Guantánamo Bay - Page 3

Lefty Scaevola · November 6, 2003, 13:01

wrong button

HershOstropoler · November 6, 2003, 13:06

"RE: UN charter of 1945. It does not outlaw war"

And I have not said so. Right to war (ius ad bellum) is terminus technicus for the unrestricted right of the state to start a war. That was abolished with the restrictions you mention.

HershOstropoler · November 6, 2003, 13:07

Oerdin, are you trying to win the Joe Retard Prize for Legal Ignorance? If so, you're on a good track.

Lefty Scaevola · November 6, 2003, 13:23

Nah, Oerdin is just cozying up to the Admin, trying to get a post at GITMO, rather than being detailed to Iraq.

"Prize for Legal Ignorance" Of course that is what I think about almost all the laymen who post here, with a few notable exceptions, and I have been retired from law since 1983.

HershOstropoler · November 6, 2003, 13:25

I think he's on a mission of intellectual sabotage....

HershOstropoler · November 6, 2003, 13:25

****ed-up server dp....

MrBaggins · November 6, 2003, 13:25

This is just precious: a group of individuals uses methods outside accepted civilized practices and any measure of legality, and then their supporters cry foul when they are dealt with summarially. LOL. Here's an idea: How about not being an unlawful combatant in the first place?

Assessing their guilt is a different matter from them being detained as unlawful combatants, child or not. Its the actions of a faction of individuals that initiated this whole situation, anyway...

oedo · November 6, 2003, 14:38

my main concern is, that some (or maybe even most) people in Gitmo have nothing to do with the accusations brought up here. I can´t think of any greater injustice than punishing someone for something he had never even thought of.
you can state a thousand times, that you don´t care for so called unlawful combatans, it doesn´t make the thing better as long as their guilt hasn´t been proven or at least linked.
if they even would be remotely guilty, then why do they get no trial? even a military tribunal would be better than nothing. so what does the Pentagon hide here?

my second concern is that a goverment, who says it only wants to spread freedom, justice, democracy and human rights, is not even able to care for these values in its own country. the world doesn´t want that kind of "freedom" as the world didn´t want Stalin´s, Hitler´s, Nero´s or Saddam´s "freedom".

my third concern is that this kind of policy will provoke even more terrorist attacks 911-style. that would only cause more innocent casualties. believing, that Gitmo would prevent future terrorist attacks is ridiculous.
the Bush goverment has zero credibility anymore. worldwide. not Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, but the American people will pay the price for it.

MrBaggins · November 6, 2003, 14:45

Guantanamo and Stalin/Hilter/Saddam et al aren't apples to apples.

Firstly, we aren't talking numerically significant numbers.

Secondly, whilst it might be utterly inconvienient (at least) for these folks, as long as they aren't physically harmed by the process, I have no moral objection. Better to harm the civil rights of a dozen people, who acted suspiciously enough to get caught, than to let one terrorist go free.

Thirdly, the attitude that detaining terrorists MIGHT cause more people to become terrorists, is irrelevant. Yes, outsiders MIGHT... but at least those terrorists detained absolutely WONT. Plus, intelligence gained from them can be used to infiltrate and destroy the secretive organizations.

HershOstropoler · November 6, 2003, 14:53

"people, who acted suspiciously enough to get caught"

Well there are obvious problems with that standard. Not to mention that even that standard is not subject to review.

MrBaggins · November 6, 2003, 14:59

Right. The problem with having full judicial process for terrorists, is that they work outside the system, and subvert it wherever possible.

If you have a full system of checks and balances, and a generous commitee to oversee things, you'll catch no-one, and the terrorists will go on their merry way, killing civilians, unchecked.

One terrorist working outside the system necessitates a new less resistrictive (or unrestricted) system to deal with that.

HershOstropoler · November 6, 2003, 15:07

Every criminal works "outside the system". Also, the higher efficiency of police state methods is highly questionable.

As for "checks and balances, and a generous commitee", I can't comment because I have no idea what that is supposed to mean in the given context.

MrBaggins · November 6, 2003, 15:19

Not quite. The system had been perfectly fine dealing with existing criminal behavior. The regular kind based on personal or corporate greed, revenge or insanity.

Terrorists commit crimes against random targets based on a ideology.

Its the fact that they are non-discriminating that are the problems.

The organization that they've set up are "at war" with a nation... but there is no target to fight back at, except for these individuals.

So... the response is to go after individuals. You don't *know* they are terrorist until after you've interrogated them and others. And you can't let them have access to outsiders, either.

lord of the mark · November 6, 2003, 15:27

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Every criminal works "outside the system". Also, the higher efficiency of police state methods is highly questionable.

.

your normal criminal can be dealt with by the police. Some, like organized crime are capable of intimidating the police and much of the Judicial system. To deal with that various states have adopted techniques that go beyong what they use with ordinary criminals. In the US that has included laws against "conspiracy" that go beyond the limit of traditional criminal law.

Just as large scale organized crime goes beyond ordinary crime, large scale global terrorism has unique aspects. Responses must reflect that.

Just as in the case of organized crime that does not mean there should be NO restrictions on the state. And indeed there continue to be numerous restriction on the US. Where those restrictions should lie is a legitimate subject for democratic debate.

MrBaggins · November 6, 2003, 15:29

lord of the mark> I agree.

HershOstropoler · November 6, 2003, 16:03

"To deal with that various states have adopted techniques that go beyong what they use with ordinary criminals."

And there is no problem with that as long as they stay within the limits of fundamental rights. That's always a tricky problem.

Also, Germany stayed within those limits and broke the RAF. The UK did not and arbitrary arrests did crap against the IRA. So while the situations were different of course, it's not like ****ing fundamental rights is a sure fire way to fight terrorism.

oedo · November 6, 2003, 16:03

MrBaggins, if you think that up to 600 innocents tortured in Gitmo is not a significant number, note there are two more US controlled torture camps. one is in Bagram, Afghanistan. the other one is in Diego Garcia, India. compared to these, Gitmo would probably be a paradise for the inmates. estimated 3.000 prisoneers are held in these camps.
and if you think that up to 3.000 innocents kept in torture camps is still no significant number, I´m starting to wonder why you condemn terrorist attacks like 911.

MrBaggins · November 6, 2003, 16:08

Don't even start to try to compare these specifically targetted unlawful combatants, with the indescriminately KILLED 9-11 victims. There is no moral equivalence.

oedo · November 6, 2003, 16:16

[sarcasm]

how is that? from my knowledge, the WTC victims didn´t prove their innocence, yet.

[/sarcasm]

an innocent is an innocent. period.

MrBaggins · November 6, 2003, 16:21

Well, thats not a common sentiment, or, for that matter not one held by anyone of import.

MrBaggins · November 6, 2003, 16:25

Honestly.

I really could care less about the freedom of those in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Bagram, Afghanistan or Diego Garcia, India.

There is obviously selection taking place. If the selection process were indescriminate there would be millions/billions of detainees.

I don't care about their rights to a regular trial. They haven't been killed, as those who died on 9-11

oedo · November 6, 2003, 16:42

Quote:

I really could care less about the freedom of those in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Bagram, Afghanistan or Diego Garcia, India.

can you name ten inmates, who are most likely guilty of being a terrorist or murderer? and if so, what did they do that would justify this kind of treatment? find out the names of only ten real terrorists out of 3.000. you got the whole internet. a fair chance.
link: OBL or Saddam is not inside these camps.

Quote:

There is obviously selection taking place. If the selection process were indescriminate there would be millions/billions of detainees.

probably. many have been handed out to terror regimes like pakistan. it´s also a matter of the camp´s capacities. a million would take more time than Bush (hopefully) has.

Quote:

I don't care about their rights to a regular trial. They haven't been killed, as those who died on 9-11

now, that´s a point. I could come up with civilians being killed in the recent anti terror wars. but this is another issue.

MrBaggins · November 6, 2003, 16:59

Luckily... I don't know the identity of the people in the camps. If I had that information readily available... I'd consider that a problem

I have some guaranteed innocents:

The unborn children of pregnant mothers who died during 9-11.

Prove their guilt.

Can you prove the innocence of ANY of the detainees?

oedo · November 6, 2003, 17:12

nice dodge

I don´t need to prove anyone´s innocence, since my whole point is everyone has to be considered innocent as long as his guilt hasn´t been proven. of course this also counts for unborn childs.

I posted a link above, though. his name is Mohammed Saghir and he is no terrorist, but a taxi driver. he was held in Gitmo for ten months until November 2002.

MrBaggins · November 6, 2003, 17:17

The contention is that any system dealing with these terrorists REQUIRES a lesser standard for the detention, than normal criminal trials, and freer discretion on length of detention. The fact that anyone has been released from detention... alive... proves that the system works. *smiles*

Of course... if you could provide a GUARANTEED method of effective terrorist hunting, that protected their civil rights, that would be OK...

But, can you?

oedo · November 6, 2003, 17:30

the best method would a fair trial.
see, I have no problem with people being captured as long as they are suspicious and their issue is SERIOUSLY investigated. I can´t see that in Gitmo.

the only 100% guaranteed method of effective terrorist hunting would be nuking the whole world. I promise you after that no terrorist will be alive anymore.

Gitmo, Bagram and Diego Garcia are obviously not 100% effective. OBL is still free. so is the rest of the al Qaeda elite.

MrBaggins · November 6, 2003, 17:42

A "fair trial" isn't viable: a fair trial allows the terrorist to communicate to other terrorists in his organization. His right to that speech is overridden by (the many) others rights to live.

Anyway, since the innocent are being released, there is no problem anyway... you yourself provided an example of an innocent being released.

As for its effectiveness... I'd say OBL isn't caught. YET. (But a number of high ranking al Qaeda ARE)

lord of the mark · November 6, 2003, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"To deal with that various states have adopted techniques that go beyong what they use with ordinary criminals."

And there is no problem with that as long as they stay within the limits of fundamental rights. That's always a tricky problem.

Also, Germany stayed within those limits and broke the RAF. The UK did not and arbitrary arrests did crap against the IRA. So while the situations were different of course, it's not like ****ing fundamental rights is a sure fire way to fight terrorism.

I know of no surefire way to fight terrorism. The right approach will vary even within the WOT. What makes sense in afghanistan may not make sense in Baghdad. What makes sense in Buffalo, NY may not work in Karachi. We can only weigh risks, and monitor the situation as best we can.

lord of the mark · November 6, 2003, 18:27

Quote:

Originally posted by oedo
MrBaggins, if you think that up to 600 innocents tortured in Gitmo is not a significant number, note there are two more US controlled torture camps. one is in Bagram, Afghanistan. the other one is in Diego Garcia, India. compared to these, Gitmo would probably be a paradise for the inmates. estimated 3.000 prisoneers are held in these camps.
and if you think that up to 3.000 innocents kept in torture camps is still no significant number, I´m starting to wonder why you condemn terrorist attacks like 911.

torture camps - if those are torture camps, then what the hell are we "rending" prisoners to the Syrians and Jordanians for?

Not to make light of the situation - a serious discussion of the "rendition" program I'd like to see. But saying absurd things about Gitmo and Bagram wont get you there.

Pekka · November 6, 2003, 19:10

I'm not going to argue with the legality of this whole thing. I don't have a problem with this.

But I do think, we need to be very careful.. Because someone else might come up with this idea too, and they might not be so sincere about it, maybe 10 years later. So we need to be careful.

The other thing, I think the prosecutions needs to speed up. Indefinite time without legal help or pretty much anything doesn't sound good, even if we are talking about the trash of the human. For example: If we had one of our nationalities there in the camp right now, I'd demand some kind of evidence that justifies further detention without actual prosecuting. After all, we need to have control our citizens over anyone else. That includes the US too. If they commit crimes against the US, like this, then they are to be captured and tried there for sure, but .. their status can't be held as question mark forever. I don't know, what kind of co-operation there is between the countries that has their nationalities in there, but I'd suppose they are giving some kind of proof, at least the something to show that they have some bad element that they captured. Right?