[Lerkfish]

this new york times story is interesting....

user: macnn
pass: macnn

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Senior Defense Department officials said Thursday that they were planning to keep a large portion of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, there for many years, perhaps indefinitely....

although if you read the entire article, there are valid points on both sides, it is still disturbing to me that three men (with a vested interest in the secret proceedings) will determine the outcome of these prisoners without trial, an outcome which could be a life sentence.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
this new york times story is interesting....

user: macnn
pass: macnn



although if you read the entire article, there are valid points on both sides, it is still disturbing to me that three men (with a vested interest in the secret proceedings) will determine the outcome of these prisoners without trial, an outcome which could be a life sentence.

I saw a special on TV the other night about this... It's hard to ignore either side of the argument. At least these "prisoners" are being treated fairly.... from what I saw on TV, they eat better than I do!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
I saw a special on TV the other night about this... It's hard to ignore either side of the argument. At least these "prisoners" are being treated fairly.... from what I saw on TV, they eat better than I do!

prisoners at the Hanoi Hilton were also scrubbed and polished before they were allowed in front of the camera, so I don't know if that proves anything.

as long as they are held in secret, we can't know for sure how good or bad their treatment really is.

[Spliffdaddy]

As long as they're held by Americans, we don't have to worry about how they're treated.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
prisoners at the Hanoi Hilton were also scrubbed and polished before they were allowed in front of the camera, so I don't know if that proves anything.

as long as they are held in secret, we can't know for sure how good or bad their treatment really is.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103928,00.html

"So far 88 people have been transferred out of Guantanamo — 84 to be released in their countries and four transferred into Saudi Arabian prisons for continued detention. "

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
As long as they're held by Americans, we don't have to worry about how they're treated.

sure. There are never any incidents of prisoners in american jails or POWs being mistreated by americans. Never happens.

The fact is, the potential for mistreatment of prisoners is true anytime anyone is detained anywhere, which is why its important to have independent purview of their treament.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
As long as they're held by Americans, we don't have to worry about how they're treated.

That might hold water if it weren't for the fact that they're being held illegally...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103928,00.html

"So far 88 people have been transferred out of Guantanamo — 84 to be released in their countries and four transferred into Saudi Arabian prisons for continued detention. "

from your link:

......captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan two years ago at the start of the global war on terrorism.

Senior officials at the Defense Department, in consultation with other U.S. government officials, determined that the 20 freed "either no longer posed a threat to U.S. security or no longer required detention," said a Pentagon statement Monday.

That's a long time held without trial to be found not chargeable.

"We believe that they had no links with any militant groups, but we want to satisfy ourselves before allowing them to go to their homes," said the official, who spoke in Pakistan on condition of anonymity.

Again, this is two years later to decide they were innocent and shouldn't be charged.

Officials in July said they had identified six prisoners who might go before military tribunals. But the process stalled after the British government sought negotiations to change some trial rules considered by critics in the international community to be unfair and below acceptable standards of justice.

Likewise, a number of other countries have pressed the United States to try or release suspects, some of whom have been held two years and all of whom are incommunicado and have not been allowed lawyers.

Pretty much brings up the same questions I have about this process. I hope you weren't linking to that as an attempt to counter my concerns, because it just reinforces them.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
That might hold water if it weren't for the fact that they're being held illegally...

Since they aren't US citizens, how is it illegal? Or are you referring to the Geneva convention? Intl law says that terrorists aren't combatants (in a war sense), seems to me they exist in a gray area... not that they should be held indefinitely, they should be sent and tried at the same time as Saddam and under the same circumstances, IMO.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
As long as they're held by Americans, we don't have to worry about how they're treated.

I'm sorry, but nobody deserves that much trust. People who are trusted that much will eventually abuse it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Intl law says that terrorists aren't combatants (in a war sense), seems to me they exist in a gray area...

That's not correct.

When it comes to prisoners, the Geneva Conventions say that when you capture someone during a war, you have to treat them humanely irrespective of what they are alleged to have done. It say that you can only hold persons that you've captured for so long as the hostilities continue UNLESS a competent court finds them guilty of acts that are either illegal under the Conventions (war crimes) or would be crimes during peace time (normal crimes for want of a better word). To avoid captors using this as an excuse to hold people beyond the end of the war, the Conventions provide that everyone who is captured is automatically presumed to be entitled to the special protection afforded POW's and can only be declared otherwise by a competent court. It's up to the court to determine the status of captives NOT the captor!

There is no loophole for people who are captured during a war to fall through. Even if you look at the US's definition of an unlawful combatant, it's clear that there is room for argument that some of the Guantanamo guys aren't unlawful combatants. That said, there is no broad category or definition of unlawful combatant in international law. People who argue that draw inferences from other bits of law that they say are analagous. In law, anything that is not defined as a crime you are fully entitled to do.

Some of the Guantanamo guys were captured while fighting for the Taliban, some fighting for Al Qaeda, some were handed in by informers in Afghanistan, some were captured in Pakistan. It's not clear that the Geneva Conventions even applied in these cases. There is a good argument in the case of the Pakistanis to say that they were effectively kidnapped from Pakistan which would put the terrorist label squarely on the captors! Given the variety of circumstances in which these people were captured, it's clear that you need a competent tribunal to determine what category of prisoner these people may be.

The Geneva Conventions don't let you dick around with people's lives though. They envisage a situation where prisoners might be held indefinitely and so they oblige the captor to release any persons who is a POW within a reasonable time of the cessation of hostilities. Since the US failed to charge these people and make any attempt to determine their status, the presumption that they were entitled to POW status applied when hostilities ended. The US is therefore committing a war crime by keeping them.

The only way that you can get around that argument is to say that the war hasn't ended. That requires you to prove that a war against an emotion (terror) or against an abstract (terrorism) is a war that international law recognises. That is an impossibility. But even if you were to succeed in that quest, you'd still have to prove which of those people were captured in the WOT and which in the Afghan War since the latter would be entitled to release. That requires charges and hearings.

At the end of the day, there simply is no excuse for this despicable behaviour. American should be ashamed of the situation that their government is allowing to prevail. A high percentage of those prisoners express suicidal tendancies. Who wouldn't knowing that you might spend the rest of your life thousands of miles from your family, your country, your friends without ever knowing why. This behaviour puts the US in company with the biggest human rights abusers, dictators and monsters this planet has known.

Irrespective of what the law says, it is absolutely despicable that the US behaves in such an immoral way.

[Yandi's Carcass]

Originally posted by Troll:
Irrespective of what the law says, it is absolutely despicable that the US behaves in such an immoral way.

As opposed to the moral way these terrorist dirtbags will murder innocent women and children if they're released?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Yandi's Carcass:
As opposed to the moral way these terrorist dirtbags will murder innocent women and children if they're released?

How predictable! Do you realise that some of the guys that were released were released because they were found to have been handed in as part of a personal vendetta against them? No one knows which of those guys is a terrorist or a soldier or a friggin cabbage salesman.

From a jurisprudential perspective, it is indeed considered far worse for a government to deny people basic human rights, to flagrantly disregard law than it is for someone who is suspected of a crime to be released and then commit the crime. The concept of innocent until proven guilty is premised upon this very jurisprudential assumption.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Since they aren't US citizens, how is it illegal? Or are you referring to the Geneva convention? Intl law says that terrorists aren't combatants (in a war sense), seems to me they exist in a gray area... not that they should be held indefinitely, they should be sent and tried at the same time as Saddam and under the same circumstances, IMO.

Actually, it doesn't refer to terrorists one way or the other. The Geneva Convention considers enemy combatants and civilians. If they are enemy combatants, three are extremely specific regulations dealing with their treatment and the conditions under which they can be held. If they are civilians they are untouchable. Either way, what is going on at Guantanamo Bay does not follow any of the guidelines laid forth by the Geneva Convention.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Yandi's Carcass:
As opposed to the moral way these terrorist dirtbags will murder innocent women and children if they're released?

you have proof these guys are all terrorists? Determined by who? certainly not by a court, evidence or anything else. The only way they can determine that is by interrogation. And even then, don't you think you're going to get some false positives and some false negatives?
Gitmo is certainly not an investigative body in terms of evidence, merely an interrogator's booth. Confessions under duress are not always reliable.

I assume you could kidnap 50 random people on a subway, take them at gunpoint to another country where they don't speak the language, subject them for two years to interrogations attempting to get them to confess any crime, separate them from their families, forbid them contact with the outside world, lawyers or even embassy representatives, have them realize that their release...ever...is not a given.....do all those things and I bet you'll get a few bicycle messengers admitting they kidnapped the Lindbergh baby. And that's even without adding torture to the list...just regular intense interrogation.

In other words, if they are depending on what the detainees do while in Gitmo to determine their guilt or innocence, that's not the best way to determine that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
That's not correct.

We've been over this before. Suffice to say that yours is not the only way to interpret international law here. Yours is one point of view, and perhaps even widely held. But it is still debateable. However, the last two times we debated it, it ran over 7 pages each time. I think people know how to use the search function.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Yandi's Carcass:
As opposed to the moral way these terrorist dirtbags will murder innocent women and children if they're released?

So, the terrorists being immoral gives your government the right to use immoral tactics againsts them? Who are the good guys then?

[Yandi's Carcass]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Who are the good guys then?

Those that seek retribution against the terrorist criminals by hunting them down and bringing them to justice--dead or alive.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
As long as they're held by Americans, we don't have to worry about how they're treated.

Yea right. We have infinate cases of prison guards just watching while prisoners are beaten/raped/killed right before them.

And those are Americans guarding Americans.

The US doesn't exactly have a great reputation for treating prisoners properly. We still hear about those we detained during WWII among other wars every so often.


Regardless, nobody will ever know what's truly going on. I'm still putting my money on them eventually being shipped off to another nation for euthanization.

No way the US is going to keep them there indefinately. To much $$. Either tried/killed, released, or euthanized by another nation doing us a favor.

I just don't see enough backing to hold them indefinately.

[Secret__Police]

Time to send some DemocRATS and LIEberals to the camps.
The treasonous and seditious ideas these people spew fourth will no longer be tolerated
in the new America.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by Secret__Police:
Time to send some DemocRATS and LIEberals to the camps.
The treasonous and seditious ideas these people spew fourth will no longer be tolerated
in the new America.

hahaha! Who are you, man? That's funny. I'm gonna do a search and see what else you posted.
hahaha!

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
As long as they're held by Americans, we don't have to worry about how they're treated.

I see you got your prescription for rose-colored glasses refilled.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I see you got your prescription for rose-colored glasses refilled.

Ask any terrorist where they'd rather be held indefinitely.

Without exception, they'd say "America. Home of the free."

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Ask any terrorist where they'd rather be held indefinitely.

Without exception, they'd say "America. Home of the free."

In that case, wouldn't we be encouraging the to try and attack us so they can have the privilege of being caught and held in the US?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
hahaha! Who are you, man? That's funny. I'm gonna do a search and see what else you posted.
hahaha!

Sarcasm is above you, I see.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by nonhuman:


In that case, wouldn't we be encouraging the to try and attack us so they can have the privilege of being caught and held in the US?

According to the peaceniks and liberals - that's exactly what Ashcroft and Dubya are doing.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
According to the peaceniks and liberals - that's exactly what Ashcroft and Dubya are doing.

Well, it does follow logically from what you said. So what does that make you?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Ask any terrorist where they'd rather be held indefinitely.

Without exception, they'd say "America. Home of the free."

Notice how they are specifically NOT being held in America.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Troll:
Notice how they are specifically NOT being held in America.

*shhhhhh* don't confuse them with facts.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
*shhhhhh* don't confuse them with facts.

I suppose the "facts" depend on how you define America... last time I checked, there were two continents that laid claim to that name.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
I suppose the "facts" depend on how you define America... last time I checked, there were two continents that laid claim to that name.

and Cuba is on neither of them.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and Cuba is on neither of them.

Ahhhh, but a US military base is, which technically could be considered part of America (or the USA).

Speaking of islands, is Great Britain not a part of Europe?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Ahhhh, but a US military base is, which technically could be considered part of America (or the USA).

um...no. The whole entire point of holding them in Gitmo is precisely BECAUSE its not considered "american soil" so that all manner of normal rules of due process can be circumvented or ignored. Otherwise, they could be held at Fort Dix.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um...no. The whole entire point of holding them in Gitmo is precisely BECAUSE its not considered "american soil" so that all manner of normal rules of due process can be circumvented or ignored. Otherwise, they could be held at Fort Dix.

I never argued that.... pay attention.... From Dictionary.com:

North America

The northern continent of the Western Hemisphere, extending northward from the Colombia-Panama border and including Central America, Mexico, the islands of the Caribbean Sea, the United States, Canada, the Arctic Archipelago, and Greenland.


and


Cuba

Cuba:Geography

Location: Caribbean, island between the Caribbean Sea and the North
Atlantic Ocean, south of Florida



So, by definition, Cuba is in North America, which was my whole point:

I suppose the "facts" depend on how you define America... last time I checked, there were two continents that laid claim to that name.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
I never argued that.... pay attention.... From Dictionary.com:

North America

The northern continent of the Western Hemisphere, extending northward from the Colombia-Panama border and including Central America, Mexico, the islands of the Caribbean Sea, the United States, Canada, the Arctic Archipelago, and Greenland.


and


Cuba

Cuba:Geography

Location: Caribbean, island between the Caribbean Sea and the North
Atlantic Ocean, south of Florida



So, by definition, Cuba is in North America, which was my whole point:

I suppose the "facts" depend on how you define America... last time I checked, there were two continents that laid claim to that name.

ahhh..well geographically I stand corrected, then.
But politically I maintain the same stance: Gitmo bay is being used precisely because it is not technically on US soil, so they could get away with a lot more and presumably so that when they start the executions secretly there won't be legal recourses.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ahhh..well geographically I stand corrected, then.
But politically I maintain the same stance: Gitmo bay is being used precisely because it is not technically on US soil, so they could get away with a lot more and presumably so that when they start the executions secretly there won't be legal recourses.

For the most part, I agree with your political assesment of the situation... I was just making an aside to humor myself...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
For the most part, I agree with your political assesment of the situation... I was just making an aside to humor myself...

not sure its polite to humor yourself in public.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
not sure its polite to humor yourself in public.

Sure it is! You should try it sometime.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ahhh..well geographically I stand corrected, then.
But politically I maintain the same stance: Gitmo bay is being used precisely because it is not technically on US soil, so they could get away with a lot more and presumably so that when they start the executions secretly there won't be legal recourses.

You are correct that the geography in terms of continents is irrelevant. We are talking political boundaries here, not geographic ones. I also agree that the choice of Guantanamo is undoubtedly deliberate. It's a stretch to say that the intention is to "get away" with things there, and you are jumping to conclusions regarding executions. There has been no suggestion of executing anyone, so I don't know where you are getting that from.

However, it is clearly the case that the Administration put the camp in Guantanamo to hamper civilian judicial review by making jurisdiction difficult to find. They have been quite candid that they did that to prevent interferance from the federal judiciary and misguided human rights groups. It's not necessarily the case that there is any intention to do something bad so much as there is a desire not to be interfered with by outside agendas and meddling ideology-driven judges.

The Supreme Court is examining the jurisdiction question as we speak. I can see how it could go either way given the Court's 5:4 split, and competing equities. Nevertheless, even if the court finds against the Administration on the jurisdiction issue, that doesn't mean that the courts are going to spring these detainees. Jurisdiction is just one legal issue that has to be decided before you get to the merits of the case. After that issue, there is also a justiciability and a separation of powers hurdle that is very great. Then the merits are pretty strong for the Administration as well.

But before that, the Supreme Court is very reluctant to tell the Executive how to fight a war. It's just not constitutionally their place to get involved with something that the Constitution clearly gives to the Executive and the Legislature. Since the idea of detaining combatants indefinately until the end of hostilities is well-established in the laws of war, it is unlikely that the court would grant Habeas relief, even if the court decides it would have jurisdiction to hear the case.

The courts have already articulated a distinction when they slapped the Bush Administration in the Jose Padilla case. The Court made a distinction between people caught on foreign soil and those like Padilla who were caught within the US. The federal courts have never previously second guessed the detention of prisoners caught on foreign battlefields, and my guess is they won't begin now. Nor are the courts going to tell the Executive and the Legislature that the war is over requiring the release of POWs. That's a political decision that the judiciary is incompetant to make, and they know it.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They have been quite candid that they did that to prevent interferance from the federal judiciary and misguided human rights groups.

"Misguided human rights groups". Dare I ask: do you include Amnesty International in that definition?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not necessarily the case that there is any intention to do something bad so much as there is a desire not to be interfered with by outside agendas and meddling ideology-driven judges.

Yeah, those pesky ideologies. They just keep popping up faster than one can crush them underfoot.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
"Misguided human rights groups". Dare I ask: do you include Amnesty International in that definition?

Are they directly involved in litigation on this issue? I'm not sure. I know groups like Ramsay Clark's International Answer have been involved in litigation. His was the brief that I read that started out by quoting the Rolling Stones.

In any case, I have mixed feelings about Amnesty. They have a tendency to take a one-size-fits-all approach to human rights. So for example, they seem to paint the US death penalty, which is allowed under international human rigts law, and which is surrounded by due process, with the same degree of approbation they give to accounts of the most heinous tortures in other parts of the world. It's not a double standard so much as as it is an overly sweeping standard and a tendency of asserting what international law should (in their opinion) be as if it is what it is. Again, the death penalty being a classic example.

On the other hand, they do great work elsewhere. For example, on Iraq, when much of the rest of the world was busy trying not to see what was happening there.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
I suppose the "facts" depend on how you define America... last time I checked, there were two continents that laid claim to that name.

Since when are either of the continents of America referred to as the "Home of the free?"

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Troll:
Since when are either of the continents of America referred to as the "Home of the free?"

Since when was a country referred to as the "Home of the free?"

FYI: LAND of the free... HOME of the brave.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
LAND of the free... HOME of the brave.

It makes much more sense that way. It only says that the brave live here. Doesn't really make much mention of where the free live. Perhaps they're expats?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
FYI: LAND of the free... HOME of the brave.

You mean for Spliffy's info.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Troll:
You mean for Spliffy's info.

For anyone's info...

[swrate]

No man's land.

None mentioned the fact many teenagers are held there.
I was surprised to hear it from a filmed documentary, and a 13 year !!!!

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are they directly involved in litigation on this issue? I'm not sure.

No, naturally not. AI cannot litigate. We can only research, monitor, campaign, pressure and inform. AI has, however, issued a memorandum to the United States government detailing conclusions and recommendations on the subject of the rights of people in U.S. custody. Beyond the immediate situation of the human rights concerns regarding the current prisoners and the prisoners who have been or will be released, Amnesty International feels that the United States' selective adherence to the provisions of international humanitarian law will undermine the ability to safeguard the rights of any American or other countries' combatants captured in future conflicts.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In any case, I have mixed feelings about Amnesty. They have a tendency to take a one-size-fits-all approach to human rights. So for example, they seem to paint the US death penalty, which is allowed under international human rigts law, and which is surrounded by due process, with the same degree of approbation they give to accounts of the most heinous tortures in other parts of the world.

Yes, in this case, "one size fits all" accurately describes our stance on state-sponsored executions. To quote the aforementioned memorandum, "Amnesty International opposes the death penalty under all circumstances and has repeatedly called on the USA to join the clear majority of countries which have abolished capital punishment in law or practice."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Yes, in this case, "one size fits all" accurately describes our stance on state-sponsored executions. To quote the aforementioned memorandum, "Amnesty International opposes the death penalty under all circumstances and has repeatedly called on the USA to join the clear majority of countries which have abolished capital punishment in law or practice."

They are entitled to that point of view. But that's not where international human rights law is, and Americans are well within their rights to decide this issue for themselves, democratically. However, that doesn't alter the fact that Amnesty does good work when it is covering genuine violators of human rights.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They are entitled to that point of view. But that's not where international human rights law is, and Americans are well within their rights to decide this issue for themselves, democratically. However, that doesn't alter the fact that Amnesty does good work when it is covering genuine violators of human rights.

so....you feel it is inherently impossible for the us to be genuine violators in regard to gitmo bay?