Guantánamo Bay

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
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.

A fair trial is perfectly viable. Do you think these *******s are any more threatening than a number of spies we tried during the peak of the cold war who were involved in nuclear weapons espionage for the USSR?

The US Federal Court system has handled numerous high level criminal cases involving extremely sensitive national security issues and highly classified evidence, including intelligence source, means and capabilities.

The existing military justice system is even more prepared for trying cases which address high level classified evidence and national security issues.

There are no valid reasons at all that those systems can not be used as is to try these *******s, and any other prisoners we want to try. Those that were arrested in the US as part of a law enforcement process (i.e. Moussaoui and Padilla) should be tried in the Federal court system, those taken in combat operations should be tried in courts-martial under the UCMJ and MCM.

However, once we get done with the trying part, we get to the penalty part, and I'm sure lots of leftists will whine over that.

[Pekka]

MtG, I agree with you, but I still think when it comes to other nationalities, like friendlies, there should be some kind of communication and showing of at least some evidence, proof.. So that they can stop worrying about their citizens. It doesn't have to be anything huge, just something that indicates the person they have is suspected for reasons high enough to be suspected in the first place.

[Uncle Sparky]

I figured I'd bump this for another day ...

[TheStinger]

Did the US support the internment of IRA suspects without trial in the 1970's.

If the answer is no then they are being hypocrtical over the Guantanomo detainees.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Just because someone claims it, don't make it true.

I think you mean if they speak any language but English, it isn't true.

And a methodical U.S. justice system with all the checks and balances doesn't have a few "misfires"? Now what about the hastily constructed "saturday night special" justice system we got in Afghanistan.... ohh, and we don't speak the language either.

Kill them all, let God sort out the believers, eh?

[axi]

yeah they're just picking up teenagers off the street just for the hell of it right?

In fact they do. But not for the hell of it; there is a standard $4000 reward for turning in Taliban and Al Quaeda members and alot of people in Afghanistan would be tempted to turn in anybody in order to collect the money.

sorry, Im missing the part where it proves he is innocent

As you will see quoted many times in this thread, "everybody is innocent until proven guilty". Yet the US is not trying to find out by giving him at least a trial.

and US law, which is controlling in the US, does not require (remember our Indian days) that an entity be a recognized national government for it to make war against us.

If you plan to treat Arabs in the same way you treated Indians, then Al Quaeda is the vanguard of the free world and Osama's a saint for fighting against you.

Unlawful combatants have no rights.

Everybody in the world has rights and there's nothing one could do to forfeit those rights.If you tread on human rights so easily, don't be surprised when you find your rights violated.

The US has jurisdiction over these people, and that's the way it is.

You abducted some of these people from inside other sovereign countries. That means you stole them from somebody else's jurisdiction. Would you like to see Cuban commandos abduct US Army officers out of Wahington to go try them for warcrimes in Havana, f.e.?

Better to harm the civil rights of a dozen people, who acted suspiciously enough to get caught, than to let one terrorist go free.

Justice used to work the other way around; punishing an innocent man is 100 times worse than letting a guilty man go. But that's irrelevant since the US don't care who among the 600 detainees are guilty; they keep them imprisoned for totally different purposes.

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.

So the state seeks an excuse in individual terrorism to exert state terrorism. The catch is the the latter is actually the end and not the means.

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

Hear! Hear!

I don't care about their rights to a regular trial.

I know you don't.

They haven't been killed, as those who died on 9-11

2 of them were murdered and alot of them have gone crazy, which is some sort of mental death.

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

When the war in Afghanistan ended, someone had counted 3500 deaths, which are a few hundrend more than the 11/9 victims. How many Iraquis have lost their lives, we'll never know eXactly I'm afraid.

Prove their guilt.
Can you prove the innocence of ANY of the detainees?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable for us to prove the same thing for both parties?

Do you think these *******s are any more threatening than a number of spies we tried during the peak of the cold war who were involved in nuclear weapons espionage for the USSR?

Are you referring to Ethel and Julius Rosenberg? Suuure, theey were guilty all right...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by axi
In fact they do. But not for the hell of it; there is a standard $4000 reward for turning in Taliban and Al Quaeda members and alot of people in Afghanistan would be tempted to turn in anybody in order to collect the money.

However, since we only have a few hundred total in Gitmo, compared to an estimate of up to 75,000 Taleban and 15-30,000 Al Qaeda fighters before the war, and some 30,000 odd prisoners taken through January 2002, we're obviously not getting hordes of innocents shanghaid off the streets of Ghazny.

As you will see quoted many times in this thread, "everybody is innocent until proven guilty". Yet the US is not trying to find out by giving him at least a trial.

Most of these people were captured in war, as part of an organization which routinely violates the laws of war. They're not being held (yet) for specific individual offense, but for the general reason of their membership in an unlawful combatant force which holds itself to be at war with the US.

If you plan to treat Arabs in the same way you treated Indians, then Al Quaeda is the vanguard of the free world and Osama's a saint for fighting against you.

If we treated the arabs the same way, they wouldn't have been training at our flight schools, and there wouldn't be enough of them anywhere to give anyone any trouble. I was referring to the fact that the Lakhota, Tsitsista, etc. did not constitute sovereign nations (not getting into current treaty status, talking about the 19th century), but they did constitute de facto controllers of territory, and they did have the "legal" capacity to engage in warfare. As does Al Qaeda.

Everybody in the world has rights and there's nothing one could do to forfeit those rights.If you tread on human rights so easily, don't be surprised when you find your rights violated.

We rely on power to assert our rights. If I'm in a situation where I have no power, then I don't expect to have any rights unless I'm dealing with some very nice, friendly people. In any event, what I'm referring to is that nothing in the laws or customs of war dictates that we have to accept the surrender of unlawful combatants. Surrendering is a bit hazardous anyway, but the simple fact these people are alive, and were ever taken prisoner instead of just shot down or bombed in place, is a bonus for them. It's a ***** belonging to an unlawful combatant organization on the losing side.

You abducted some of these people from inside other sovereign countries. That means you stole them from somebody else's jurisdiction. Would you like to see Cuban commandos abduct US Army officers out of Wahington to go try them for warcrimes in Havana, f.e.?

Like who? KSM, Binalshibh, etc. were given to us by our Pakistani friends, and we were in Afghanistan at the invitation of the internationally recognized representative of the Afghan government in exile. (Remember, the Taleban was only recognized at all by three countries, all of whom withdrew that recognition.) And if some Cubans want to come up here and play, good luck to them. We're not at war with Cuba, anyway.

So the state seeks an excuse in individual terrorism to exert state terrorism. The catch is the the latter is actually the end and not the means.

Al Qaeda is far more than 'individual" terrorism.

When the war in Afghanistan ended, someone had counted 3500 deaths, which are a few hundrend more than the 11/9 victims. How many Iraquis have lost their lives, we'll never know eXactly I'm afraid.

It was the Taleban's choice to fight rather than turn over OBL and the al Qaeda leadership, and Saddam's choice to play games with over a dozen UNSCRs. Both wars could have been avoided, but neither regime we knocked over gave a **** about their citizens, in fact, over their history they killed far more of their own people than we ever did.

Are you referring to Ethel and Julius Rosenberg? Suuure, theey were guilty all right...

Not them precisely, they were more chumps than anything else. I was thinking more of the Walker case, and various others that involved high level codes, etc. but you could use the Rosenber trial too - even Alger Hiss (though I think it's fairly obvious that Wadleigh, not Hiss, was the guilty party and Chambers wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass and wore a name tag.) The point is that even civilian courts in the US Federal system have procedures for handling evidence and testimony relating to national security matters, so there's no way that washes as an excuse to not have regular military trials for the Gitmo detainees.

[NeOmega]

but the simple fact these people are alive, and were ever taken prisoner instead of just shot down or bombed in place, is a bonus for them.

YES YES YES! WE ARE GOD! WE DESTROY ALL WHO STAND IN OUR WAY. THE WORLD SHOULD BEG AT AMERICA'S FEET FOR OUR MERCY! YES! A HA HA HA HA HA HA!
YAH ALL RAGHEADS ARE GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY OF TERRORISM! LETS BOMB EM ALL IT'LL BE GREAT FUN WHEEEE!

[mindseye]

We can split technical legal hairs for years, and justify every minute of it in very charming and civilized legal arguments.

But as long as these people remain imprisoned incommunicado, without charges, without any sign of legal process or hint of any ever happening, we demean our own notions of freedom.

We should be asking ourselves whether the net result is hindering terrorism or encouraging it - and then get on with it.

[HershOstropoler]

Just correcting the legal errors:

"Most of these people were captured in war, as part of an organization which routinely violates the laws of war."

Well as they violate things like wearing uniforms or similar signs, or fighting in open combat, there is a whole lot of problems in identifying them.

"but they did constitute de facto controllers of territory, and they did have the "legal" capacity to engage in warfare. As does Al Qaeda."

De facto controllers of territory have the legal capacity to wage war. Al Qaeda does not.

"In any event, what I'm referring to is that nothing in the laws or customs of war dictates that we have to accept the surrender of unlawful combatants."

And how do you identify someone "surrendering "as an unlawful combatant? Did he wear an AQ-Batch? Also, law of war is not the entire law that can cover the situation as I have explained before.

The key problem is that your cowboy approach makes all other guarantees pretty much meaningless as it invites abuse.

Anyway, the whole story of lawlessness is far from clear, no matter how often it gets repeated. Here is just an outlay of the issues:

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh81.htm

[Sloth]

All this thing of "unlawful combatants" really makes me sad
but what do I know....Chephalonia is just a small island and in its Hollywood edition Captain Corelli's Mandolin has an happy ending....

[oedo]

We should be asking ourselves whether the net result is hindering terrorism or encouraging it - and then get on with it.

the answer is quite obvious. and intended by the US admin as I suppose. the more terrorism there is, the more elemental rights may be broken by this govement.
up to today I haven´t seen the slightest link that the current US admin is caring for anyone´s life and freedom, unless it´s their own.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by NeOmega


YES YES YES! WE ARE GOD! WE DESTROY ALL WHO STAND IN OUR WAY. THE WORLD SHOULD BEG AT AMERICA'S FEET FOR OUR MERCY! YES! A HA HA HA HA HA HA!
YAH ALL RAGHEADS ARE GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY OF TERRORISM! LETS BOMB EM ALL IT'LL BE GREAT FUN WHEEEE!

Take your two digits of IQ and try "Hooked on phonics" or something else that will teach you to read.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Just correcting the legal errors:

"Most of these people were captured in war, as part of an organization which routinely violates the laws of war."

Well as they violate things like wearing uniforms or similar signs, or fighting in open combat, there is a whole lot of problems in identifying them.

Somehow those Chechens and Yemenis, etc. with the folding stock Kalashnikovs didn

"but they did constitute de facto controllers of territory, and they did have the "legal" capacity to engage in warfare. As does Al Qaeda."

De facto controllers of territory have the legal capacity to wage war. Al Qaeda does not.

Al Qaeda was a larger military force by far than the Taleban on the NA front, and they seem to have called the shots as to both the assassination of Mahmoud and the timing of "their" offensive. Seems rather odd that a group mostly of arabs with several thousands of warfighters can be the de facto military muscle behind the Taleban loonies, can run several dozen training camps for warfighters and "martyrdom" training, and can call the shots as to launching large scale military offensives to conquer territory, but none of that is "waging war."

Arguably, individuals like KSM and Ramsi Binalshibh who never participated in the grunt work in Afghanistan migh fall under a different category, but it's pretty much of a stretch of reality to say that those foot soldiers weren't part of an organization with the capacity to wage war - especially as a justification to give them POW status.

"In any event, what I'm referring to is that nothing in the laws or customs of war dictates that we have to accept the surrender of unlawful combatants."

And how do you identify someone "surrendering "as an unlawful combatant? Did he wear an AQ-Batch? Also, law of war is not the entire law that can cover the situation as I have explained before.

The fact that the guy (a) doesn't look like an Afghan, (b) doesn't speak the local languages, (c) isn't dressed like the locals, (d) is carrying arms or concealing them, and this is visible at the engagement ranges at which you take their surrender, (e) is caught fleeing from a front line combat zone or wandering around in a daze after a B52 strike.

The key problem is that your cowboy approach makes all other guarantees pretty much meaningless as it invites abuse.

Like it or not, the cowboy approach, or "when in doubt, wipe 'em out" is what happens in front line combat, especially when you have to assault an enemy held position. "Hot" surrenders are really rare.

[HershOstropoler]

"Somehow those Chechens and Yemenis, etc. with the folding stock Kalashnikovs didn"

Not to mention them showing their passports in combat.

Btw, any evidence for Chechens?

"they seem to have called the shots as to both the assassination of Mahmoud and the timing of "their" offensive."

So you attribute 9-11 to AQ ruling Afghanistan? Even if, it's history.

"especially as a justification to give them POW status."

Was AQ a de facto state?

"The fact that the guy (a) doesn't look like an Afghan, (b) doesn't speak the local languages, (c) isn't dressed like the locals, (d) is carrying arms or concealing them, and this is visible at the engagement ranges at which you take their surrender, (e) is caught fleeing from a front line combat zone or wandering around in a daze after a B52 strike."

Apart from the value of that definition, how many in Guantanomo fit that definition? Do you know anything? Do you know anything beyond the Pentagon's propaganda lies?

"Like it or not, the cowboy approach, or "when in doubt, wipe 'em out" is what happens in front line combat, especially when you have to assault an enemy held position. "Hot" surrenders are really rare."

If they fought in a front line, it may be that they qualify for POW status. But again, what do you know about the circumstances of their arrest?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Somehow those Chechens and Yemenis, etc. with the folding stock Kalashnikovs didn"

Not to mention them showing their passports in combat.

Btw, any evidence for Chechens?

IIRC, around 3-4 dozen prisoners were identified as Chechens.

"they seem to have called the shots as to both the assassination of Mahmoud and the timing of "their" offensive."

So you attribute 9-11 to AQ ruling Afghanistan? Even if, it's history.

I don't necessarily make the connection, but I would assume that they realized the attention would be focused on the US martyrdom actions, and not the general offensive to clear rebels out of the remaining disputed enclaves of northern and eastern Afghanistan.

"especially as a justification to give them POW status."

Was AQ a de facto state?

Maybe. Or maybe they were a part of one. Why worry about it though? It's not like your government, or any European government, or any one else gives enough of a rat's ass to make an issue of it in any international forum.

"The fact that the guy (a) doesn't look like an Afghan, (b) doesn't speak the local languages, (c) isn't dressed like the locals, (d) is carrying arms or concealing them, and this is visible at the engagement ranges at which you take their surrender, (e) is caught fleeing from a front line combat zone or wandering around in a daze after a B52 strike."

Apart from the value of that definition, how many in Guantanomo fit that definition? Do you know anything? Do you know anything beyond the Pentagon's propaganda lies?

A fairly large number in Gitmo fit that definition. The real high level guys haven't been brought there. And if I knew anyone who had any involvement in any part of the process or other actions in Afghanistan, and if we hypothetically speaking had any casual discussion of the professional aspects of these issues, then that individual would, hypothetically speaking, be violating Federal law by unauthorized disclosure of classified information. So of course, I have no knowledge or information of a classified nature.

"Like it or not, the cowboy approach, or "when in doubt, wipe 'em out" is what happens in front line combat, especially when you have to assault an enemy held position. "Hot" surrenders are really rare."

If they fought in a front line, it may be that they qualify for POW status. But again, what do you know about the circumstances of their arrest?

What do you know that contradicts the position of the US government? Not what you think, or assume, but what you know?