[Dork.]

One of the things that has bothered me about how this admistration is waging it's Global War on Terror is the fact that it has pretty much admitted to "disappearing" people in its' secret CIA prisons. These are pretty bad people, mind you -- including people with direct links to 9/11, the Cole bombing, and the Embassy bombings. But nobody knew where they were, all we knew is that we caught them and they were being held somewhere in the world where they wouldn't have to be given any of the rights that someone on US soil would have had. This is the type of thing a dictatorship would do, not a country that supposedly is under the rule of law.

Well, it seems like these guys are being transferred to Gitmo now, and are being included in a renewed effort to let the President try these bad guys in military tribunals. The Supreme Court nixed the military tribunals by saying that the President exceeded his authority by setting them up, but noted that Congress could still authorise them.

CNN.com - Bush: CIA kept terror suspects in secret prisons - Sep 6, 2006

The Pentagon has also issued a new directive on the treatment of military prisoners, which reads:

"All detainees shall be treated humanely and in accordance with U.S. law, the law of war, and applicable U.S. policy," the directive says.

"All persons subject to his directive shall observe ... at a minimum the standards articulated in Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949," it says.

I think this is an encouraging move by the Bush Administration. It's actually a recognition that he needs to work with Congress to make sure that we conduct the War on Terror according to our values, and not the terrorists' values. If this repudiation of torture is credible, it will also help out troops when they are captured and give the other side one less excuse to justify abusing them. No matter what his real motive is (and midterm elections must have something to do with it!), and while I still disagree with him on many things, I have to applaud him for finally doing the right thing here....

And, this is one case where the Supreme Court did something positive, by forcing Bush to work with Congress to create a tribunal system that will serve to deter and punish terrorists while not compromising our shared values.

[Sayf-Allah]

Good move by him.

But I have to ask. How do we know that those being held are "pretty bad people.... with direct links to 9/11, the Cole bombing, and the Embassy bombings"?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Good move by him.

But I have to ask. How do we know that those being held are "pretty bad people.... with direct links to 9/11, the Cole bombing, and the Embassy bombings"?

We only have the Governments' word to go on, I'll admit. But even I don't think they would have just picked up any random guy on the street and held him in a secret prison for years without at least some justification behind their actions.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Dork.

We only have the Governments' word to go on, I'll admit. But even I don't think they would have just picked up any random guy on the street and held him in a secret prison for years without at least some justification behind their actions.

Justification for the US seems to be no more than having the same name as any suspected terrorist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri

So I can't say I trust the US much on this issue.

[spacefreak]

If you read your own link, you'd see that the man was held for a few months and released once his identity/alibi checked out. He wasn't held for "years", and he is no longer in custody.

Nice try.

[Spliffdaddy]

hahaha.

Dubya is forcing Congress to make decisions it doesn't want to make.

He's calling the bluff of all the peaceniks that whined about the illegal combatants in Gitmo.

Looks like there's gonna be some executions taking place real soon. Reckon the peaceniks should have kept quiet about the "panties on the head" fiasco. Now the prisoners are just gonna die.

You wanted Dubya to close down Gitmo, right? So he is.

Well, you didn't expect him to just let those terrorists loose, didya?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

hahaha.

Dubya is forcing Congress to make decisions it doesn't want to make.

He's calling the bluff of all the peaceniks that whined about the illegal combatants in Gitmo.

Looks like there's gonna be some executions taking place real soon. Reckon the peaceniks should have kept quiet about the "panties on the head" fiasco. Now the prisoners are just gonna die.

You wanted Dubya to close down Gitmo, right? So he is.

Well, you didn't expect him to just let those terrorists loose, didya?

Absolutely correct. It's Operation: Midterm elections. It's quite apparent that this government takes the war on Democrats infinitely more seriously than the war on Islamic radicalism.

[Spliffdaddy]

It's gonna be an interesting election.

If Democrats do well - it'll be because of illegal immigration, not the war on terror. The Democrats will be expected to do something about the illegal Mexicans - which they don't want to do anything about, because it'll cost them votes. They don't really have any ideas on what to do, either. Even if they win, they lose.

If the Republicans do well - the Democrats will have to rethink their entire platform - or scrap it altogether. While the Republicans will be given a mandate to do more of what they're already doing (war on terror) - and not doing (illegal immigration).

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It's gonna be an interesting election.

If Democrats do well - it'll be because of illegal immigration, not the war on terror. The Democrats will be expected to do something about the illegal Mexicans - which they don't want to do anything about, because it'll cost them votes. They don't really have any ideas on what to do, either. Even if they win, they lose.

If the Republicans do well - the Democrats will have to rethink their entire platform - or scrap it altogether. While the Republicans will be given a mandate to do more of what they're already doing (war on terror) - and not doing (illegal immigration).

Hmm.... what has the Republican control congress done about illegal immigration. Oh yeah, nothing.

[Spliffdaddy]

Exactly.

Most Americans rate illegal immigration as a far worse threat than terrorism - which is why I said this election would be about illegal immigration.

If Democrats do well in the election - Americans will expect them to address the illegal immigration issue.

If Republicans do well in the election - then they'll keep ignoring the issue.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

hahaha.

Dubya is forcing Congress to make decisions it doesn't want to make.

He's calling the bluff of all the peaceniks that whined about the illegal combatants in Gitmo.

Looks like there's gonna be some executions taking place real soon. Reckon the peaceniks should have kept quiet about the "panties on the head" fiasco. Now the prisoners are just gonna die.

You wanted Dubya to close down Gitmo, right? So he is.

Well, you didn't expect him to just let those terrorists loose, didya?

Here is one liberal who is glad Bush is doing this and wishes he did this years ago.
I have always said we should treat all detainees as POWs and treat them accordingly,
even if it led to long-term internment in a POW camp or executions. All I have
wanted is for the country that claims to put the rule of law above all else to actually
act on that belief. If these guys get held until the end of the "war", whenever that is,
so be it. And if at the end of the "war" they are tried as war criminals, found guilty
and executed, that would be great. It would show the whole world we really do
believe in the claims we make about our nation as a land of rules and laws.

to Bush for finally doing the right thing.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's quite apparent that this government takes the war on Democrats infinitely more seriously than the war on Islamic radicalism.

That's depressing.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Dork.

We only have the Governments' word to go on, I'll admit. But even I don't think they would have just picked up any random guy on the street and held him in a secret prison for years without at least some justification behind their actions.

Isn't that exactly what Guantanamo is all about?
E.g. this guy: Murat Kurnaz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--
Murat Kurnaz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Murat Kurnaz (born c. 1982) was held in extrajudicial detention in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba for four years. He was released Thursday August 24, 2006. Kurnaz, a Turkish citizen and legal resident of Germany, was born and raised in Bremen, Germany and was in the process of becoming a German citizen when he was arrested in Pakistan in late 2001. After being imprisoned for five years he got released and arrived in Germany August 24th 2006.[1]
Contents

In late 2004 the George W. Bush administration was forced to openly review the status of the Guantanamo detainees, and make a determination whether they should have been classified as enemy combatants.

Kurnaz was one of the detainees with enough legal assistance to challenge the legality of his review in a Washington, D.C. court. Both German investigators, and United States Army investigators failed to find any evidence of a tie between Kurnaz and Al-Qaeda or any involvement in terrorist activities. But the three officers who reviewed his case said that they had classified evidence that established his guilt.

Shortly before March 27, 2005, apparently through an administrative slip-up, the evidence against Kurnaz was declassified. Much of the evidence therein was exculpatory, but an unsigned, unsupported memo suggested guilt.

One allegation was that he was traveling to Pakistan with Selcuk Bilgin, who was a suspect in a bombing, possibly the 2003 Istanbul Bombings. It appears that Bilgin did not travel, having been stopped at the airport for an unpaid fine. In any event, no case was made against Bilgin.

Kurnaz is one of the detainees who has alleged that he was subject to interrogation techniques that included suffocation by drowning, sexual humiliation, and the desecration of his religion.

According to a German news source he had also been denied the right to return to Germany, as his 'indefinite residence permit' had expired due to his being out of the country for more than six months. (As the child of 'guest workers' he is not afforded full German citizenship, however, by being born in Bremen, is granted an 'indefinite residence permit' there) This ruling by the Foreign Office was overturned by the regional administrative court of Bremen on 30 November 2004, stating that due to his incarceration in Guantanamo he had been unable to apply for an extension of his 'leave permit' and was thus still eligible to return to Germany.

On December 14, 2005 it was confirmed that officials of the German foreign and domestic intelligence agencies (Bundesnachrichtendienst and Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz) had participated in the interrogation of Kurnaz at least once during a stay at the Guantanamo Bay camps between September 21 and September 27, 2002.

According to a December 22, 2005 story by United Press International, a brief stay at a Tablighi Jamaat hostel lead to the decision to capture Kurnaz.[2]

After being imprisoned for five years he got released and arrived in Germany August 24th 2006.[1]

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Dubya is forcing Congress to make decisions it doesn't want to make.

I think you have that wrong. What really happened is that the Supreme Court forced the President to come to Congress and ask for a permission slip.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Powerbook

Isn't that exactly what Guantanamo is all about?
E.g. this guy: Murat Kurnaz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our justice system was designed specifically so that cases like this do not happen. But the problem is that the transparency that exists in the rest of our justice system does not exist in Gitmo, by design. Note that no real action to release him happened until the "classified" documents that the Government said established his guilt were "declassified", and we found out that the government was, effectively, lying while using confidentiality to shield itself.

We need someplace to put bad guys while their cases are heard, but their cases need to be heard, and they need to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We can't just declare someone guilty and say that you can't see the evidence, because abuses will happen, as this case suggests. Hopefully, the Congressional authorization for tribunals will be more than just a rubber-stamp on whatever the Administration wants to do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's quite apparent that this government takes the war on Democrats infinitely more seriously than the war on Islamic radicalism.

I see this as less deplorable than Democrats taking the war against Bush more seriously than the war on terror. Really, more seriously than anything else.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I see this as less deplorable than Democrats taking the war against Bush more seriously than the war on terror. Really, more seriously than anything else.

At what point do we deemphasize this war? It's not going to be solved, it's not going to go away, it's not new.

I think too many people (perhaps yourself included) are caught up in all of the political grandstanding going on.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If these guys get held until the end of the "war", whenever that is,
so be it. And if at the end of the "war" they are tried as war criminals, found guilty
and executed, that would be great.

There probably won't be an end to this "war" any time soon. It's already been going on since about 1979, we just didn't really engage until 2001. But the "end" isn't really on the horizon. Some folks have trouble grasping that, even given the past 20+ years.

I think the international community (and some folks in this country, maybe) would have trouble with the US convicting "freedom fighters" of war crimes and executing them on that basis. After all, the leadership of most of the Palestinian groups could be accused and convicted of similar crimes against civilians. That's the logic behind the "enemy combatant" designation in the first place.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Powerbook

Murat Kurnaz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I appreciate where you're going with this (Big Brother is watching and all that) but you really don't want to rely upon Wikipedia for any kind of "evidence" or "support" of your opinion.

[analogika]

He doesn't need to.

The Murat Kurnaz case was headline news here two weeks ago and is VERY well documented.

Nice to see, though that you "appreciate where he's going", because it means you're finally starting to think.

Unless that was just a smart-ass brain fart as a side effect of wanton wikipedia-bashing.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by analogika

Nice to see, though that you "appreciate where he's going", because it means you're finally starting to think.

I didn't figure he'd need to use Wiki. I hope that nobody needs to use Wiki to make a point.

Sure, I appreciate where "he's" going -- if Big Brother was a problem I'd be the first on the case, followed closely by most conservatives I know. I just don't know Big Brother to be a problem.

Some folks have been wrongly accused and treated poorly in the pursuit of other folks who want to kill civilians en masse. (I guess Ruby Ridge was the same kind of thing, and Waco -- mistakes of one kind or another.) In order to confront the problem (the risk of terrorist activity) there will be imperfect procedures. Something, however, has to be done to confront terrorists and their supporters. It's unfortunate that some innocent lives get caught up in it, just as 9/11 was unfortunate and inconvenient for some families.

Or as an icon of the Left once said "you have to break a few eggs." Just kidding.

[analogika]

He figured YOU'd like to use wiki since that's the best place to get a more or less full summary of the story of this guy who was held without charges for FIVE YEARS and got released.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by analogika

since that's the best place to get a more or less full summary

Those words get to the crux of your misunderstanding. And no, crux isn't a dirty word from the UK.

[analogika]

I was talking about this case, which is well documented.

In this case, it is the best place to get a more or less full summary.

If you like, I can link you a dozen German news articles on the subject. I bet that STILL wouldn't get you to argue on-topic.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by finboy

I didn't figure he'd need to use Wiki. I hope that nobody needs to use Wiki to make a point.

Sure, I appreciate where "he's" going -- if Big Brother was a problem I'd be the first on the case, followed closely by most conservatives I know. I just don't know Big Brother to be a problem.

Some folks have been wrongly accused and treated poorly in the pursuit of other folks who want to kill civilians en masse. (I guess Ruby Ridge was the same kind of thing, and Waco -- mistakes of one kind or another.) In order to confront the problem (the risk of terrorist activity) there will be imperfect procedures. Something, however, has to be done to confront terrorists and their supporters. It's unfortunate that some innocent lives get caught up in it, just as 9/11 was unfortunate and inconvenient for some families.

Or as an icon of the Left once said "you have to break a few eggs." Just kidding.

Hopefully, you'll have this same point of view if the government ever decides that something in your lifestyle is suspicious enough to investigate in this manner. Because if you personally get caught up in it, then hey, that's just unfortunate. And you don't need access to evidence against you or due process or any of your other constitutional rights either, because we wouldn't want the terrorists to have those.

Or do you figure that this will never happen to you, because you're not brown like they are?

[Spliffdaddy]

The illegal combatants at Gitmo are *NOT* Americans charged with breaking US law. As such, you cannot draw a similarity between a US criminal court and prisoners at Gitmo.

[tie]

I thought these secret prisons didn't even exist? Hey, where's Simey?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The illegal combatants at Gitmo are *NOT* Americans charged with breaking US law. As such, you cannot draw a similarity between a US criminal court and prisoners at Gitmo.

What are they, then?

[Spliffdaddy]

illegal enemy combatants.

They are not POWs, nor are they American civilians.

Which goes a long way toward explaining why nobody is sure how to handle them.

It's a new thing.

[analogika]

Well, in the case of Kurnaz, apparently, an innocent German citizen who was held five years without being charged with anything and then released as innocent.

How do you figure, Spliffy?

[Spliffdaddy]

We released 12 others that ended up fighting against us again.

I figure it's a wash if we held one for 5 years without cause.

[analogika]

Getting innocents along with those you think might deserve to die is the terrorist attitude.

Atta-boy.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

illegal enemy combatants.

They are not POWs, nor are they American civilians.

Which goes a long way toward explaining why nobody is sure how to handle them.

It's a new thing.

Actually, the correct answer is that they are Human Beings. We've known how to handle human begins for quite a while, at least since some jokers wrote this nonsense about all men being equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inailenable rights.

Maybe their status means that they don't technically have the right to be tried in a US civillian court. But there are still some fundamental things: the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the right to review the evidence against you, and to ultimately put up a defense, that I had figured ought to apply to anyone since it separates us from tyrannical regimes. Little did I know that the Global War On Terror renders these concepts an anachronism.

[Spliffdaddy]

We'll prove 'em guilty.

Then they'll be executed.

Heck, they're fortunate to not have been shot on the battlefield.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Hopefully, you'll have this same point of view if the government ever decides that something in your lifestyle is suspicious enough to investigate in this manner. Because if you personally get caught up in it, then hey, that's just unfortunate. And you don't need access to evidence against you or due process or any of your other constitutional rights either, because we wouldn't want the terrorists to have those.

Or do you figure that this will never happen to you, because you're not brown like they are?

So I'm a racist? Or maybe YOU'RE the racist for assuming that's how I think. In any case, that has nothing to do with it. But it's a good distraction. Your journalism professors would be proud.

Here's your task: explain how we combat terrorism (or criminals, for that matter) without occasionally getting it wrong. Explain how to make the tradeoff between NOT making the mistake and counting the bodies after the next terrorist attack. If you've got a better way in mind, let's hear it. When the stakes are literally life and death, it means that tough decisions have to be made.

I'm not trying to distract from the thread by being alarmist. The stakes ARE life and death. For someone. Maybe not you, or anyone you know. But the folks in the WTC thought they were above/beyond it all too. There were plenty of folks in those buildings that would have disagreed with all kinds of policies for handling terrorists (revolutionaries!) in a discussion on 9/10/01. They're just as dead because the system, as it existed then, didn't do a good job of planning for or finding terrorists before they could strike. Next time it could be a tractor-trailer full of radioactive waste, and a whole city full of folks irradiated and dying.

The system's improving, but still not perfect, of course. Nothing is. But until there's a better way to discourage/combat terrorism, we gotta go with what we have and work to improve it.

All of the political wrangling, and the parroting of some Left-wing blog on a daily basis, gets us nowhere.

[Dork.]

My point is simply that you cavalier attitude about how "mistakes" sometimes happen would change if youre ever caught up in this mess, and spend years of your life in a US secret prison for a crime that you not ony didn't commit, but one in which you were denied the ability to defend yourself. And you probably figure that these "mistakes" will never happen to you, because you're probably not Brown like They are.

The foundation of our government is based on the face that everyone has rights. Basic rights are not inherent in US citizens only, but in human beings. If they're guilty, have a trial that reflects our basic values, and convict them! If we just execute them without a trial and these basic human rights, we are mirroring the terrorists' values. Then what are we?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by finboy

Here's your task: explain how we combat terrorism (or criminals, for that matter) without occasionally getting it wrong. Explain how to make the tradeoff between NOT making the mistake and counting the bodies after the next terrorist attack. If you've got a better way in mind, let's hear it. When the stakes are literally life and death, it means that tough decisions have to be made.

"occasionally getting it wrong" is one thing. But setting up a system that implements "show trials" where there is no opportunity to defend yourslf is one of the things Saddam did, and one of the reasons why we all thought the Iraqis would be better off without him in power. Implementing a system where these "mistakes" are purposly made puts us at the same level as these dictators.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Actually, the correct answer is that they are Human Beings. We've known how to handle human begins for quite a while, at least since some jokers wrote this nonsense about all men being equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

... and appeals, and more appeals. If the bomb belt doesn't fit, must acquit. I'm not sure I can take it.

Maybe their status means that they don't technically have the right to be tried in a US civilian court. But there are still some fundamental things: the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the right to review the evidence against you, and to ultimately put up a defense, that I had figured ought to apply to anyone since it separates us from tyrannical regimes. Little did I know that the Global War On Terror renders these concepts an anachronism.

I'm curious, is there a link to suggest these trials are just for show and do not presume some degree of innocence? While I'm inclined to agree with your concerns that if freedom can be squelched in one circumstance, they can be squelched in all, I'd like to know more about these "show trials".

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'm curious, is there a link to suggest these trials are just for show and do not presume some degree of innocence? While I'm inclined to agree with your concerns that if freedom can be squelched in one circumstance, they can be squelched in all, I'd like to know more about these "show trials".

Well, the wiki link cited in this thread lists a situation where evidence against someone was "classified", but when the evidence was "unclassified" by accident it turned out there was very little evidence of guilt at all, and an overwhelming amount of exculpatory evidence. This is just one instance, to be sure, but the same people who demeed this evidence "classified" are deeming other evidence "classified" in other cases, and we have no guarantee the same mistakes haven't been made there, as well. They may say there's a presumption of innocence, but if the court can say "We have evidence that you're guilty, but can't show it to you", or "We have evicence that needs to be kept secret for National Secutiry reasons, so the public can't see it", and it turns out the evidence never existed in the first place, then the trial is a "show trial" -- it's only done to make it appear to the casual observer that justice is being done, when in fact it's quite the opposite.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

... and appeals, and more appeals. If the bomb belt doesn't fit, must acquit. I'm not sure I can take it.

Presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise USED TO be the hallmark of Justice™.

[TETENAL]

[zaghahzag]

justice? lol that was the old america.

now we just blow people up and let them die. justice... don't make us laugh!

it's not like we have a legal system for trying criminals - that's what the military is for.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

to Bush for finally doing the right thing.

You mean the Supreme Court. Bush didn't do anything.