Camp Guantanamo

[ParanoiA]

On March 26, 2007, Hicks entered a guilty plea to the charge of providing material support for terrorism.[5] [6'] He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, of which all but nine months were suspended. He will serve the majority of this in an Australian prison.[7]

 

If I'm reading that right, Hicks will spend 9 months in an Australian prison. 9 months for an enemy combatant. Most of his fellow combatants were killed, by the thousands. How is 9 months worse than death?

 

The taliban protected and supported terrorists - directly the ones responsible for 9/11. That's material support. I have no issues with that. Why do you?

[Pangloss]

Let's keep this impersonal, please.

[John Cuthber]

I realise this question

"The taliban protected and supported terrorists - directly the ones responsible for 9/11. That's material support. I have no issues with that. Why do you?"

wasn't aimed at me but.

can I just point out that the Taliban didn't do a very good job of protecting the terrorists who were directly responsible for 9/11. Every one of them died in a plane crash.

Seriously, most of them were Saudis so blaming the Afghans is a bit dumb.

 

BTW, have you all forgotten about the other bloke who was recently freed- the one who also had no evidence against him and who was only freed as a result of the UK govt's pressure.

Whatever Hicks did or didn't do seems to be a bit lost in the world of propaganda.

What about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisher_Amin_Khalil_Al-Rawi#Release_negotiation

released, eventually because there really wasn't a case against him?

[ParanoiA]

I realise this question

"The taliban protected and supported terrorists - directly the ones responsible for 9/11. That's material support. I have no issues with that. Why do you?"

wasn't aimed at me but.

can I just point out that the Taliban didn't do a very good job of protecting the terrorists who were directly responsible for 9/11. Every one of them died in a plane crash.

Seriously, most of them were Saudis so blaming the Afghans is a bit dumb.

 

Are you serious? You don't think it would be dumb to automatically blame the Saudis without investigation because the hijackers were of that nationality? And you're judging America about due process???

 

Wow...yeah I'm quite honored to be an American at this point, where we actually investigate and look for facts before accusing people and launching invasions, rather than jumping to conclusions based on shallow, thoughtless deductions of nationality. If that was Osama's plan, you fell for it hook, line and sinker. Good thing we actually look into these things...

 

BTW, have you all forgotten about the other bloke who was recently freed- the one who also had no evidence against him and who was only freed as a result of the UK govt's pressure.

Whatever Hicks did or didn't do seems to be a bit lost in the world of propaganda.

What about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisher_...se_negotiation

released, eventually because there really wasn't a case against him?

 

Yeah, this is another "insinuation" argument I guess. The courts did their job and governments talked, made agreements and you're off on another bash america tangent. I don't know anything about this, as I freely admit no judgment or knowledge of what happened in those courts. Do you?

 

I prefer to make judgments based on facts and logic. Not insinuation and mindless distrust of those I'm prejudiced against....

 

And you still have not addressed 95% of my previous post.

[Haezed]

Because it's not a war.

 

He said they were enemy combatants. I said, if that is true, then why can't we keep them detained so long as his fellow enemies are fighting us.

 

FWIW, I have repeatedly stressed the definitional problem with this conflict/war/fight against terrorism. I understand the problem here but I do not think that extreme policies in either directions make any sense.

 

I'm not arguing for the entire array of civil rights, seeing as how we're not even in our own country in which to grant such rights, but our actions over there are how they see us. Period. Right or wrong, actions speak louder than words and we should go to some trouble to weed out any innocents and process as many guilty as possible.

 

You are agreeing with my points.

 

 

So you don't believe this "new" process should be obligated to prove itself - prove it is just and due process is present? I think the onus is on us...

 

I see no "onus" either way. We have a tried and tested democracy and I don't really care what non-democracies think about us so long as our system is working on a solution.

 

 

Well, but he makes a good point though. We're basically declaring groups as terrorists, which we feel strongly about and have evidence that we believe is quite sound. But other nations can do the same thing - nations like Iran, Syria, and etc. They could declare certain groups terrorists as well, and of course we'll be as suspicious of their evidence as they are of ours. They could use our own logic against us and at least fuel world opinion and support and wouldn't the anti-american crowd love that??

 

Give me an example of a group in our country that could be reasonably declared a terrorist threat to a foreign country? The example given was the CIA which is pretty silly after the Church commission was done with its work in the 1970s. You both speak in generalities and I'm asking for specifics.

 

If there was any kind of credible group in the US acting through terrorist methods against foreign countries, we would be the first to act against them. Being open minded, doesn't mean you have to shut your eyes to obvious distinctions.

 

Yeah, what's up with the pacifism? I understand resisting the battle urge, but some of these folks just seem like masochists. Or, maybe they feel guilty about being in an advanced, modern country under a government that doesn't choose guns over food.

 

I think it does feel good to be a rebel and to condemn your own country. It makes one feel all open minded and far seeing compared to the masses.

 

FWIW, pacifism only works against western democracies who can be shamed by a free media against taking repressive actions which will shut down a pacifist resistance every time.

 

Yeah, I don't believe any country treats enemy combatants like that. If we went that far and turned gitmo into a circus of lawyers and media, they'd complain that we're making a mockery of ourselves and complain about bringing our american laws to foreign soil and blah blah blah..

 

We need to process those people and act like we give a damn with a ton of camera work. If we're going to fight against propaganda, let's use our assets, our advantage...technology. That ought to be a fight we can win. Look at the sheeple here in america...

 

No argument there....

[Haezed]

When will it be over?

Who are you fighting?

Who will sign the Armistice?

Gee, are these questions familiar? You've been asked them a number of times before, but you seem incapable of providing any sort of answer.

 

John, I've answered these questions. Reread my posts.

 

Now I'll jump down to portions where you struggle to advocate something specific. I asked you want you would do and you say.

 

It means they get the protection of the law against wrongful imprisonment. It means trial by law and not closed door commissions.

 

Let the intelligence and security organizations do their job.

 

Refrain from actions that blind freddy can see hand propaganda victories to your enemies.

 

There are many laws and many different procedures. What exactly do you want to apply. If you allow habeas corpus, it seems to me you are bringing in the full panoply of procedural rights which is just not feasible.

 

There is a separate issue here besides the answer you want to hear - the supreme court has to apply the precedents of the past and that is their primary focus in their decision on Monday. One of the primary protections of liberty is that we are a nation of laws and not men. We have certain precedents in the past for dealing with "war" and the Supreme Court is struggling not just with what rules they would like to see adopted but with what rules are allowed by past decisions.

 

Letting the intelligence and security organizations do their job is a wonderful thing but (i) they were crippled in the 1970s by the Church Commission, (ii) defense is never 100%, and (iii) you are going to give seemingly full civil rights anyone they catch so they will be crippled beyond all reason.

 

For example, should we have to extradite suspected al-queda members from foreign countries?

 

If you can find a single example where I advocated that, quote it. Otherwise stop making a fool of yourself.

 

Whoa, chief. Take it down a notch why dont' you? I asked you what you would do and you keep telling me what we need to stop doing. The only affirmative proposal you have made is to let the intel communities do their job and to sit passively hoping we do not provoke an enemy which already hates our culture.

 

Your's is a do nothing strategy that is going to fail in my opinion. I don't villify you for your opinion or think you are a fool for holding it; however, I am entitled to respectfully disagree.

 

 

Oh yes, obviously. The US military would never ever detain an innocent person, would it?

 

It has happened in all wars and it will happen in this ... whatever it is.

 

The whole point is that you don't have courts where due process takes place in this case.

 

What standard after Hamden is applied right now to the initial determination of whether a detainee is an enemy combatant? Do you know?

 

For a variety of reasons I have come to realise that the "Presumption of innocence" and "Habeas Corpus" are the two fundamental principles that the laws of civilised society are based on. Presumption of innocence is the easiest one to forget. How many times have you heard on the news that the cops arrested a suspect and you thought to yourself ( or said it ) "Good, they got the so and so that did such and such."? I know I used to.

 

Look, the military courts are having to deal in specifics. Sure, there is some kind of burden of proof that applies but are we really going to have a "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard? Are we going to supress evidence which was "illegally" obtained or are we going to ask the fact finders to consider how it was obtained.

 

You seem to think there is no due process being applied and that is not being allowed by either Hamden or congress.

 

Look at the crowds outside a courthouse when the guy goes to trial. They'd hang him right there and then. "Presumption of Innocence" is the only thing that protects due process and defends against lynch law.

 

You, I suppose, would feel differently if this were a real "war" and your later posts acknowledge that a "war" does not have to be declared, ala Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I & II.

 

I have said at least twice that we need to define what this is we are dealing with here because treating this as a criminal justice exercise would be disasterous and I am likewise uncomfortable with a never ending war against an ill defined opponent. We need new rules which is what we are developing.

 

You are entirely cynical about these processes even though they were directed by the S. Court and will be judicially reviewed. I think this is a sky is falling mindset which I honestly do not understand.

 

Without Habeas Corpus, no individual is protected from the abuse of power by an authority. By removing it from Gitmo, the US has placed the military above the law. Think about that for a while, an organisation has been told that the law doesn't apply to them. Doesn't that frighten you? It scares the hell out of me.

 

You do understand, don't you, that the habeas corpus issue has not been finally decided? Have you read the opinion issued on Monday?

 

But the ruling may be only a temporary set back for the plaintiffs. In a brief order written by Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy, the court suggested the detainees could appeal once their tribunals or preliminary hearings have been completed.

 

This was a 6-3 decision so if Stevens and Kennedy are true to their word, they will accept the appeal after the lower proceedings are completed. The balance will shift to 5-4 once the detainees use the procedures the S.Court ordered occur in Hamdan. It was just in last June that the Supreme Court in Hamdan ordered these new procedures so this is not a shocking decision that the detainees would be required to go through these processes.

 

To be totally honest, it saddens me to see how far you have strayed from the great ideals your nation was founded upon.

 

It's hard to tell whether you are speaking to me personally or to the entire American country. Either way, I'm sorry to see you so saddened while we are engaged in the difficult work of protecting liberty from both government and terrorists.

[ParanoiA]

Give me an example of a group in our country that could be reasonably declared a terrorist threat to a foreign country? The example given was the CIA which is pretty silly after the Church commission was done with its work in the 1970s. You both speak in generalities and I'm asking for specifics.

 

If there was any kind of credible group in the US acting through terrorist methods against foreign countries, we would be the first to act against them. Being open minded, doesn't mean you have to shut your eyes to obvious distinctions.

 

The CIA. The Military. GWB. Whatever the hell they want. It doesn't have to make sense to get support from anti-american factions all over the globe. They can just create a situation, like with the British hostages, and use nonsensical, disingenuous arguments to validate their actions. "We have evidence to support terrorist activities by the american military on the Iranian public" or whatever and use that to play up to the anti-american fad going around.

 

If those were american military hostages, it would already be happening. They'd compare it to gitmo and make up a bunch of BS to stir the pot. And I doubt we'd be doing very well with it. International opinion matters, and right now we're being raked over the coals. That can only hurt us. That's all this really boils down to and is the only thing I agree with JohnB and Cuthber about.

 

We need to make a show out of gitmo and broadcast our presence in Iraq on TV. Show the whole world exactly how it all looks.

 

Our new process of dealing with combatants deserves to have to prove itself to us and the international community as well. Just my opinion...

[JohnB]

The CIA. The Military. GWB. Whatever the hell they want. It doesn't have to make sense to get support from anti-american factions all over the globe. They can just create a situation, like with the British hostages, and use nonsensical, disingenuous arguments to validate their actions. "We have evidence to support terrorist activities by the american military on the Iranian public" or whatever and use that to play up to the anti-american fad going around.

Thanks ParanoiA, that's what I was getting at. That's why i posted the link about the "Pi=4" laws. A government with a weak or no Constitution can pretty much write any law they want. It may not be true, it may not make any sense, but to the International community it is still a law passed legally by a Sovereign Nation and has to be accepted as such.

We need to make a show out of gitmo and broadcast our presence in Iraq on TV. Show the whole world exactly how it all looks.

Exactly. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Closed trials by Military Commissions isn't exactly the best picture to put forward.

 

You also musn't forget the audience you're playing to. In many cases it's people in uniforms who oppress Joe Bloggs in the street. Your audience has no reason to trust any military court, and they don't.

 

Yes, Hicks pleaded guilty to "providing material support" before the miliary commission. Which is funny really because it's actually a Civil offense. According to The US Department of State;

It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO.

That was the charge, wasn't it?

 

They reference the US Code; Title 18,2339B which quite clearly states;

(e) Investigations.—

(1) In general.— The Attorney General shall conduct any investigation of a possible violation of this section, or of any license, order, or regulation issued pursuant to this section.

Hmmm. So why the Military Commission again?

The Code also provides that;

There is jurisdiction over an offense under subsection (a) if-

© after the conduct required for the offense occurs an offender is brought into or found in the United States, even if the conduct required for the offense occurs outside the United States;

Exactly what are you struggling with? Whether or not to apply your own laws? Allowing Habeas Corpus would mean that the Military (as the arresting authority) would have to show cause why a person should be held and tried under the Act. Of course it would mean they can't use Hearsay or "coerced" testimony. Come on, the guy was caught in Afghanistan, it has to be a shoe in.

John, I've answered these questions. Reread my posts.

Who are you fighting?

How will you identify them?

How will you know it's over?

Who will sign the Armistice?

This is the complex issue of our day. We have an ill defined enemy who does consider himself to be at war with the US and others. The President has determined that applying full civilian rights to such individuals will not be effective and I tend to agree. The US Supreme Court has weighed in and afforded the rights as evidenced by Hamden and I also tend to agree with that decision primarily because of your last three questions. This is not a typical war but I also tend to think it is more war than a criminal justice exericse.

Originally Posted by John Cuthber

I still don't understand how this is a war.

On whom was it declared?

Which are the neutral countries?

Probably most important are 2 related matters

How will you know when it ends?

Who will sign the armistice?

Until we have answers to those, all this talk of "all's fair in love and war" is irrelevant.

When was the last time a war was officially declared? Your assumption is that wars can only be between countries. The US fought "wars" against pirates the past.

Your answer seems to be "I have no idea", could you be a little bit more specific?

 

BTW, I've d/loaded the Hamden ruling and am in the process of reading it, but it's 12.30 here so I'll have to save detailed comment for tomorrow. From what I've read so far, the Supreme Court has taken a good line. I would point you to their reference to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which states;

Article 3. 1. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples..

(Emphasis mine.)

Sooooo, if they are "recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" and your nation no longer considers them "indispensable" what does that logically make you now?

[Haezed]

The CIA. The Military. GWB. Whatever the hell they want. It doesn't have to make sense to get support from anti-american factions all over the globe.

 

If we are worried about them making insane claims, then we might as well be the big bad ass they think we are.

 

I give the world more credit than that but increasingly I'm not sure it is deserved.

 

If those were american military hostages, it would already be happening. They'd compare it to gitmo and make up a bunch of BS to stir the pot.

 

Who cares? If they are going to make idiotic comparisons then we can't deal with them.

 

And I doubt we'd be doing very well with it. International opinion matters, and right now we're being raked over the coals. That can only hurt us. That's all this really boils down to and is the only thing I agree with JohnB and Cuthber about.

 

When does the international community have some responsibility to be rational, refrain from making idiotic comments and, basically, grow up?

 

We need to make a show out of gitmo and broadcast our presence in Iraq on TV. Show the whole world exactly how it all looks.

 

But these people are insane! They can think anything they want, that the Green Bay Packers are a terrorist organization and there is not a whit we can do about it?

 

I'm all for competing in the marketplace of ideas but the key word here is "ideas."

 

Our new process of dealing with combatants deserves to have to prove itself to us and the international community as well. Just my opinion...

 

I don't feel the need to prove our democracy to anyone. The duly elected commander in chief took what he considered to be a war time position on detainees in that war. The supreme court has responded, requiring Congressional input, that input has been given, but the detainees rushed to the S. Ct. without using the process as established. The S. Ct., 6-3, said their request for habeas corpus was premature. Two of the justices gave strong leanings to switch if the detainees use the procedures given them.

 

This isn't anything that has to be proven. It's iron clad FACT which can be gleaned by anyone with an ounce of trust in democratic processes, internet access and willingness to do half of hours worth of open minded research.

 

If the world is insane, I guess we just have to keep on keeping on, say our piece, let hte process work and then go on our way.

 

This, folks, is a democracy in action. It is built not to be swift. Quite the opposite, it is built to have competing interests between the various branches. In this case they are all coming into play as they should. Yet, the screaming memmies of the world want us to have it "fixed" tomorrow, and somehow short circuit our democratic process. I can forgive those who never have experienced democracy or taken a basic civics class for not understanding what is in motion in this complex issue.

[Haezed]

Yes, Hicks pleaded guilty to "providing material support" before the miliary commission. Which is funny really because it's actually a Civil offense. According to The US Department of State;

It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO.

That was the charge, wasn't it?

 

They reference the US Code; Title 18,2339B which quite clearly states;

(e) Investigations.—

(1) In general.— The Attorney General shall conduct any investigation of a possible violation of this section, or of any license, order, or regulation issued pursuant to this section.

Hmmm. So why the Military Commission again?

 

You are making legal arguments without any inkling of the context. You can't research this stuff on the internet and think you have your answer. You're like one of the five blind men trying to describe an elephant.

 

Who knows or cares if your amatuer legal argument was made in one of the briefs. If you want to know the detail and context of the various arguments, that's where you go, btw - to the briefs filed by the ACLU, the government, read the oral arguments, and finally, maybe, perhaps, peruse the S.Ct.'s opinions.

 

The detainees are getting to make their legal arguments. They have been before the S.Ct. TWICE within the last year. Do you know how rare that is? It's an indication that the S.Ct. is damn serious about this issue.

[Haezed]

Your answer seems to be "I have no idea", could you be a little bit more specific?

 

No, my answer is that we are going to have to come up with middle ground. We can't treat this like a war or like a criminal justice exercise. That kind of on/off switch thinking just won't work. I think we are going to end up with the S.Ct. making decisions which really won't work in a "real" war and, hopefully, they'll start making distinctions based on what we are facing in the 21st, not what we were facing in the 20th, century.

 

BTW, I've d/loaded the Hamden ruling and am in the process of reading it, but it's 12.30 here so I'll have to save detailed comment for tomorrow. From what I've read so far, the Supreme Court has taken a good line.

 

Okay, seriously, how could you be so dismissive of US due process without having read this decision yet????

 

I don't mean this offensively. But how for the love of all that is holy and good (I'm talking about things like the Green Bay Packers), can you hurl hyperbole in every direction, care so deply about this issue, declared definitive opinions about the state of US justice, yet not have even bothered to read a publically available document which is the latest word from the highest court in the land?? The latest word eight months ago??

 

I would point you to their reference to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which states;

(Emphasis mine.)

Sooooo, if they are "recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" and your nation no longer considers them "indispensable" what does that logically make you now?

 

Please do not be offended but I am really not interested in your legal analysis when you are just now starting to read the critical decision from over eight months ago. Your more recent posts waxed eloquent about habeas corpus without realizing that this was the subject of a decision just this week which well could allow the right once the detainees exhaust the remedies which were granted to them by Congress as a result of the Hamdan decision.

[JohnB]

No, my answer is that we are going to have to come up with middle ground.

No, your answer is that you think the US should be able to hold people indefinitely without charge and the rest of the world should ignore it. Do you wonder why so many people think the US is arrogant?

 

Look, we both have faith (I hope) that the US Supreme Court will rule that the laws of the land hold sway. My concern is that the US government is going to prolong things as long as it can.

 

If you wonder what I care about, it's Justice, Rule of Law, Presumption of Innocence. These three things are not present in the Gitmo "process".

 

No, I hadn't read the full text of the S. Ct. decision, I didn't have to because the basics were made public months ago. Reading the full text allows you to fill in the details, but doesn't change the decision.

If you want to know the detail and context of the various arguments, that's where you go, btw - to the briefs filed by the ACLU, the government, read the oral arguments, and finally, maybe, perhaps, peruse the S.Ct.'s opinions.

How many of these have you read?

 

To be honest, I can't believe that anyone with the slightest interest in any form of Justice can possibly condone or argue in defence of the things that have gone on.

 

How many of these kangaroo courts have to be set up only to be knocked down by the S.Ct. ? The Hamden commission wasn't dropped on a technicality. It contravened the USCMJ, your Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the laws of the land it couldn't possibly have been more wrong.

When does the international community have some responsibility to be rational, refrain from making idiotic comments and, basically, grow up?

The International Community is pretty unanimous in their opinion, America disagrees (And probably at least half of the US citizens agree with the Inernational Community) but it's the rest of the world who isn't "rational"? It's the rest of the planet FCS that's "making idiotic comments" and needs to grow up? I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

 

I have been thinking about this debate during the day and had this thought. Why not try them in a civil court?

 

Think about it for a second as a propaganda exercise. The other side is reaping huge benefits from Gitmo and they are being declared "combattants". They happily use this term and easily translate it into "Soldiers of God" or whatever. They are taking on the "Great Satan", the American Military.

 

By trying in a Civil court all their status is taken away. Not a Soldier, not a combattant, just a common criminal. No different from a thief. There is emotional capital to be made from having your warriors held by the US military, there is no value when they are held as criminals. So unimportant that even the police can hold them.

 

You have the laws in place, you have the courts. Stop making them out to be important.

 

Every other nation on the planet tries terrorists in a criminal court, why are you having such trouble with the concept?

[John Cuthber]

Five pages of thread and I still haven't seen a good argument against simply treating these people as suspected criminals. Finding out if there's real evidence, punishing the guilty and releasing the innocent.

While the West keeps prisoners in this way it demeans us and lends support to the terrorists and those seking to recruit more young people to die for the cause.

As John B says, everyone else tries terrorists as criminals; it seems to work.

What's different about these people?

[Haezed]

No, your answer is that you think the US should be able to hold people indefinitely without charge and the rest of the world should ignore it.

 

How can we have a discussion if you get to tell me what I think?

 

Look, we both have faith (I hope) that the US Supreme Court will rule that the laws of the land hold sway. My concern is that the US government is going to prolong things as long as it can.

 

That's news to me. The gist of your posts seemed to be that due process is dead in America.

 

If you wonder what I care about, it's Justice, Rule of Law, Presumption of Innocence. These three things are not present in the Gitmo "process".

 

They have had two opinions by the United States Supreme Court which has literally thousands of such requests for review each year. In this country, the S.Ct. is the institution that interprets the law and they have been fully engaged in the Gitmo process, a fact you would have known earlier if you'd read Hamdan.

 

No, I hadn't read the full text of the S. Ct. decision, I didn't have to because the basics were made public months ago. Reading the full text allows you to fill in the details, but doesn't change the decision.

 

If you care so deeply about the state of US justice, you might read the opinions which address the issues you raised. Until this post, I really could not tell if you were aware of the last two decisions on point.

 

How many of these have you read?

I read Hamdan quite some time ago. I looked the other day for the full text of the recent decision but haven't had time to read it.

 

Then again, I'm not the one concerned about the death of US justice. If I felt so strongly, I would have read them first thing.

 

To be honest, I can't believe that anyone with the slightest interest in any form of Justice can possibly condone or argue in defence of the things that have gone on.

 

Non-sequitur. You admit that Hamdan is a good decision and state that you have faith in the S.Ct., yet you show no appearance of understanding the issues which were pending.

 

How many of these kangaroo courts have to be set up only to be knocked down by the S.Ct. ? The Hamden commission wasn't dropped on a technicality. It contravened the USCMJ, your Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the laws of the land it couldn't possibly have been more wrong.

 

So far only one set of proceedings have been stricken and, yes, it was a stinging rebuke for GWB. That's what we have courts for in the US.

 

The International Community is pretty unanimous in their opinion, America disagrees (And probably at least half of the US citizens agree with the Inernational Community) but it's the rest of the world who isn't "rational"? It's the rest of the planet FCS that's "making idiotic comments" and needs to grow up? I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

 

Unless you are a lemming, there is no reason to believe that the majority is right about our system of justice, particularly if they do not show any evidence of understanding our system.

 

I have been thinking about this debate during the day and had this thought. Why not try them in a civil court?

 

First, let me ask whether you saying that all enemy combatants or spies should be tried in all wars in criminal (not civil) courts? I assume not but before engaging on this question, let me make sure I understand your position.

 

Think about it for a second as a propaganda exercise. The other side is reaping huge benefits from Gitmo and they are being declared "combattants". They happily use this term and easily translate it into "Soldiers of God" or whatever. They are taking on the "Great Satan", the American Military.

 

I prefer for it to be a "stop the terrorists" exercise before it is a propaganda exercise.

 

By trying in a Civil court all their status is taken away. Not a Soldier, not a combattant, just a common criminal. No different from a thief. There is emotional capital to be made from having your warriors held by the US military, there is no value when they are held as criminals. So unimportant that even the police can hold them.

 

There are enormous practical problems with this but first let me make sure I understand your position.

 

You have the laws in place, you have the courts. Stop making them out to be important.

 

They kind of are important.

[JohnB]

How can we have a discussion if you get to tell me what I think?

Well you could try actually answering the damn question, that way other people don't have to guess. For the record, here they are again.

1.Who are you fighting?

2.How will you identify them?

3.How will you know it's over?

4.Who will sign the Armistice?

 

4 questions, can you provide 4 answers?

That's news to me. The gist of your posts seemed to be that due process is dead in America.

Geez, even your own S. Ct. ruled that due process and the law weren't followed. Yes the S. Ct. pulled the commission, but aren't you just a little bit worried that your government is attempting to set up illegal commissions in the first place? What you seem to miss is that if your gov wasn't setting up illegal commissions in the first place, you lot wouldn't have this mess. Are you willing to bet that the S. Ct. won't knock down the new commissions? Then what? New commissions? How many times would this have to repeat before you might say "Gee, maybe there's something wrong here."?

yet you show no appearance of understanding the issues which were pending.

How about ;

1. Denial of Justice?

2. Denial of a fair trial?

3. Due process?

4. Presumption of Innocence?

5. The practice of illegal commissions?

Those were the issues I was arguing about and I could have sworn that those were exactly the things the S. Ct. ruled on. Maybe I should read it again, or maybe you should.

Unless you are a lemming, there is no reason to believe that the majority is right about our system of justice, particularly if they do not show any evidence of understanding our system.

Did it ever occur to you that if the rest of the planet (many nations of which have far more counter-terrorism experience than the US ) thinks you're going about this the wrong way, that maybe you are? Or do you consider the US right and everybody else wrong?

First, let me ask whether you saying that all enemy combatants or spies should be tried in all wars in criminal (not civil) courts?

Since both of those are quite adequately covered by the Geneva Conventions, the only reason you blokes are having problems is because your government decided to redefine the terms in "The Military Commissions Act". And if I may quote the International Committee of the Red Cross in their 1958 revue of GC IV;

In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

(Emphasis mine.)

Since the US is indeed a signatory to GC IV I remind you of Article 1.

Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

I really don't know what more I can say.

The International Community says you're going about this the wrong way.

The Geneva Conventions say it's wrong.

The S. Ct. of your own nation says it's wrong.

The basic principles of Justice say it's wrong.

The documents your nation was founded on say it's wrong.

 

I have provided links and quotes to back my side of the debate. So far the best you've done is link to the Hamden ruling and suggest that everyone wait while you lot work it out. Such arguments wouldn't be acceptable to the US, or any other civilised nation, why should the US think it acceptable to the rest of the world?

 

If I can put it another way. The rest of the planet has dealt with terrorism using certain well defined processes for what? 50 years? The US gov has decided to unilaterally redefine the definitions and processes without regard to previous Charters, Agreements, International Law and even the Laws of the United States. The onus is therefore on you (either personally or the US gov ) to show how the "new" tactics and definitions are superior to the old ones and why they conform to accepted legal and human rights practices. So far you personally and your government have consistently failed to do so.

 

Also, to make it a bit easier for you, my contentions are these;

1. The practices at Gitmo are wrong from a moral standpoint.

2. The practices are wrong from a legal standpoint.

3. Gitmo does nothing (that a jail cannot do) to prevent further acts of terrorism.

4. Gitmo is a propaganda windfall for FTOs and therefore actually aids their drive for new recruits.

 

If you wish to disagree, fine, but how about providing some references to back you up?

[John Cuthber]

"I realise this question

"The Taliban protected and supported terrorists - directly the ones responsible for 9/11. That's material support. I have no issues with that. Why do you?"

wasn't aimed at me but.

can I just point out that the Taliban didn't do a very good job of protecting the terrorists who were directly responsible for 9/11. Every one of them died in a plane crash.

Seriously, most of them were Saudis so blaming the Afghans is a bit dumb.

Are you serious? You don't think it would be dumb to automatically blame the Saudis without investigation because the hijackers were of that nationality? And you're judging America about due process??? "

Er, yes and no. I was joking about the idea that the Taliban had looked after the 9/11 bombers. That idea is still ironic.

 

Just a thought that you don't seem to have noticed.

Why do you think a bunch of Saudi blokes went to Afghanistan to get trained up as fighters for the cause?

 

If I wanted to set up a terrorist training camp I might think about Afghanistan as a venue. The rule of law there is more than a little suspect. I reckon that, provided I had cash, I could persuade one of the local warlords to use some of there space.

I certainly wouldn't want to do that in Saudia where a very repressive regime rules the place (that's not to say the Taliban are not repressive- just that they aren't as good at it. They have only been practicing since the Russians left. That Saudis have been at it for ages).

OK that's some sort of explanation for the training camps in Afghanistan.

Why are they full of Saudi people like the 9/11 bombers and OBL himself?

Could it possibly be that Saudia isn't a very nice place?

I gather it's just fine if, like Mr Bush, you are a rich oilman. They seem to have something in common with the Saudi royal family. Perhaps it's a shared sense of moral values when it comes to locking up troublemakers.

Unfortunately, if you happen to disagree with the system. you are in trouble.

 

Oh, BTW WRT this exchange;

"The International Community is pretty unanimous in their opinion, America disagrees (And probably at least half of the US citizens agree with the International Community) but it's the rest of the world who isn't "rational"? It's the rest of the planet FCS that's "making idiotic comments" and needs to grow up? I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

Unless you are a lemming, there is no reason to believe that the majority is right about our system of justice, particularly if they do not show any evidence of understanding our system."

Er, no. The idea of valuing the opinion of the majority is called democracy.

 

Anyway, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like an answer to the 4 questions John B has put and also for any gainsayment of the 4 points he made about the practices and existence of Gitmo.

For the record, I accept that you have made a reply to those 4 questions; it was this

 

"This is the complex issue of our day. We have an ill defined enemy who does consider himself to be at war with the US and others. The President has determined that applying full civilian rights to such individuals will not be effective and I tend to agree. The US Supreme Court has weighed in and afforded the rights as evidenced by Hamden and I also tend to agree with that decision primarily because of your last three questions. This is not a typical war but I also tend to think it is more war than a criminal justice exericse."

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't actually answer the questions- Would you like another go? Also it's not the complex issue of our day; it's a very old problem. Here in the UK we had to deal with the IRA whose position was not that different from Al Q or any other terrorist group.

We tried internment (bloody fools that we were). It didn't work.

It won't work any better now and the reasons are essentially the points JohnB made.

[Pangloss]

I think this has degenerated enough.

 

This thread is on 24-hour closure notice. See if you can work out some final thoughts, and don't forget to kiss and make nicey-nicey.

[Haezed]

Well you could try actually answering the damn question, that way other people don't have to guess. For the record, here they are again.

1.Who are you fighting?

2.How will you identify them?

3.How will you know it's over?

4.Who will sign the Armistice?

 

4 questions, can you provide 4 answers?

 

Four questions can have a single answer. I've given that answer which acknowledges that you have asked difficult questions that help distinguish this from a prototypical "war." However, there are also similarities with a war even though we are not fighting a traditional nation state.

 

For this reason, I have repeatedly said that the US, as the primary leader in this fight, is struggling to develop new rules that will apply to this fight of the 21st century.

 

Why is this not an adequate answer?

 

Geez, even your own S. Ct. ruled that due process and the law weren't followed. Yes the S. Ct. pulled the commission, but aren't you just a little bit worried that your government is attempting to set up illegal commissions in the first place? What you seem to miss is that if your gov wasn't setting up illegal commissions in the first place, you lot wouldn't have this mess. Are you willing to bet that the S. Ct. won't knock down the new commissions? Then what? New commissions? How many times would this have to repeat before you might say "Gee, maybe there's something wrong here."?

 

Dear friend (how's that pangloss?), you do not understand how things work in any legal system when confronted with a new paradigm. It is entirely possible for appeals to be reversed, remanded, appealled again, and reversed all over again. That's just the way it works.

 

Would I rather the executive, legislative and judical branches instantly come to the same conclusion as to proper procedure should be in facing this dire threat? Yes. What ar the chances of that happening? Ummm... I'd say 1 in 1,000.

 

How about ;

1. Denial of Justice?

 

I'm against that.

 

2. Denial of a fair trial?

 

Well, determination of enemy combatant status is not a "trial" but ...

 

3. Due process?

 

Yes, I'm for that.

 

4. Presumption of Innocence?

 

I generally favor this although i'm not sure if a proof beyond a reasonable doubt is suitable as a standard of proof when applied to a potential terrorist who wants to take out an American city.

 

5. The practice of illegal commissions?

 

I'm against those.

 

Those were the issues I was arguing about and I could have sworn that those were exactly the things the S. Ct. ruled on. Maybe I should read it again, or maybe you should.

 

Oh, so you were arguing about the old pre-Hamdan procedures? I'm not entirely sure why you were so concerned about what existed pre June-2006 but I can honestly say that this was not my focus.

 

Did it ever occur to you that if the rest of the planet (many nations of which have far more counter-terrorism experience than the US ) thinks you're going about this the wrong way, that maybe you are? Or do you consider the US right and everybody else wrong?

 

The fact that 95%+ of the world's population is religious doesn't make me so. I admit the possibility we aren't perfect but I see a system that is adapting and dealing with the situation.

 

Since both of those are quite adequately covered by the Geneva Conventions, the only reason you blokes are having problems is because your government decided to redefine the terms in "The Military Commissions Act". And if I may quote the International Committee of the Red Cross in their 1958 revue of GC IV;

 

Are you still in the pre-Hamdan era? That is so pre-June 2006 of you! (You are so good looking!)

 

Since the US is indeed a signatory to GC IV I remind you of Article 1.

 

I'm not expert I just know that Hamdan dealt with this so why the emotions (you little devil you)?

 

I really don't know what more I can say.

 

Thank you! I mean that in a very kind way.

 

The International Community says you're going about this the wrong way.

 

Don't care.

 

The Geneva Conventions say it's wrong.

 

Pre-Hamdan.

 

The S. Ct. of your own nation says it's wrong.

 

The S.Ct. is a part of our nation. Don't we get credit for that?

 

The basic principles of Justice say it's wrong.

 

What striking blue eyes you have.

 

The documents your nation was founded on say it's wrong.

 

I just love your prose.

 

I have provided links and quotes to back my side of the debate. So far the best you've done is link to the Hamden ruling and suggest that everyone wait while you lot work it out. Such arguments wouldn't be acceptable to the US, or any other civilised nation, why should the US think it acceptable to the rest of the world?

 

Sure they are acceptable. It's called due process and is our Constitution in action. You'll just have to wait (but you'll look so good doing it!)

 

If I can put it another way.

 

You said you didn't know what else to say but I am very glad you kept going.

 

The rest of the planet has dealt with terrorism using certain well defined processes for what? 50 years? The US gov has decided to unilaterally redefine the definitions and processes without regard to previous Charters, Agreements, International Law and even the Laws of the United States. The onus is therefore on you (either personally or the US gov ) to show how the "new" tactics and definitions are superior to the old ones and why they conform to accepted legal and human rights practices. So far you personally and your government have consistently failed to do so.

 

Is it just me or does the word "onus" sound vaguely obscene? Not when you say it, of course, but just reading it like that it sounds kind of nasty. I'm sure you say it in a nice way.

 

I do appreciate the international community but, now that I think about it, I don't think I'll trust my security to them.

 

Also, to make it a bit easier for you, my contentions are these;

1. The practices at Gitmo are wrong from a moral standpoint.

2. The practices are wrong from a legal standpoint.

3. Gitmo does nothing (that a jail cannot do) to prevent further acts of terrorism.

4. Gitmo is a propaganda windfall for FTOs and therefore actually aids their drive for new recruits.

 

Yes, you've mentioned these ideas before but you do it so well. Could you say it again, please??

 

If you wish to disagree, fine, but how about providing some references to back you up?

 

I love you man!!

[Haezed]

...don't forget to kiss and make nicey-nicey.

 

How'd I do?

[Pangloss]

Fido sez:

 

 

Not bad!

 

Woof!

[JohnB]

For this reason, I have repeatedly said that the US, as the primary leader in this fight, is struggling to develop new rules that will apply to this fight of the 21st century.

And (Oh wonderfully talented and erudite one) as I have shown, there is no need for new rules.

Dear friend (how's that pangloss?), you do not understand how things work in any legal system when confronted with a new paradigm.

Again, Oh One who's looks outshine the sun, it's not new.

 

Haezed, tell you what. We seem to be just going around in ever decreasing circles here, how about we agree to disagree before one of us disappears up his own fundamental orifice?

 

While we obviously completely differ, should you get to OZ, the first rounds on me and we can continue over a bottle of Malt Scotch. Whaddayasay?

[Haezed]

And (Oh wonderfully talented and erudite one) as I have shown, there is no need for new rules.

 

I agree. Hamdan's guidance was a great starting point and I think we should let that legal guidance work its way through the system. This means that hte detainees are going to have to exhaust their rights as granted by Hamdan and the Congress before they can assert the right of Habeas Corpus. So sayeth the US S.Ct. and that is the law of our land. So long as we want to remain a county of law and not men, that will have to stand for a time.

 

 

Again, Oh One who's looks outshine the sun, it's not new.

 

This is the fundamental question lurking beneath all of these words. Are we facing an entirely new threat as terrorists are able to latch onto technology that is ramping upward along an exponential curve? Terrorism has existed before but taking out a bus or even a bunch of people is not the same as rearranging the skyline of the largest city in a country and damn near taking out White House or Congress. These guys trained, in part with a $50 program from Microsoft.

 

What worries me is the next generation of capabilities they will have 20 years from now. Is this just a criminal justice problem or are we in a war? I believe the answer is in the middle for now BUT if they take out a major city, it's war. Period. End of story. The world as we know it will be foreever changed for the worse.

 

Haezed, tell you what. We seem to be just going around in ever decreasing circles here, how about we agree to disagree before one of us disappears up his own fundamental orifice?

 

I could have gone a while without that image but I'll agree primarily because Pangloss is standing in the shadows ready to pull the plug. He scares me.

 

While we obviously completely differ, should you get to OZ, the first rounds on me and we can continue over a bottle of Malt Scotch. Whaddayasay?

 

Sounds like a good plan!

 

Umm.... where is Oz?

[Pangloss]

I think Oz is slang for Australia. I've heard our land-down-under friends use it before.

 

BTW, don't forget to ask one of our British friends about your uncle "Bob". Not theirs -- yours. (Kind of a "who's on first" thing.)

[JohnB]

I could have gone a while without that image

Ah well, I got the idea while watching a Ringa-Ringa bird avoiding a hawk and thought one should always learn from nature.

 

The Ringa-Ringa is one of the three truly amazing birds native to Australia. Being a prey animal it has evolved a most unique method of defense. It simply flies around in ever decreasing circles until it disappears up........... Thereby completely confounding it's persuers.

 

To save embarrassing questions the other two are;

 

The Kri-Kri bird. A most unusual bird that is not only flightless, but has no feathers. It hibernates in Summer but can be seen in Winter walking around with it's wings wrapped around itself warbling it's familiar cry "Kri Kri, Kerist it's cold."

 

And the "Oohmedoodle" bird. This bird flies but actually is unable to perch as it has no legs. Hence it's cry on landing "Oohmedoodle, Oohmedoodle".

 

Sorry for the off topic, but I do believe it's important to educate those unfortunate enough to not be Australian.

[John Cuthber]

Haezed You posed a question and I will try to answer it.

"Originally Posted by JohnB

Well you could try actually answering the damn question, that way other people don't have to guess. For the record, here they are again.

1.Who are you fighting?

2.How will you identify them?

3.How will you know it's over?

4.Who will sign the Armistice?

 

4 questions, can you provide 4 answers? "

To which Haezed, you replied

"Four questions can have a single answer. I've given that answer which acknowledges that you have asked difficult questions that help distinguish this from a prototypical "war." However, there are also similarities with a war even though we are not fighting a traditional nation state.

 

For this reason, I have repeatedly said that the US, as the primary leader in this fight, is struggling to develop new rules that will apply to this fight of the 21st century.

 

Why is this not an adequate answer? "

OK, I will try to explain.

Imagine this; I'm at the station trying to get a train to London. I don't know when the train is due and the information boards are not working (trust me that's not an unreasonable scenario).

I want to know if I have time to go and get a magazine and a coffee before I catch the train; I know the current time, but lack the information on the departure time of the train.

I ask somebody when the next train to London arrives and they tell me that it's due at 17:00.

 

Before I asked, I didn't know when the train was due. I asked a question and, because I got an answer, afterwards, I did know when the train was due.

That's what makes it an answer.

If I had asked someone and they had said "I don't know", "that's a very interesting question" or "wibble nuff nuff fishcakes!" this would have been a reply but, since it failed to convey the information I sought, it wouldn't have been an answer.

Do you understand the difference between a reply and an answer now?