actually over. Other nations have long done similar things while actual hostilities were going on (i.e., the Israelis and Palestinians).

WildCat

7th March 2007, 06:52 AM

Yes, I can do that!

But first, may come as news to you, but FDR died before World War II ended, therefore it is problematic to compare his polices (which involved a mutually declared state of war between various nations) and Bush (which does not involve a declared state of war).
al Qaeda did declare war on the US, and the US responded in kind w/ al Qaeda post-9/11. And I'm well aware that FDR died during the war.

And perhaps this is news to you as well, but there have already been scores of people who have been released from Guantamo. Therefore, the case you are making about holding the prisoners until all hostilities has already been thoroughly invalidated.
When did I ever claim we had to keep them until the end of hostilities? Of course you can release them prior, if you're satisfied they're no longer a threat, or you do a prisoner swap, or any other reason. This hurts your argument more than mine, because it refutes the claim seemingly held by others that we're holding people there for no real reason, and it's just because Bush is evil and gets off on that sort of thing.

But if you are looking for examples showing how different things are now, then I refer you to the famous case that involved soon after the USA entered the war (when FDR was still alive) where several German saboteurs were caught, then tried, then convicted, and then executed. This was a difficult thing to do, but never the less, the legal system did work the way it was supposed to, as opposed to now, where the Bush Administration has tried so hard to stifle the legal system.
Those spies were dropped off on the American mainland by a U-Boat. Spies/saboteurs caught on the battlefield didn't fare so well - there is video of the Battle of the Bulge showing German spies being summarily executed on the spot - no court martial, trial, lawyers, etc. Just an order from an officer. The Gitmo prisoners are lucky by comparison.

WildCat

7th March 2007, 06:54 AM

WildCat

7th March 2007, 06:59 AM

But they were perfectly able to find and capture David Hicks in the same area? Strange, no?
Are you claiming Hicks had the same protection afforded bin Ladin by the locals?

With respect, what utter bullshyte. If it's a war, as highlighted in your response, he's a POW. So treat him as such. POWs can indeed be held until cessation of hostilities, but they also have rights not being accorded to Hicks.
Careful how you use that term - POW is a term defined by the GC for protected persons. Persons captured by the enemy but not fitting the criteria for a protected person are not afforded POW status. They are prisoners captured in a war, but not technically POW's.

gumboot

7th March 2007, 07:41 AM

As for other cases of releasing prisoners prior to the end of a war, well there a number of spy exchanges done during the Cold War long before the Cold War was actually over.

Er... I'm not sure that's such a fantastic example to use. To begin with, spies are not PoWs and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Secondly, although we call the "Cold War" a war, it's not an Armed Conflict, and therefore not relevant in terms of discussing the International Laws of Armed Conflict.

-Gumboot

Mycroft

7th March 2007, 10:06 AM

You are mising the point Mycroft.

I'll say it once again.

Nobody deserves to be raped.

That's it.

Well I agree with you, but unless you're claiming David Hicks was raped then your statement is out of place in this discussion.

Are you claiming Hicks was raped?

If so, what is the evidence to support your claim?

Mycroft

7th March 2007, 10:08 AM

Rubbish and you know it.......you have earned ignore status again.

Now I'm confused.

Were you not in Vietnam?

Edited to add:

Or is this fake offense your excuse not to address the issue that you know damned well that enemy combatants in any conflict get killed or imprisoned without regard to the legality of their "resistance."

Mycroft

7th March 2007, 10:09 AM

But they were perfectly able to find and capture David Hicks in the same area? Strange, no?

IIRC, Hicks was captured in an urban area while riding a bus.

Mycroft

7th March 2007, 10:49 AM

And perhaps this is news to you as well, but there have already been scores of people who have been released from Guantamo. Therefore, the case you are making about holding the prisoners until all hostilities has already been thoroughly invalidated.

Excuse me, but how does that invalidate anything? That prisoners may be held until the end of hostilities doesn't mean that they must be. I am not aware of any rule that forbids making the decision on a case by case basis.

fishbob

7th March 2007, 11:06 AM

I only remember saying that those who see themselves as holy soldiers who don’t obey the Geneva Conventions should be treated as soldiers who don’t obey the Geneva Conventions.

Not obeying the Geneva Conventions would be just plain criminal.

Crossbow

7th March 2007, 11:07 AM

al Qaeda did declare war on the US, and the US responded in kind w/ al Qaeda post-9/11. And I'm well aware that FDR died during the war.

Excuse me again for pointing out the obvious, but the USA has not declared war on al Qaeda. The USA can only declare war on other nations, and al Qaeda is an organization, not a nation, therefore al Qaeda cannot be treated as a nation.

And I am most pleased to learn that you are aware that FDR died before World War II ended, so I suggest that you stop talking about why FDR was not tried for war crimes during World War II.

When did I ever claim we had to keep them until the end of hostilities? Of course you can release them prior, if you're satisfied they're no longer a threat, or you do a prisoner swap, or any other reason. This hurts your argument more than mine, because it refutes the claim seemingly held by others that we're holding people there for no real reason, and it's just because Bush is evil and gets off on that sort of thing.

Well, it sure sounded like you were claiming that all detainees should be held until the end of hostilities when you say things like:

OK, I read it. Hicks admits training w/ al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The US is at war w/ al Qaeda, Hicks was captured and can be held for the duration of the war - and doesn't ever have to be charged w/ anything. And this is the way it's always been done in warfare, and is not illegal in the US. Does Australia typically appoint enemies captured in a war lawyers and trry them? I doubt it. If so, could you provide examples?

As for the previous release of detainees, again I have to say that hurts your argument not mine.

If the USA was actually at war with al Qaeda (as you like to claim),
Then all of the detainees would be held until the war with al Qaeda has been won or lost.
Instead, Bush has used his own authority to hold and release prisoners as he sees fit to do so, therefore if your claim is accurate, then Bush would be guilty of treason by letting prisoners go before the war had been concluded, and Bush would be guilty of war crimes by holding the detainees as 'Enemy Combatants' instead of 'Prisoners of War'.

Those spies were dropped off on the American mainland by a U-Boat. Spies/saboteurs caught on the battlefield didn't fare so well - there is video of the Battle of the Bulge showing German spies being summarily executed on the spot - no court martial, trial, lawyers, etc. Just an order from an officer. The Gitmo prisoners are lucky by comparison.

Invalid comparision!

True enough, those spies were dropped off by U-Boat, however that does not change the facts of the case that once they were in the legal system, they were treated with legal due process. As opposed to the other case you cite in the 'Battle of the Bulge' when they were still in the middle of a dire fight and the prisoners in question had not yet been legally processed. In the case of current detainees, they have been kept off the battlefield for months (even years) and pose no immediate danger, yet the Bush Administration has continually refused to provide these people with the legal due process that the USA would call for if any of its military personnel were in a similar situation.

Crossbow

7th March 2007, 11:12 AM

Er... I'm not sure that's such a fantastic example to use. To begin with, spies are not PoWs and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Secondly, although we call the "Cold War" a war, it's not an Armed Conflict, and therefore not relevant in terms of discussing the International Laws of Armed Conflict.

-Gumboot

Quite true!

The USA/USSR spy exchanges were more like a courtesy than the execution of a detailed international agreement. However, if you note I also did include a bit about how other nations have exchanged prisoners while actual engaged in actual hostilities (which is what I was being asked about).

Crossbow

7th March 2007, 11:17 AM

Excuse me, but how does that invalidate anything? That prisoners may be held until the end of hostilities doesn't mean that they must be. I am not aware of any rule that forbids making the decision on a case by case basis.

Since you have more than adequately shown that you are unable to understand when two different issues are being discussed in the same thread, I doubt that I could explain it to you in any terms that you could comprehend.

WildCat

7th March 2007, 11:33 AM

Excuse me again for pointing out the obvious, but the USA has not declared war on al Qaeda. The USA can only declare war on other nations, and al Qaeda is an organization, not a nation, therefore al Qaeda cannot be treated as a nation.
Nonsense. Let me refresh your memory:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Bold emphasis mine.

And I am most pleased to learn that you are aware that FDR died before World War II ended, so I suggest that you stop talking about why FDR was not tried for war crimes during World War II.
Now you're left with having to lie about my position. I never once claimed that FDR should have been tried for war crimes, nor any other US President for that matter.

Well, it sure sounded like you were claiming that all detainees should be held until the end of hostilities when you say things like:
Apparently the public education system has failed you to the point of being unable to distinguish between "can be" (my words) and "must be" (what you apparently think "can be" means).

As for the previous release of detainees, again I have to say that hurts your argument not mine.
Not at all, because the basis for your claim is a strawman argument I never made.

If the USA was actually at war with al Qaeda (as you like to claim),
Which I proved above we are.

Then all of the detainees would be held until the war with al Qaeda has been won or lost.
Replace "would" with "could" and you've accurately portrayed my position. Your repeated attempts at lying about what I said are noted for all to see.

Instead, Bush has used his own authority to hold and release prisoners as he sees fit to do so, therefore if your claim is accurate, then Bush would be guilty of treason by letting prisoners go before the war had been concluded, and Bush would be guilty of war crimes by holding the detainees as 'Enemy Combatants' instead of 'Prisoners of War'.
Wow, you take your lie and run with it to this extent... I guess this means you know you've lost the argument and lies are your only recourse?

Invalid comparision!

True enough, those spies were dropped off by U-Boat, however that does not change the facts of the case that once they were in the legal system, they were treated with legal due process. As opposed to the other case you cite in the 'Battle of the Bulge' when they were still in the middle of a dire fight and the prisoners in question had not yet been legally processed. In the case of current detainees, they have been kept off the battlefield for months (even years) and pose no immediate danger, yet the Bush Administration has continually refused to provide these people with the legal due process that the USA would call for if any of its military personnel were in a similar situation.
Doesn't matter. The spies captured on the battlefield were also no longer a threat. Nothing prevented them from being processed like the thousands of other Germans captured, except for the whims of the officers in charge.

Are you going to keep on resorting to lying about my position Crossbow? Or do you have actual facts to bring to the discussion?

fishbob

7th March 2007, 11:36 AM

snipped up and numbered for my convenience:
1 - Who says we lose our process? We follow that process whenever we deal with criminals. Those that declare themselves to be holy warriors are something else and get a different process; one that gives them much fewer rights.
. . . . . .
2 - Because they wage war. That’s the reason.
. . . . .

3 - You understand I could say the same about you, right? The Bill of Rights and the US criminal justice system applies to US citizens who commit crimes within the United States. This conversation is about a foreign born non-citizen who waged war against us abroad. Common sense should tell you that a different set of rules might apply.
. . . . . . .

4 - There is nothing unreasonable in saying that those who wage war against us get different treatment from those who merely break our laws.

1 - We lose our process when we arbitrarily change the rules what the offenders declare themselves to be.

2 - They wish they were waging war. What they are doing looks very much like thuggery, thievery, and murderer.

3 - Making up your own definition of war so that you can apply a different set of rules is stretching the boundaries of legalality. And the same conversation is equally relevant to a couple of US citizens that we have talked about at length.

4 - OK. But making up your own definition of war so that you can apply a different set of rules is not particularly reasonable. It is making an end run around the rule of law - and to what purpose? What purpose is served by this different treatment? Showing the rest of the world that the US is hypocritical and sleazy is not in our interest.

athon

7th March 2007, 12:59 PM

Who says we lose our process? We follow that process whenever we deal with criminals. Those that declare themselves to be holy warriors are something else and get a different process; one that gives them much fewer rights.

Why do you believe this is justified? Rights are not subjective to your acts as a person, but because you are a person. They are declared 'rights' because they mark our behaviour as humans, and exist in order to preserve rationality and humanity.

Again you seem to think that eye-for-an-eye thinking is valid, and somehow rational. It is not. It is emotional and reactive. Do I really need to explain to you why emotionally based responses to social threats don't work?

I don’t see anyone abandoning reason; they’re just applying reasoning you disagree with.

It is emotional reasoning, one based on anger and the desire for retribution rather than addressing the problem at hand. Ok, it might by definition be a form of reason, but it is a poor one.

And there are some situations where this process doesn’t apply. One of those situations is with enemy combatants.

Why? Because you hate them more?

War is a threat to our security, as is any criminal act. Law and defence both endeavour to prevent others from doing us harm. Claiming that 'because it is war' means we create an alternative process which does not reflect the same fundamental ideals as a system of social laws makes no sense.

I’m not concerned about religious thinking, I’m concerned about sub-national groups waging war on civilization. If we were talking about neo-Nazis, communist saboteurs, Survivalists or Reverend Fred Phelp’s church members training themselves in secret terrorist camps in Afghanistan to kill civilians by the thousands, the same would apply to them.

So if it was a national group, it would be different? Why clearly mark out sub-nationals? I'm curious...

As for 'war against civilisation', it's more a 'war against western culture and ideology'. That hardly makes it any better, but it's more a honest description.

You understand I could say the same about you, right? The Bill of Rights and the US criminal justice system applies to US citizens who commit crimes within the United States. This conversation is about a foreign born non-citizen who waged war against us abroad. Common sense should tell you that a different set of rules might apply.

Again, why? The very fact you see your laws as only relevant to US citizens means you loose the very idea of what a legal response to an act is about. Yes, you are right; the letter of your law refers to US citizens. The letter of Australian law is relevant to Australians. However, simply because you're an American who committs a crime here we don't take you out back and shoot you. We retain a sense of proceedings that reflects the fundamental ideals of the law in the first place, ammended to take into account your foreign status. Typically it might mean trialling you according to our laws and sending you home to serve your sentence, as that is perceived as fair and just.

Once again, justice is not served because of any sentimental sympathies we hold or do not hold for the criminal. It is a mark of a rational society.

I think your evaluation of our criminal justice system is a bit utopian. In all honesty we punish our criminals and hope they won’t want to be criminals anymore. The civilizing factor is that it takes the revenge factor away from the individual and places it in the hands of the government. Maybe someday we will be more civilized yet and work on rehabilitation.

Conversely, I think it's sad you seriously embrace the notion of a retributive society. The 'they are bad therefore we'll do bad things to them' results from a sense of satisfaction that they suffer as we suffered. It might be emotionally satisfying for you, but it doesn't work at all at addressing the threats we face.

The treatment of David Hicks does not mark any desire to address the threat; it is one that feels that because he threatened a country's peace and security, he does not deserve justice. For a country to deny anybody justice, and punishes on presumption of guilt without a due process, it says less about the criminal and more about the adolescent immaturity of the government administering it.

Athon

Giz

7th March 2007, 04:49 PM

Why do you believe this is justified? Rights are not subjective to your acts as a person, but because you are a person. They are declared 'rights' because they mark our behaviour as humans, and exist in order to preserve rationality and humanity.

Again you seem to think that eye-for-an-eye thinking is valid, and somehow rational. It is not. It is emotional and reactive. Do I really need to explain to you why emotionally based responses to social threats don't work?

It is emotional reasoning, one based on anger and the desire for retribution rather than addressing the problem at hand. Ok, it might by definition be a form of reason, but it is a poor one.

Why? Because you hate them more?

War is a threat to our security, as is any criminal act. Law and defence both endeavour to prevent others from doing us harm. Claiming that 'because it is war' means we create an alternative process which does not reflect the same fundamental ideals as a system of social laws makes no sense.

Athon

Enemy combatants in an international war costing thousands of lives are treated differently to common criminals. This is not neccessarily due to morality but instead is driven by practicality.

Sometimes being adult means recognising that the real world is not amenable to perfect solutions. Why do you characterise that as "emotionally based" when your - rather naive - views get a pass?

SimonD

7th March 2007, 05:20 PM

Well I agree with you, but unless you're claiming David Hicks was raped then your statement is out of place in this discussion.

Are you claiming Hicks was raped?

If so, what is the evidence to support your claim?

Mycoft, that's twice now you have failed to understand what is being said. Go back, start from the beginning post and read from there. It will all make sense then.

I'm I the only one around here who reads the entire thread?:confused:

athon

7th March 2007, 08:05 PM

Enemy combatants in an international war costing thousands of lives are treated differently to common criminals. This is not neccessarily due to morality but instead is driven by practicality.

Really? How is it more practical to deny an enemy human rights, when those same rights are granted to baby rapists? How is it more practical to abandon the process -- a process established in order to make rational decisions about potential threats to society, without passion or undue bias -- simply because it is war?

Your logic means if it is impractical to trial and sentence a suspect captured under allegation of rape, we should just jail him anyway. It is not a question of supposed practicality; it is one of justice, rationality and an unempassioned way of dealing with threats to society.

Sometimes being adult means recognising that the real world is not amenable to perfect solutions. Why do you characterise that as "emotionally based" when your - rather naive - views get a pass?

Are you telling me the reactions of many here towards David Hicks, characterised as 'human garbage', where the support for his denial of legal process and justice is on the grounds of his ideals, his actions and his beliefs, is not emotionally driven? If you honestly feel that, then your 'naive' claim is rather hypocritical.

Athon

Giz

7th March 2007, 09:09 PM

Really? How is it more practical to deny an enemy human rights, when those same rights are granted to baby rapists? How is it more practical to abandon the process -- a process established in order to make rational decisions about potential threats to society, without passion or undue bias -- simply because it is war?

You're honestly asking why people picked up in firefights, or from al quaida/taliban camps are given different treatment to ordinary criminals? In your world I dont see how one could ever defeat a guerilla insurgency... as long as the enemy didn't wear uniforms, carry photo ID, and carry a signed confession on them, how could any suspects picked up be processed with the same timeliness that we expect of our domestic police?

Given the conditions where these guys are picked up it just doesn't seem practical does it. Now does that mean we should treat them like any other enemy in any other war, or should we effectively declare ourselves voluntarily impotent against them?

Are you telling me the reactions of many here towards David Hicks, characterised as 'human garbage', where the support for his denial of legal process and justice is on the grounds of his ideals, his actions and his beliefs, is not emotionally driven? If you honestly feel that, then your 'naive' claim is rather hypocritical.

Athon

Nice argument from blinkered personal perspective there. Now I don't speak for others, and doubtless people do dislike him (can't think why), but he and his colleagues threaten society in a way that your "baby rapist" does not. Perhaps they feel that imprisoning the enemy for the duration of the war - which has always been standard practice in war - a reasonable, practical, and on balance moral, course of action.

Mycroft

7th March 2007, 09:33 PM

Since you have more than adequately shown that you are unable to understand when two different issues are being discussed in the same thread, I doubt that I could explain it to you in any terms that you could comprehend.

:oldroll:

a_unique_person

7th March 2007, 09:37 PM

You're honestly asking why people picked up in firefights, or from al quaida/taliban camps are given different treatment to ordinary criminals? In your world I dont see how one could ever defeat a guerilla insurgency... as long as the enemy didn't wear uniforms, carry photo ID, and carry a signed confession on them, how could any suspects picked up be processed with the same timeliness that we expect of our domestic police?

Given the conditions where these guys are picked up it just doesn't seem practical does it. Now does that mean we should treat them like any other enemy in any other war, or should we effectively declare ourselves voluntarily impotent against them?

Are we to treat them as pows? OK, do that then. The conditions the people are being held in a Gitmo do not accord with the Geneva Convention. As it is, there were several UK citizens held there, who were all released, and subsequently set free.

Mycroft

7th March 2007, 10:28 PM

Are we to treat them as pows? OK, do that then. The conditions the people are being held in a Gitmo do not accord with the Geneva Convention. As it is, there were several UK citizens held there, who were all released, and subsequently set free.

In what specific ways does Gitmo not conform to the GC?

Mycroft

7th March 2007, 10:33 PM

Why do you believe this is justified? Rights are not subjective to your acts as a person, but because you are a person…

We are not talking about inalienable rights but rights granted under law. The law has always recognized that different people in different circumstances have different rights.

They are declared 'rights' because they mark our behaviour as humans, and exist in order to preserve rationality and humanity.

Says who? Who’s being emotional here?

You’re pulling this argument out of your arse because this is how you feel things aught to be, you’re not describing things how they are.

Again you seem to think that eye-for-an-eye thinking is valid, and somehow rational. It is not. It is emotional and reactive. Do I really need to explain to you why emotionally based responses to social threats don't work?

It has nothing to do with eye-for-an-eye. If that’s what it was about then I’d be all for just summarily executing your baby-killer too.

A soldier is not a policeman. They serve very different functions in society. If you try to turn a soldier into a policeman, he will no longer be able to function as a soldier.

It is emotional reasoning, one based on anger and the desire for retribution rather than addressing the problem at hand. Ok, it might by definition be a form of reason, but it is a poor one.

No. Retribution would be outright killing Hicks. All I’m saying is there is nothing wrong with having kept him prisoner for 5 years. Why? Because he’s not a criminal and doesn’t get a criminal’s rights. He’s an illegal enemy combatant.

Why? Because you hate them more?

No, that’s your straw-man. Hate has nothing to do with it. It’s a simple practical matter where in war enemies can be captured by the thousands or even tens of thousands. Merely being an enemy doesn’t automatically make you a criminal, but it does mean you can be held prisoner.

It’s always been that way.

War is a threat to our security, as is any criminal act. Law and defence both endeavour to prevent others from doing us harm. Claiming that 'because it is war' means we create an alternative process which does not reflect the same fundamental ideals as a system of social laws makes no sense.

Look, the laws of war are different from social laws. It’s always been that way.

So if it was a national group, it would be different? Why clearly mark out sub-nationals? I'm curious...

Other groups that would be comparable to AQ would also be sub-national groups.

As for 'war against civilisation', it's more a 'war against western culture and ideology'. That hardly makes it any better, but it's more a honest description.

I disagree.

Consider Afghanistan as it was under the Taliban to understand what I meant by “against civilization.” Also consider similar Islamic terrorist acts being carried out in Thailand, Indonesia, Jordan, Egypt, India and other non-Western places to understand why your “war against western culture” description is inaccurate.

Again, why? The very fact you see your laws as only relevant to US citizens means you loose the very idea of what a legal response to an act is about.

If you get arrested within the United States, you also get the benefit of the US system of criminal justice, but because you’re not a US citizen, your “rights” may be a bit different. One example is that you could be subject to deportation after you serve your sentence if you are convicted.

That’s life. Not a US citizen, things may work differently for you in the USA.

Of course, if you’re arrested for a crime in Australia, then the rights afforded to a US citizen don’t pertain to you at all, do they?

This isn’t about “the very idea of what a legal response” is, it’s about the nit-picking details of actual law.

Yes, you are right; the letter of your law refers to US citizens. The letter of Australian law is relevant to Australians. However, simply because you're an American who committs a crime here we don't take you out back and shoot you.

No, but you might treat me differently than you would an Australian citizen. Yet another demonstration that sometimes your rights are different depending on who you are and what the circumstances are.

Conversely, I think it's sad you seriously embrace the notion of a retributive society. The 'they are bad therefore we'll do bad things to them' results from a sense of satisfaction that they suffer as we suffered. It might be emotionally satisfying for you, but it doesn't work at all at addressing the threats we face.

I don’t “embrace” anything of the kind, I only recognize what is. “Justice”, at least as it’s practiced by the criminal justice system of any nation, is about taking retribution away from the individual and handing it over to the state. There is a lot of room for improvement in the system.

For a country to deny anybody justice, and punishes on presumption of guilt without a due process, it says less about the criminal and more about the adolescent immaturity of the government administering it.

What makes you think his time at Gitmo is about punishment?

Zep

7th March 2007, 10:42 PM

IIRC, Hicks was captured in an urban area while riding a bus.So you are saying that they don't have buses where the Taliban hold sway in Pakistan? :confused:

Or that Hicks was actually living in a "populated" area when captured? Or even in a city? If so, doesn't that say even more that he was not really a "Taliban hiding-in-the-hills soldier", and thus his "capture" is even more of a farce?

Mycroft

7th March 2007, 11:12 PM

So you are saying that they don't have buses where the Taliban hold sway in Pakistan? :confused:

No, I'm saying you're making an assumption when you claim Hicks was captured in a tribal region where the Pakistani government doesn't have control.

Zep

7th March 2007, 11:30 PM

No, I'm saying you're making an assumption when you claim Hicks was captured in a tribal region where the Pakistani government doesn't have control.He was captured in Pakistan by the Pakistani forces. Doesn't that mean the Pakistani government had/have control of that area? At least a little bit? In daylight hours? I mean, they have buses and it's urban - it's not like it's halfway up the Hindu Kush or anything.

And if Hicks was a "Taliban chief instructor and booster", as claimed by those accusing him of same, wouldn't that same location logically be approximately near where the Taliban were/are? And thus where it might be conceivable that OBL was/is?

Just a thought... :rolleyes:

gumboot

8th March 2007, 03:32 AM

We need some cleaning up of definitions here or things will get confusing...

International Armed Conflict - any trans-border conflict of arms involving two or more national armed forces or armed organisations or militias. Under the Hague Conventions a nation is required to declare a state of war before partaking in an armed conflict, however failure to do so does not in any way affect the "international armed conflict" status of the ensuing conflict.

Enemy Combatant - any person involved directly or indirectly in the waging of the armed conflict, that belongs to the opposing side.

Protected Person - those persons located inside the theatre of armed conflict that are afforded special status under the Hague Conventions, Geneva Conventions, and Additional Protocols. These include:
A) - civilian populations - people not involved directly in the armed conflict who normally live in the theatre of armed conflict.
B) - Refugees - people not involved directly in the armed conflict who have been displaced by the armed conflict.
C) - Diplomats - persons having diplomatic status
D) - UN Peacekeeping Forces - Any armed or unarmed military or civilian forces operating under the flag of the United Nations in a Peace Keeping function.
E) - Prisoners of War - any enemy combatant (see above) who has surrendered their arms, has been processed, and is being detained by your forces.

Unlawful Combatant - Any person partaking in an armed conflict unlawfully (such as a mercenary or spy). Unlawful Combatants are not afforded protection under the Laws of War and will often face summary execution. However, if detained they must be treated as a Protected Person (see above) until such time as a Military Tribunal determines their Unlawful Combatant status.

Let's try use the correct terms to avoid confusion.

-Gumboot

Zep

8th March 2007, 03:43 AM

So Hicks is designated as not an "unlawful combatant"?? :confused:

gumboot

8th March 2007, 04:03 AM

So Hicks is designated as not an "unlawful combatant"?? :confused:

Frankly I'm not sure what the US considers him to be, and I'm not sure they know either!

But according to my understanding of the law, since he has been detained, he has to be treated the same as a POW until such time as his "unlawful combatant" status is determined by a Military Tribunal.

This is where the USA have gone TOTALLY off the rails. They seem to be preparing to bring CHARGES against him and put him to TRIAL.

Until such time as a Military Tribunal determines his status (and note, this is NOT a trial in any way, shape or form) he is a POW, and here's the kicker... you can only charge a POW with crimes he has committed WHILE IN YOUR CUSTODY. For example if it's illegal under US law to kill someone, and a POW murders someone (be it a guard or another POW) they can be charged with murder under US law and tried accordingly. However the US are not charging him with crimes committed while in US custody.

The whole thing is lost in la-la land. And I'm frankly finding it utterly amazing that a number of alleged law experts making comments about the case are making all sorts of stupid remarks that clearly show they are thinking in civil terms, not in armed conflict law terms, yet at the same time everyone seems to be ignoring the ACTUAL legal requirements and facts as per laws of armed conflict.

Frankly the whole detainee thing has me convinced the entire western world has totally lost the plot.

-Gumboot

Zep

8th March 2007, 04:13 AM

gumboot

8th March 2007, 04:27 AM

It seems to me to be a case of making up the rules to suit their own prejudices, and then acting pouty petulant when (1) someone pointed out they couldn't do that after all, and (2) people demanded they cease and desist. That is, a bunch of spoiled bullies.

I must point out that this opinion does not extend to all the USA, just a very select bunch of people.

Yeah but what's so stupid is if they followed the law they could more easily get what they want.

Put it this way.

Under the laws of armed conflict, you don't need to put someone on trial to determine their status. You put them before a military tribunal. The rules for evidence, the rights of defendant, etc... in a military tribunal are very different to a civil court.

Once he has "unlawful combatant" status he's screwed, no trial needed. By ruling of the tribunal he is in violation of international law, has no rights whatsoever under the Geneva Conventions, and can be executed at the US Military's leisure, no appeal permitted.

Seems to be, the US Government has forged their own brain-bending path because they're trying to keep the liberals happy who would go into fits if the US Government did what I've described above.

Those that want to try apply civil law to an international armed conflict want to see each of the detainees put through a speedy fair American civil trial, found not guilty or whatever charge is invented through lack of evidence, and set free.

The problem is there's nothing whatsoever in the laws of armed conflict that guarantees fair civil trial to a detainee, and indeed, until such time as a military tribunal determines they are unlawful combatants, it's completely ILLEGAL to put the detainees on trial.

I'm getting a headache...:boggled:

-Gumboot

a_unique_person

8th March 2007, 04:53 AM

Yeah but what's so stupid is if they followed the law they could more easily get what they want.

Put it this way.

Under the laws of armed conflict, you don't need to put someone on trial to determine their status. You put them before a military tribunal. The rules for evidence, the rights of defendant, etc... in a military tribunal are very different to a civil court.

Once he has "unlawful combatant" status he's screwed, no trial needed. By ruling of the tribunal he is in violation of international law, has no rights whatsoever under the Geneva Conventions, and can be executed at the US Military's leisure, no appeal permitted.

But what makes him an 'unlawful combatant'?

Zep

8th March 2007, 04:56 AM

Crossbow

8th March 2007, 12:40 PM

Nonsense. Let me refresh your memory:

Bold emphasis mine.

Now you're left with having to lie about my position. I never once claimed that FDR should have been tried for war crimes, nor any other US President for that matter.

Apparently the public education system has failed you to the point of being unable to distinguish between "can be" (my words) and "must be" (what you apparently think "can be" means).

Not at all, because the basis for your claim is a strawman argument I never made.

Which I proved above we are.

Replace "would" with "could" and you've accurately portrayed my position. Your repeated attempts at lying about what I said are noted for all to see.

Wow, you take your lie and run with it to this extent... I guess this means you know you've lost the argument and lies are your only recourse?

Doesn't matter. The spies captured on the battlefield were also no longer a threat. Nothing prevented them from being processed like the thousands of other Germans captured, except for the whims of the officers in charge.

Are you going to keep on resorting to lying about my position Crossbow? Or do you have actual facts to bring to the discussion?

Excuse me all, I think it would be best if stopped discussing anything with this particular carbon-based lifeform.

Crossbow

8th March 2007, 12:49 PM

Frankly I'm not sure what the US considers him to be, and I'm not sure they know either!

But according to my understanding of the law, since he has been detained, he has to be treated the same as a POW until such time as his "unlawful combatant" status is determined by a Military Tribunal.

This is where the USA have gone TOTALLY off the rails. They seem to be preparing to bring CHARGES against him and put him to TRIAL.

Until such time as a Military Tribunal determines his status (and note, this is NOT a trial in any way, shape or form) he is a POW, and here's the kicker... you can only charge a POW with crimes he has committed WHILE IN YOUR CUSTODY. For example if it's illegal under US law to kill someone, and a POW murders someone (be it a guard or another POW) they can be charged with murder under US law and tried accordingly. However the US are not charging him with crimes committed while in US custody.

The whole thing is lost in la-la land. And I'm frankly finding it utterly amazing that a number of alleged law experts making comments about the case are making all sorts of stupid remarks that clearly show they are thinking in civil terms, not in armed conflict law terms, yet at the same time everyone seems to be ignoring the ACTUAL legal requirements and facts as per laws of armed conflict.

Frankly the whole detainee thing has me convinced the entire western world has totally lost the plot.

-Gumboot

Great post 'Gumboot'! I do belive that you have articulated the problem quite well.

I doubt that the Bush Administration really has any idea of what to do with these people either.

If they are released, then that rather undercuts the argument for holding them to begin with.
If they are kept at their current status, then that rather undercuts the legal process, and I am sure that the Supreme Court still has something to say about the issue.
If they are provided legal due process, then there is great deal of data that will become public knowledge that the Bush Administration would rather keep secret as well as undercutting the powers of detainment that Bush has tried so hard to cultivate.

Ugh! It is just ugly all the way around.

Of course, if the Bush Administration would have simply thought to follow the existing rules and guidelines at the time, then we would not be in this current mess now either. But of course, thinking before acting has never been a strong trait in this Administration.

Davo

8th March 2007, 01:07 PM

An interesting and complicated debate, just a few of my own points:

As far as I can see from the facts Hicks was not a hired mercenary, or a spy, therefore would not come under an “unlawful combatant”.

Does, being a member of al queda (basing on this assumption) neccesitate him being a combatant ?

The war against al queda would indicate that the war is against anyone who is part of the group who call themselves “al queda”.

Problem that I see is that a lot of members of al queda are people with the “belief” that attacks on the US are just. Other members will be doing the fighting. So you end up with saying the war is against those that “believe” in anti US thought.

Apply that logic to say WW2, German civilians are also enemy combatants because they believe the actions of their country are just.

Probably starting to go off track but what status are US troops captured by:

a.) al queda
b.) Iraqi insurgents

WildCat

8th March 2007, 01:22 PM

Excuse me all, I think it would be best if stopped discussing anything with this particular carbon-based lifeform.
So you have nothing to discuss unless you can resort to lies?

fishbob

8th March 2007, 01:33 PM

Those that want to try apply civil law to an international armed conflict want to see each of the detainees put through a speedy fair American civil trial, found not guilty or whatever charge is invented through lack of evidence, and set free.

Not even close. Your implication is that 'the libruls' want them all set free, while others here want them to all get a bullet to the head.

All we have been advocating is following due process, and not making up new rules. The outcome of the process should be dependent entirely on the facts.

Cleon

8th March 2007, 01:37 PM

So you have nothing to discuss unless you can resort to lies?

So you're not actually a carbon-based life form?

Well, that certainly explains the difference in perspective...

Mycroft

8th March 2007, 02:43 PM

All we have been advocating is following due process, and not making up new rules. The outcome of the process should be dependent entirely on the facts.
Advocating following a "due process" that doesn't apply.

Darth Rotor

8th March 2007, 02:52 PM

I can appreciate the irony. But I can only wonder what the response would be if it were a US citizen who was captured in Pakistan, mysteriously shipped to Egypt and handed over to a foreign power, who entombed him in some awful place without trial. I suspect a full battle fleet would have been despatched long ago...

You would suspect incorrectly.

Read the book By Any Means Necessary and consider the fate of captured American aircrews in the early half of the Cold War.

See also a number of MIA written off. For a case in point, Kelly Patterson (http://www.prisoner-of-war.com/). His pilot, Captain Red McDaniel (http://www.taskforceomegainc.org/M101.htm), I had the chance to meet some years ago. (Red McDaniel spent 6+ years in the Hanoi Hilton, and other tourist resorts. :mad: His book "Before Honor" was re released under the title "Scars and Stripes." He is the Founder of the American Defense Institute (http://www.ojc.org/adi/). )

See also numerous kidnappings in the Mid East in the 1970's and 1980's, and the assassination of a few US folks by terrorists. Then consider the response.

Reality check for fifty, Alex. :p

DR

WildCat

8th March 2007, 03:26 PM

So you're not actually a carbon-based life form?
:D

Well, that certainly explains the difference in perspective...
My post referred to the post by Crossbow where he repeatedly lied about my position on this, despite having the quotes right in front of him. I guess his philosophy is "if you can't debate what he says, debate what you wish he'd said".

Zep

8th March 2007, 05:50 PM

The war against al queda would indicate that the war is against anyone who is part of the group who call themselves “al queda”.
Actually, to be more accurate, that should read: The war against Al Quaeda would indicate that the war is against anyone who is designated by the current US administration to be part of the group who call themselves “Al Quaeda”.

That is, anyone at all they don't like or who are "not working in the best interests of the USA".

It also seems to include people who they have been told are Al Quaeda operatives and have been turned in by friends and allies. Such as David Hicks. Hence my offer above to dob in my next door neighbour whom I would like to see gone. I'll write the letter and deliver him to the nearest heliport if that will help.

a_unique_person

8th March 2007, 05:53 PM

If they are released, then that rather undercuts the argument for holding them to begin with.

The UK citizens were released long ago, at the request of the UK. The only reason David Hicks has not been released is the Australian government has not asked for him to be released. The American citizen Lindh, was processed using an entirely different process.

rikzilla

8th March 2007, 06:33 PM

The UK citizens were released long ago, at the request of the UK. The only reason David Hicks has not been released is the Australian government has not asked for him to be released. The American citizen Lindh, was processed using an entirely different process.

That didn't really work out so well for him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh) you know.
Lindh is now being held at ADMAX Florence, Co. This is the Federal Supermax facility. Other notable prisoners held here are Theodore "Ted" Kaczynski (The Unabomber), Ramzi Yousef (mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing) and Robert Hanssen (former FBI agent who spied for the Soviets.)

Lindh's (inmate number 45426-083) projected release from federal prison will take place on or after May 11, 2019.

Where would you rather be? GITMO with the possibility of a political deal being made for you because of international pressure? Or SUPERMAX with the certainty that you will grow old before you know freedom again?

-z

Zep

8th March 2007, 06:57 PM

The UK citizens were released long ago, at the request of the UK. The only reason David Hicks has not been released is the Australian government has not asked had the balls to ask for him to be released. The American citizen Lindh, was processed using an entirely different process.Corrected. No charge.

Zep

8th March 2007, 07:06 PM

Where would you rather be? GITMO with the possibility of a political deal being made for you because of international pressure? Or SUPERMAX with the certainty that you will grow old before you know freedom again?

-zAgain, Rik. No-one is arguing for Hick's freedom regardless. They are arguing for what we call "a fair go". If he is guilty, into the SUPERMAX he can go. But he needs to be tried fairly and properly found guilty first. Which just isn't happening...

And the problem is getting worse because all the previous charges, which would have had him hanged ten times over then put before a firing squad for a few years if found guilty, have been dropped. And he has been charged only with a much lesser offence that was clearly not an offence when he was captured. "Sorry, mate. We decided to let you off the murder charge after all and make it jay-walking instead." :confused: :eek:

So what the heck happened to the masses of evidence of his clear guilt as a mass-murdering terrorist, trainer-of-terrorists, maker-of-bombs-and-mayhem, etc, etc? Where is it now? Are they simply ignoring it? Has it been lost? Did it ever exist? It's a shambles, Rik, a shambles.

Schneibster

8th March 2007, 07:42 PM

It is emotional reasoning, one based on anger and the desire for retribution rather than addressing the problem at hand. Basically, by avoiding due process, torturing suspects is punishment without judicial oversight. It's taking revenge on someone you're not even sure is guilty; that's why they're a suspect.

I've seen you make this point several times, athon, and wanted to make this one on top of it at a convenient moment.

Davo

8th March 2007, 08:39 PM

Actually, to be more accurate, that should read: The war against Al Quaeda would indicate that the war is against anyone who is designated by the current US administration to be part of the group who call themselves “Al Quaeda”.

That is, anyone at all they don't like or who are "not working in the best interests of the USA".

It also seems to include people who they have been told are Al Quaeda operatives and have been turned in by friends and allies. Such as David Hicks. Hence my offer above to dob in my next door neighbour whom I would like to see gone. I'll write the letter and deliver him to the nearest heliport if that will help.

I was talking in theory what a war against al queda would mean. But in terms of actual events youv`e summed it up pretty accurately.

a_unique_person

8th March 2007, 08:55 PM

That didn't really work out so well for him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh) you know.

Where would you rather be? GITMO with the possibility of a political deal being made for you because of international pressure? Or SUPERMAX with the certainty that you will grow old before you know freedom again?

-z

How it turns out is irrelevant, the process is what matters. If Walker broke laws and got a fair trial, then that is the basics of a democratic society being followed. As far as I can tell, gitmo is modelled on supermax.

fishbob

8th March 2007, 11:55 PM

Advocating following a "due process" that doesn't apply.

Yeah, those pesky facts just get in the way.
There are plenty of perfectly good, quite applicable, due processes floating around - that do not include rendition, abuse, or Gitmo. Seems like making up your own has some unpleasant unintended consequences.

gumboot

9th March 2007, 02:24 AM

But what makes him an 'unlawful combatant'?

Being a third party to the conflict, not belonging to a military organisational structure, not carrying arms openly, not operating in "military formation" (what ever the heck that is supposed to mean!) and so forth...

-Gumboot

a_unique_person

9th March 2007, 02:31 AM

The Taliban did run him that way, as best they could. He was ordered to guard a tank at the airport, for example. If the Taliban structure was not a well organised one, that's the fault of the Taliban, which ran a pretty ramshackle and dysfunctional state.

gumboot

9th March 2007, 02:43 AM

That may all be so - I have no doubt that military justice can be very different to civil justice.

But it would seem VERY clear that until such time as Hicks does appear before a military tribunal and has his status determined, he DOES have certain rights accorded to him...which seem to be being denied even now.

Absolutely. The Geneva Convention is very clear on this. If detained, he must be treated as a POW until such time as a tribunal is held. No if's, no buts.

As far as I can see from the facts Hicks was not a hired mercenary, or a spy, therefore would not come under an “unlawful combatant”.

Does, being a member of al queda (basing on this assumption) neccesitate him being a combatant ?

What, I think, complicates this is there's two factors at stake. Firstly, there's the armed conflict between the coalition forces led by the United States of America and the Taliban. The theatre of operations for this armed conflict is Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan.

The international laws of armed conflict must be applied to this armed conflict.

But at the same time, you ALSO have the matter of Al Qaeda - an internationally designated Terrorist organisation. Belonging to or providing material aid to a terrorist organisation is a civil CRIME.

To make matters WORSE, Al Qaeda are partaking in the above mentioned armed conflict as unlawful combatants (being a third party to the conflict and being a terrorist organisation).

So potentially, you could have someone caught who is an enemy combatant, fighting for the Taliban, and thus a POW. However AT THE SAME TIME they could also be a member of Al Qaeda, making them an international criminal who must be tried in court with due process. If they are also fighting for Al Qaeda in the conflict, that makes them also an unlawful combatant on top of all that!

The conclusion? The International Laws of Armed Conflict are hopelessly outdated and unsuited for the current trend in international armed conflict.

Apply that logic to say WW2, German civilians are also enemy combatants because they believe the actions of their country are just.

Not at all. To be an enemy combatant you have to be directly involved in hosilities.

Probably starting to go off track but what status are US troops captured by:

a.) al queda
b.) Iraqi insurgents

Both cases, POWs (though I would say their status is "f***ed"). The status of a detainee is defined by their actions and activities. It's irrelevant who catches them.

Not even close. Your implication is that 'the libruls' want them all set free, while others here want them to all get a bullet to the head.

All we have been advocating is following due process, and not making up new rules. The outcome of the process should be dependent entirely on the facts.

I don't like to paint everyone with the same brush, and I didn't really want to use the term "liberal" because it's not accurate. But there are MANY people who don't want to see due process at all - they want to see the people released. (Admittedly most of these are non-Americans).

I also appreciate and understand that many people hold the expectations you mentioned above - due process for the detainees and an outcome dependant on facts.

I just think it's important to recognise that detainees of armed conflict do not necessarily have a right to due process. To apply a blanket due process of trial and conviction or release to all of the detainees would have to involve making up new rules.

-Gumboot

Crossbow

9th March 2007, 05:52 AM

So you have nothing to discuss unless you can resort to lies?

I did not lie and yet you define lies as those things which make you angry.

I have no desire to discuss much of anything with someone who has the same emotional maturity that I did when I was two years old.

WildCat

9th March 2007, 08:04 AM

I did not lie and yet you define lies as those things which make you angry.
Your lies (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2405993&postcount=157):
I suggest that you stop talking about why FDR was not tried for war crimes during World War II.
Show where I ever talked about how FDR should be tried for war crimes.

Well, it sure sounded like you were claiming that all detainees should be held until the end of hostilities when you say things like:
Unless you think "can" means the same thing as "should" this is a lie. Does "can" mean the same thing as "should" Crossbow?

Instead, Bush has used his own authority to hold and release prisoners as he sees fit to do so, therefore if your claim is accurate, then Bush would be guilty of treason by letting prisoners go before the war had been concluded, and Bush would be guilty of war crimes by holding the detainees as 'Enemy Combatants' instead of 'Prisoners of War'.
Show where I ever claimed that Bush was obligated to hold all prisoners until the end of the war, and that failure to do this would be a war crime.

And then we just have an example of where you're simply wrong:
Excuse me again for pointing out the obvious, but the USA has not declared war on al Qaeda. The USA can only declare war on other nations, and al Qaeda is an organization, not a nation, therefore al Qaeda cannot be treated as a nation.
The AUMF (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/terrorism/sjres23.htm) proves you wrong here.