Right Back At Ya!
by Manwhore
While we’re all in the heated debate about how torturous torture is (I know, the topic is torture) John over at shield, reminds us why there are no black and white solutions. (much to our dismay, we cannot wrap this so neatly with a liberal solution)
Abdallah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi was a Kuwaiti citizen who deserted from the Kuwaiti army to join Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. He was captured there in 2002 and held in Guantanamo Bay until November 2005, when he was released after numerous appeals by high-powered attorneys, as well as Al-Ajmi’s continued insistence of his innocence. He was handed over to Kuwaiti authorities, and put on trial. There he was free on bail until his acquittal in July 2006, where he was freed for good. There is a big gap in reporting on what happened after that, but sometime between July 2006 and April 2008 he crossed the border into Iraq, and was one of four suicide bombers that carried out attacks in Mosul, killing nine people.
Are we interested to find out more yet? We’ve already got the makings for a textbook ‘skerry brown terrist’ smear, but a few things happened that deserve pause. The ‘terrist’ was apparently read his Miranda, given a trial (yes, the word ‘speedy’ does not need to be debated), and properly released to his country of origin. However, when the system fell apart at the seams, I wonder, do any of us have an answer for what to do with a shitbag such as this?
This is the Achilles heel (pun intended) of the “who cries for the jihadi” cause. They never seem to let us down by getting right back to what they do best after they lie and pander to leftists, just like the Al Quaeda “useful idiot” training manual tells them to. For now, let’s just keep sifting through some evidence about this lovely chap. John points out that the NYT was all over this.
I think it’s important to keep this in mind the next time someone cries about all the “innocents” being held at Gitmo. For a very recent example, people like Nicholas Kristoff at the New York Times: (emphasis mine)
My Sunday column is about the remaining 270 prisoners at Guantanamo, which is a national disgrace. One reason is simply the injustice of keeping innocent people in abusive conditions — a far harsher regime than that faced by convicted murderers in the United States.
We’ve heard this one before. The simple fact of the matter is that this guy was given his trial, declared his innocence, was released to Kuwait and marched right back onto the path of martyrdom. This is undeniable. It simply happened this way. I don’t think this is an isolated case. Even the “victim” of Guantanamo abuse himself proclaimed his innocence when in court:
I never meant harm to anybody. I never attacked anybody. I don’t have a grudge against the Americans. It is up to you. You are the president [of the panel] and you will do whatever you wish.
Well, pitiful pearl ended up doing exactly what he meant to do probably his entire adult life. He loaded himself up with weapons and targeted the innocent people of Iraq. All the while having gone through our entire process of legal exoneration. This doesn’t make me believe that these detainees should be held infinitely, but it does touch on a point I think John touches on nicely.
I don’t support keeping prisoners in Guantanamo forever. But I am fed up with limousine liberals and ivory-tower academics who are so easily duped by Al-Qaeda (yet again). As a result of this mistake, several innocent people are now dead. Think about that.
Totally agree. The burden of blame is now on the “who cries for the jihadi” crowd, because the pressure to ruch this guy through the system is squarely placed on the influence of pressure to usher these people through the system regardless of guilt/innocence. Very rarely do we argue the relevance of the evidence against the detained. What we almost always argue is whether the terms and conditions of thier detention chimes with the rights granted to American citizens. the simple answer on both sides is that neither shows enough compassion for the detainee, but when we have examples like our recently deceased asshat to point to there isn’t really much open for debate. We simply let them out where they gleefully kill themselves (odd that a man presumed “tortured” and offended had absolutely no problem taking his own life at the expense of truly innocent people) or keep them detained. Detained and alive, against the will of the “who cries for the jihadi” crowd. Much like a mental patient on suicide watch, one has to wonder on which side “compassion” rests.
Update by Lee: Basically there’s a point where your safety and your integrity intersect. There’s very little crime here in China. Women cansafely walk down dark alleys at night. Sure, you don’t have any rights whatsoever, but hey, at least everyone is safe. The same goes for the terror issue. Sure, we could simply lock up everyone we think might be a terrorist because, y’know, they might get back out and become a suicide bomber. But then we’d be just like China.
(Insert obligatory Ben Franklin quote about liberty and safety.)
How far are we willing to shit all over what America purports to stand for in order to bolster the illusion of our safety?
How many innocent lives are we willing to destroy to “keep us safe” from drug dealers?
How many rules and regulations are we supposed to live under to “keep us safe” from transfats or cigarettes?
It’s the Laffer Curve in action. Eventually we hit a point of diminishing returns. This is a worst-case scenario used to justify draconian actions by the state. It’s like whenever you hear about a rape committed by an illegal immigrant. People say, “See? We need tighter border security!” The fact that most rapes aren’t committed by illegal immigrants isn’t the issue. Or when you hear about a child abduction by a stranger. “See? We need more laws to protect children!” The fact that the vast majority of child abductions are committed by someone in the child’s own family, again, does not matter.
It’s rank hysteria. So, how much of a totalitarian society are you willing to enact in order to protect the free society you claim to want to live in?
Comments
He was handed over to Kuwaiti authorities, and put on trial. There he was free on bail until his acquittal in July 2006, where he was freed for good.
Hey, can we start tossing some blame over the way of Kuwait? Just a bit? I fucking HATE the collective filth of Kuwait. I could post my own fucking blog just on how vile, dirty, and corrupt those fuckers are… and they’re our ALLIES. Which makes it even worse.
Fucking Kuwaitis. If they weren’t so filthy rich then we wouldn’t give one shit about them, too. They ALL belong in Gitmo.
Hey, can we start tossing some blame over the way of Kuwait? Just a bit? I fucking HATE the collective filth of Kuwait. I could post my own fucking blog just on how vile, dirty, and corrupt those fuckers are… and they’re our ALLIES.
No, ryan. We must blame ourselves. It is the collective fault of the totalitarian government of the United States of America.
We seems to be goose stepping to fear, as demonstrated by trying an innocent terrorist, setting him free, and watching as he fullfills his obligation to Allah.
Remember, it is the fear mongering of the United States that creates monsters like these.
/sarc
And let’s bulldoze the houses of suicide bombers’ families. There’s the way to stop them! Certainly, none of their brothers or sisters would then ever be likely to replicate their brother’s feats.
Actually, I’d be more than willing to bulldoze and terrorize lefty commies like yourself, and deal with terrorists face to face, since you would be far more in favor of being given the Lawrence of Arabia rim treatment then you would be interested in defending yourself.
Your entire comment is bullshit laden garbage with your signature rosebud on top. No need to dissect it.
Basically there’s a point where your safety and your integrity intersect. There’s very little crime here in China. Women cansafely walk down dark alleys at night. Sure, you don’t have any rights whatsoever, but hey, at least everyone is safe. The same goes for the terror issue. Sure, we could simply lock up everyone we think might be a terrorist because, y’know, they might get back out and become a suicide bomber. But then we’d be just like China.
I find this a curious observation from one who relishes in the freedoms offered by China. Things like smoking weed in the street, buying hookers from restaurants with red lights over the door, and the general regard for the human condition that one can sink thier teeth into.
How far are we willing to shit all over what America purports to stand for in order to bolster the illusion of our safety?
Much to your dismay, this article demonstrates that even when we get our way after crying for the jihadis and demanding the silver spoon suite for them, they really are after us. I don’t know why you could confuse actual factual data in your zeal to call these people an enemy “paranoia”.
You have yet to address why letting suicidal maniacs go free to kill innocent people because they are innocent ‘terrists’ is any less humane in notion than saving a ‘terrist’ from killing himself due to brainwashing.
Not an easy thing to actually defend.
How many innocent lives are we willing to destroy to “keep us safe” from drug dealers?
This has nothing to do with what I posted. I don’t think there is one valid reason to add it to your argument. Unless you intend to say that terrorists are disgruntled weed smokers.
We need tighter border security!” The fact that most rapes aren’t committed by illegal immigrants isn’t the issue. Or when you hear about a child abduction by a stranger. “See? We need more laws to protect children!” The fact that the vast majority of child abductions are committed by someone in the child’s own family, again, does not matter.
Nice attempt at a deflection, but aside from admiring your talent at craft, this has nothing to do with my argument at all.
the simple fact of the matter is that this man was afforded every luxury you complained he wasn’t, he’s not a citizen (therefore the blurb about our rights is irrelevent), and he wasn’t robbed of anything.
He was simply detained, tried and released. As we can see, dipshits like stogy seem to gloss over the fact that he blatantly lied, we were right about him, and he blamed the USA the entire time. Had he remained alive, I’m sure his anti-American rebellious streak would have stog’s panties off in no time.
BTW, stog, care to actually offer a solution as to what to do with this guy?
We are all well aware of the liberal ability to talk shit over just any attempt at doing anything other than being a petulent child about the world’s problems. What would be really interesting to hear from you right now is actually how you would intend to solve this problem.
you can’t claim int doesn’t exist, you can’t claim we were unfair in treatment of this man, and you can’t say we weren’t actually holding a guilty man.
What’s your solution? Or is it more fun to run around and cry, breaking everyone’s crayons because they aren’t your own?
you can’t claim int doesn’t exist, you can’t claim we were unfair in treatment of this man, and you can’t say we weren’t actually holding a guilty man.
No, I didn’t. No, I’m not. No, I wouldn’t.
The law doesn’t work perfectly - it’s a bad system, which lets offenders go every day, and jails the innocent. But it’s still the best system we have. If someone does get off and commits a crime again, it’s still better than locking up hundreds, if not thousands of innocents forever.
You can’t punish people for crimes that they will/might commit in the future. At Guantanamo, he was just a foreign fighter, not, as far as we know (and on all available evidence) a terrist. And for all we know, it may be the experience in Guantanamo that really radicalized him.
What’s your solution?
Respect, improve, and support the legal system, the use of habeas corpus, and the confrontational legal system. Yes, you get the odd OJ, but by and large, the system works to keep itself and society honest. Sorry - boring answer, but it’s all we have.
You dimwits are seriously worried about them takin’ away ur guns, but your perfectly happy to surrender all your rights as soon as things get a wee bit tense.
Or is it more fun to run around and cry, breaking everyone’s crayons because they aren’t your own?
That is more fun, yes. Particularly when they are yours. Although the ones you keep celotaping back together don’t do much for me any more.
But it’s still the best system we have.
Our system never applied to enemy combatants captured on foreign soil. It never has nor can you find any parallel anywhere in Western civilization--if not the history of the world--where it has.
You dimwits are seriously worried about them takin’ away ur guns, but your perfectly happy to surrender all your rights as soon as things get a wee bit tense.
What rights are we talking about losing? This is a constant mantra around here that never holds up under serious questioning.
No, I didn’t. No, I’m not. No, I wouldn’t.
Oh, I don’t know stogy. You’re very own implication above kind of gives away your real feelings toward the issue. Let’s take a peek at your veiled hatred:
And let’s bulldoze the houses of suicide bombers’ families. There’s the way to stop them! Certainly, none of their brothers or sisters would then ever be likely to replicate their brother’s feats.
Ouch, you are an incredible douchebag! Who are you referencing here, stog? Hmmmm? Are you an anti-semitic left wing troll who blames the terrorism in Israel on Israelis?
Where is your outspoken condemnation of the widespread terrorism of a people that leads to measures such as these?
Really. you hit a new low, but hardly unexpected of you. You’ve been a shellfish as long as I’ve known you.
The law doesn’t work perfectly - it’s a bad system, which lets offenders go every day, and jails the innocent. But it’s still the best system we have. If someone does get off and commits a crime again, it’s still better than locking up hundreds, if not thousands of innocents forever.
who did any of this, Alfred E. Stogy? Are you making a slippery slope argument to defend yourself?
You’re a fucking fear monger. Show me where we’ve locked up “thousands” of terrorists because of the GWOT. Pot. Meet kettle. Fear mongering, totalitarian.
And for all we know, it may be the experience in Guantanamo that really radicalized him.
You really are a fucking punching bag today. I dunno, stog. you saw his testimony to the courts about his innocence. Care to defend his accusations after that? That might make me right about you being a “chip on the shoulder” yank hater out to hate Americans based on the accusations of a fucking liar. Sweet.
Respect, improve, and support the legal system, the use of habeas corpus, and the confrontational legal system. Yes, you get the odd OJ, but by and large, the system works to keep itself and society honest. Sorry - boring answer, but it’s all we have.
We already did that dipshit, and in less than ten successful trials we already have an “OJ”. why don’t you just say that you might have to rethink this? Is it so miserable to say I am right?
That is more fun, yes. Particularly when they are yours. Although the ones you keep celotaping back together don’t do much for me any more.
Yea, because you get proven wrong everytime now. It’s almost too easy.
Our system never applied to enemy combatants captured on foreign soil.
No. But as they were never brought before a competent tribunal, required under the Geneva conventions, they cannot be described as enemy combatants. Nor should they have been transferred to Guantanamo in the first place.
What rights are we talking about losing? This is a constant mantra around here that never holds up under serious questioning.
Well actually, the point of Manwhore’s post (whether he makes it or not) is that the legal system is not enough to stop people...er… not people, terrists, from committing crimes in advance. The only way to do that (and it wasn’t done in this case) is to deprive people of rights - and for good measure, to subject them to torture.. er… stress positions, and to make sure that they are locked up forever (because after you’ve done all that, they’re pretty much never going to give up wanting to hit back at you).
And if they’re innocent, well that’s just too damn bad.
And hang the bad publicity (pun intended) and all the new recruits it creates .
I was going to respond (most respectfully) to your post, Manwhore, but I didn’t actually find an argument in there. Certainly not a sensible one.
Do you want to play again?
Well actually, the point of Manwhore’s post (whether he makes it or not) is that the legal system is not enough to stop people...er… not people, terrists, from committing crimes in advance.
Straw man much?
The only way to do that (and it wasn’t done in this case) is to deprive people of rights - and for good measure, to subject them to torture.. er… stress positions, and to make sure that they are locked up forever (because after you’ve done all that, they’re pretty much never going to give up wanting to hit back at you).
Wow, what an incredibly stupid amount of bullshit packed into a brainfart!! So mental institutions are torture houses? People can be detained in mental facilities indefinitely, and that is considered humane. Especially if the patient exhibits suicidal tendencies. However, if it’s a terrist hell bent on killing Americans detained you chide and seethe about denying him his opportunity to kill innocent people. this in addition to chiding us for not making him more comfortable in his surroundings.
And if they’re innocent, well that’s just too damn bad.
No, you really mean to say if they are guilty, and America is right, “too damn bad”. You only find zeal in the situations where Americans are forced to tie one arm behind us before the fight.
And hang the bad publicity (pun intended) and all the new recruits it creates .
What a bottom feeding propagandist! You would blame the murderous acts of a gangster on his neighborhood? Figures.
Why was I so stupid as to assume you think anyone other than the Japanese master race is capable of indivual thought? You assume ‘skerry bruwn terrists” are simply robots waiting independent of free will to commit terror.
And let’s bulldoze the houses of suicide bombers’ families. There’s the way to stop them! Certainly, none of their brothers or sisters would then ever be likely to replicate their brother’s feats.Ouch, you are an incredible douchebag! Who are you referencing here, stog? Hmmmm? Are you an anti-semitic left wing troll who blames the terrorism in Israel on Israelis?
OK. This is just too funny to let pass.
Fact: Israel bulldozes the houses of the families of suicide bombers. It is collective punishment, and sends a message right across the Islamic world that Israel acts unfairly.
Fact: Rage at injustice and feelings of humiliation are major drivers of terror.
I point this out, and it means that I hate all the Jooooz. Clever, Manwhore, even for you.
Obviously, Manwhore says it, so it must be true. Now where are those damn crayons of yours!
No. But as they were never brought before a competent tribunal, required under the Geneva conventions, they cannot be described as enemy combatants.
All well and good. Does this mean that you would like to now come out as a supporter of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which does exactly that?
Nor should they have been transferred to Guantanamo in the first place.
Why not? Where else would you suggest sending them? To their home countries to be tortured (real torture, that is, not this “poking with a finger” stuff)?
The only way to do that (and it wasn’t done in this case) is to deprive people of rights - and for good measure, to subject them to torture.. er… stress positions, and to make sure that they are locked up forever (because after you’ve done all that, they’re pretty much never going to give up wanting to hit back at you).
Foreign unlawful enemy combatants can’t be deprived of any rights. They don’t have any to begin with. Unless you can show me where I might find a precedent before 2005 that says they do.
Also, there is nothing unusual in locking them up for the duration of a conflict. Except where allowances are made for parole or prisoner exchanges, this has been the norm historically. Again, I challenge you to show me otherwise.
And hang the bad publicity (pun intended) and all the new recruits it creates .
How does any of this create new recruits? The enemy typically uses video of successful attacks in his propaganda, not video of guys getting a trial in their home country. I defy you to make sense on anything you’re saying tonight.
I was going to respond (most respectfully) to your post, Manwhore, but I didn’t actually find an argument in there. Certainly not a sensible one.
Oh please. This must be the point where you “most respectfully” decided to flame on:
Right on, Manwhore! Give it to them!
And while we’re about it, let’s lock up everyone who ever murdered forever so that they don’t do it again.
And let’s bulldoze the houses of suicide bombers’ families. There’s the way to stop them! Certainly, none of their brothers or sisters would then ever be likely to replicate their brother’s feats.
And let’s cut off the hands of shoplifters, so that they can’t put anything else down their underwear.
And let’s flog or stone anyone who commits adultery. That’ll make them think twice.
And the drug addicts? I’ve got something special planned for them!
Yeah, it’s one thing to flame on and be responsible for it, but yet another to act like you are on the high road after you’re cornered. Just answer the questions stog, or admit you’re outgunned here.
I thought you were so much better than me that I was beginning to bore you. Surely my ignprant attacks are easy enough to head off at the pass.
Hypocrite.
Fact: Israel bulldozes the houses of the families of suicide bombers. It is collective punishment, and sends a message right across the Islamic world that Israel acts unfairly.
Counterpoint: The Israelis were driven to do this by the kind of people who think it’s a good idea to indoctrinate small children that suicide bombing is glorious and desirable.
Fact: Rage at injustice and feelings of humiliation are major drivers of terror.
Counterpoint: I suppose then that it’s your contention that the Israelis have it coming for refusing to simply abandon their country or die. Damn Jews, not letting Islamist killers have their way even though they’re totally justified.
Ah, that’s better!
Straw man much?
Er… I don’t see the straw man. You are talking about how the system failed to stop someone from committing a suicide attack before it happened. That’s how I see it.
So mental institutions are torture houses? People can be detained in mental facilities indefinitely, and that is considered humane. Especially if the patient exhibits suicidal tendencies. However, if it’s a terrist hell bent on killing Americans detained you chide and seethe about denying him his opportunity to kill innocent people. this in addition to chiding us for not making him more comfortable in his surroundings.
There are differences, Manwhore. The obvious one being that the mentally ill are often not considered to be capable of looking after their needs. However, there are plenty of mentally ill people out on the streets - again at times some of them pose a threat to the safety of others, but that doesn’t mean we lock up ALL mentally ill people. Bad analogy, I think. It didn’t support your argument at all.
And if they’re innocent, well that’s just too damn bad.No, you really mean to say if they are guilty, and America is right, “too damn bad”. You only find zeal in the situations where Americans are forced to tie one arm behind us before the fight.
No, I actually believe that it’s better to let a guilty person go free than jail an innocent man. It’s the only moral course. That’s what the system is supposed to provide for.
What a bottom feeding propagandist! You would blame the murderous acts of a gangster on his neighborhood? Figures.
Sorry. I take it back. You didn’t really provide much in the way of argument here. C’mon MW, you can do better than this!
Fact: Israel bulldozes the houses of the families of suicide bombers. It is collective punishment, and sends a message right across the Islamic world that Israel acts unfairly.
Fact: Rage at injustice and feelings of humiliation are major drivers of terror.
I point this out, and it means that I hate all the Jooooz. Clever, Manwhore, even for you.
Fact: Palestinians suicide bomb, shoot, fire rockets are and otherwise terrorize Jews in Israel.
Fact: You haven’t mentioned it.
Fact: You mentioned bulldozers which has nothing to do with the argument at hand, unless you mean to implicate Israel in the creation of terrorists.
Straw man much?
Actually, that’s exactly what you said. Until he actually blows himself up he’s not a suicide bomber. So what you’re saying is that, okay, we *think* this guy *may* someday be a suicide bomber, so that gives us the right to keep him locked up forever without a trial.
And don’t give me this “weep for the jihadists” crap. We have two choices, we can either set up some kind of system and live with the consequences, or we can simply assume the power to deem people guilty by fiat and lock them up at the king’s pleasure.
And torture them, let’s not forget that. If we torture ‘em long enough they’ll tell us what we want to know. Of course, you don’t support torture, do you Manwhore, except every time the subject rears its head.
I find this a curious observation from one who relishes in the freedoms offered by China. Things like smoking weed in the street, buying hookers from restaurants with red lights over the door, and the general regard for the human condition that one can sink thier teeth into.
Because once again (and I’m getting REALLY fucking tired of repeating myself on this subject) I DO NOT FUCKING DEFEND CHINA’S POLITICAL SYSTEM, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE. Does that sink in? How many fucking times are you going to insinuate my support for China’s politics simply because I happen to mention that (gasp!) some things here are actually pretty cool? I’m getting FUCKING SICK of it, and you can put yourself on official fucking notice that if you pull this stunt one more time you’re fucking gone.
Got it?
If you want to attack me on a legitimate subject then go for it, but I’m getting really fucking sick of you taking my comments about China out of context, and you know goddamned well you’re doing it.
I haven’t banned anyone around here in years. You’re a fucking contributor. I expect better from you.
Fact: You mentioned bulldozers which has nothing to do with the argument at hand, unless you mean to implicate Israel in the creation of terrorists.
Of course! The Israelis want to be the victims of terrorism; it makes perfect sense!
I’m sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the indoctrination of children with such things as this.
Nope, it’s all about bulldozers.
Until he actually blows himself up he’s not a suicide bomber. So what you’re saying is that, okay, we *think* this guy *may* someday be a suicide bomber, so that gives us the right to keep him locked up forever without a trial.
No, the fact that he was engaged against US armed forces on foreign soil is ample reason to detain him indefinitely.
We have two choices, we can either set up some kind of system and live with the consequences, or we can simply assume the power to deem people guilty by fiat and lock them up at the king’s pleasure.
We already did. Once again: see the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I’m waiting for stogy to admit that it’s exactly what he wanted. Sometimes it seems like the debate about what’s happening in the GWoT effectively ended in 2005 around here.
I’m surprised it took so long for someone (on either side of the issue) to blog on this one.
I think both sides are leaning on hyperbole a bit here. I would need to read more (like transcripts, if they’re available) to understand why he was released from Gitmo (note this happened before the Military Commissions Act). Maybe he’s a good lier. Maybe a mistake. Maybe he didn’t go full nutjob until later.
As an example of the hyperbole, we have “He was simply detained, tried and released.” As far as I am aware, there’s very little “simple” about being detained at Gitmo. I have no details, but this phrasing implies it’s the holiday inn or something.
On the other hand, “And let’s bulldoze the houses of suicide bombers’ families. There’s the way to stop them!” is even more hyperbolic. Especially as the first response to a post that isn’t flaming in and of itself, even if you disagree with the content.
In the end, I think I’m with Lee on this. One or two bad examples, even with horrific outcomes, doesn’t provide justification for the overall shitty way we have dealt with Gitmo. A lot of that was addressed by the MCA, but it’s not like it’s Club Paradise, and even if it were, Gitmo still needs to be shut down because of what it represents.
Related note - John addressed the “maybe Gitmo radicalized him” argument. He concludes that if Gitmo radicalized him, he would have blown up Americans not Iraqis. Maybe. Or he’s a low-level, not very smart guy, who wanted to screw with the Americans and did it the way his leaders told him, by blowing up Iraqis to make Iraq less stable. I don’t know either way, but neither does John.
So my bottom line is - I’m missing a lot of details in this case, but even if I had details, I doubt that my opinions on the broader issues would be impacted by a single bad outcome.
A lot of that was addressed by the MCA, but it’s not like it’s Club Paradise, and even if it were, Gitmo still needs to be shut down because of what it represents.
I’m glad that someone finally acknowledged the fact that we do allow detainees to challenge their status in a tribunal. However, if they are not to be detained at GTMO, where would you have them placed?
No. But as they were never brought before a competent tribunal, required under the Geneva conventions, they cannot be described as enemy combatants.All well and good. Does this mean that you would like to now come out as a supporter of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which does exactly that?
This rests on the rather dubious assumption that a military tribunal is an acceptable means of establishing whether a person is a POW or an ‘enemy combatant’.
Also, there is nothing unusual in locking them up for the duration of a conflict. Except where allowances are made for parole or prisoner exchanges, this has been the norm historically. Again, I challenge you to show me otherwise.
You can’t seriously be suggesting that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are like regular POW camps. They’re not. They were never intended for those purposes. Guantanamo was intended for “the worst of the worst”, yet there is nothing in Manwhore’s post that suggests this guy was “the worst of the worst” - until quite a bit later, that is.
How does any of this create new recruits? The enemy typically uses video of successful attacks in his propaganda, not video of guys getting a trial in their home country. I defy you to make sense on anything you’re saying tonight.
International Relations studies has a whole new emerging research field called humiliation studies, to explore the role of ‘emotions’ in producing violence and conflict. Are you really suggesting that people blow themselves up for other reasons? It’s certainly possible, but I haven’t met a Muslim yet who actually believes in the x number of virgins.
Oh please. This must be the point where you “most respectfully” decided to flame on:
I wasn’t flaming at all. I was using humor to make a serious point.
I thought you were so much better than me that I was beginning to bore you. Surely my ignprant attacks are easy enough to head off at the pass.
Manwhore, I wouldn’t this to affect our relationship ;p
However, if they are not to be detained at GTMO, where would you have them placed?
McCain has suggested Ft. Leavenworth. I’m not sure I care specifically. My point about Gitmo is that Gitmo is a shining beacon, and even if everything is completely kosher at Gitmo NOW, it doesn’t change its beacon status, so shutting it down and keeping kosher elsewhere eliminates the beacon but doesn’t prevent us from detaining people under MCA rules.
There is the aspect of the Woo memo that appears to require they be held in American facilities on foreign soil to be able to use “enhanced interrogation techniques”, though. Therefore I’d prefer them to be held someplace else to obviate the Woo memo as well.
We probably disagree about this; I’ve given my opinion.
OK. Sorry. I am trying to answer everything, but I am getting a bit behind.
Fact: Palestinians suicide bomb, shoot, fire rockets are and otherwise terrorize Jews in Israel.
Fact: You haven’t mentioned it.
Fact: You mentioned bulldozers which has nothing to do with the argument at hand, unless you mean to implicate Israel in the creation of terrorists.
Right. So it’s up to me to condemn Palestinian terrorism (which I do) in every sentence I type about Israel. I missed the all the sentences where you condemned illegal Israeli land grabs in the settlements. See unlike you, I see that there are two sides in the conflict - both of which have completely legitimate points to make. The conflict won’t be solved by one side rolling over and dying. I also thing (and i’ve said it here before) that the Palestinians are their own worst enemy - they give the Israelis the excuse to do whatever they want.
I’m glad that someone finally acknowledged the fact that we do allow detainees to challenge their status in a tribunal.
BTW - I’ll point out that this is one of the examples of me being educated by Thrill. I didn’t ever really research this until Thrill brought it up in one of these debates a few months ago. We reach different conclusions in our debates, but I’m better educated for it.
Nope, it’s all about bulldozers.
Now THAT’s straw man. Taking notes, Manwhore?
This rests on the rather dubious assumption that a military tribunal is an acceptable means of establishing whether a person is a POW or an ‘enemy combatant’
It’s as acceptable as any other sort of trial used in the Western world. The detainee is entitled to zealous legal representation and a hearing based on the evidence under the MCA. What more would you want?
You can’t seriously be suggesting that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are like regular POW camps. They’re not.
How are they different? Regardless of this, you are dodging the issue, which is whether or not enemy combatants should be detained for the duration of a conflict. Not the conditions of their incarceration. Quit changing the subject or I may start to think that you’re losing this argument.
International Relations studies has a whole new emerging research field called humiliation studies, to explore the role of ‘emotions’ in producing violence and conflict.
That’s just hilarious. I’d love to meet someone with a degree in “Humiliation Studies”. What do you do with that anyway? Become a dominatrix?
As an example of the hyperbole, we have “He was simply detained, tried and released.” As far as I am aware, there’s very little “simple” about being detained at Gitmo. I have no details, but this phrasing implies it’s the holiday inn or something.
You insinuate that the conditions are worse than any federal penitentiary in the United States. I doubt it.
In the end, I think I’m with Lee on this. One or two bad examples, even with horrific outcomes, doesn’t provide justification for the overall shitty way we have dealt with Gitmo. A lot of that was addressed by the MCA, but it’s not like it’s Club Paradise, and even if it were, Gitmo still needs to be shut down because of what it represents.
I completely and totally disagree with this sentiment. This is an assumption based on emotion, and has little ot nothing to do with factual evidence.
As for the horrific evidence, it’s happening in real time. None of the bombers of the USS Cole are detained or serving time for thier crimes, yet there is this insane notion we should render all would be or “in fact” terrorist to the same fate.
This rests on the rather dubious assumption that a military tribunal is an acceptable means of establishing whether a person is a POW or an ‘enemy combatant’.
Hmm. Look into the backgrounds of the people behind the MCA. I’m not expert in this field, but having read about it, and seeing who’s behind it (particularly Sen. John Warner), it’s hard to argue there’s a significantly better solution out there.
What’s your alternative?
McCain has suggested Ft. Leavenworth.
I’ve pointed out in the past that Leavenworth is 30 minutes from where I live. I really don’t them here. They need to be overseas. I would accept leasing some other foreign territory in some other location for a new detention center other than GTMO. This would allow interrogators to use “threats”, which you have said are acceptable to you in the past. What do you think of that?
OK. Sorry. I am trying to answer everything, but I am getting a bit behind.
Do try to keep up, stogy. This thread is just getting started.
We reach different conclusions in our debates, but I’m better educated for it.
And I will concede that you impel me to work harder at this.
What’s your alternative?
Uh, I don’t know; maybe surrender? I haven’t seen where stogy favors anything else but appeasement. I’m sure that he would do his thesis for his Masters Degree in Humiliation Studies on “The White Flag Principle”.
I completely and totally disagree with this sentiment. This is an assumption based on emotion, and has little ot nothing to do with factual evidence.
So is your position. “Lock ‘em up because they might blow us up” is just as knee-jerk reactionary. And I believe Gitmo is a symbol used to empower more bad guys. That’s not emotional. That’s my belief.
As for the horrific evidence, it’s happening in real time. None of the bombers of the USS Cole are detained or serving time for thier crimes, yet there is this insane notion we should render all would be or “in fact” terrorist to the same fate.
This seems like a complete non-sequitor, so maybe I missed your point.
I’m not saying “don’t lock up terrorists”. I’m saying that the fact that we let one whack-job go who succeeded in “martyring” himself doesn’t justify the overall shitty way we’ve dealt with suspects at Gitmo. Noting again that this incident was pre-MCA, and MCA addresses many of my concerns.
What do you think of that?
Since this seems to be the empowering provision of the Woo memo (in my IANAL interpretation), I have issues with it. In a regime of more tightly regulated “enhanced interrogation techniques”, I’d be fine with it. Under what I believe is the current interpretation, I’d prefer that loophole be closed.
But if the choice is Gitmo or some other international facility, I’d choose the latter.
“Lock ‘em up because they might blow us up” is just as knee-jerk reactionary.
It is perfectly rational to believe that a guy detained while in the act of waging war against the US will continue to do so if he is released. There’s nothing speculative about it.
And I believe Gitmo is a symbol used to empower more bad guys.
But the ones who are there are powerless. Our goal should be to lock up as many as humanly possible if we can take them alive.
Noting again that this incident was pre-MCA, and MCA addresses many of my concerns.
Stogy? Stogy? Are you going noticing that dwex, an ACLU member--and therefore a pretty informed guy on what is and isn’t a fair and competent trial--approves of the MCA? Again, I offer you the chance to praise it for addressing the issue of habeas corpus that you took up earlier.
But if the choice is Gitmo or some other international facility, I’d choose the latter.
Fair enough.
That’s just hilarious. I’d love to meet someone with a degree in “Humiliation Studies”. What do you do with that anyway? Become a dominatrix?
Actually, those International Relations people are really stodgy folk - no sense of humor whatsoever. I strongly recommend against making this joke if you ever come across one: you are likely to end up with a large part of Spain shoved up your sphincter.
Uh, I don’t know; maybe surrender? I haven’t seen where stogy favors anything else but appeasement. I’m sure that he would do his thesis for his Masters Degree in Humiliation Studies on “The White Flag Principle”.
Right. Two choices. Obliviate them (courtesy of one H. Clinton) or surrender. Just. Two. Choices.
Come on - that’s pathetic. Even from you guys!
Thrill - I take your point about the MCA2006 - I’ll have to get back to you. Gotta log off for a while.
It is perfectly rational to believe that a guy detained while in the act of waging war against the US will continue to do so if he is released. There’s nothing speculative about it.
I am with Dwex on this. There are good reasons to treat people as POWs and treat them as such, keeping them locked up until the end of hostilities. However, this isn’t why they were kept at GTMO. They were kept there to remove them from the basic principles of American justice. So they could be ‘enhanced interrogated’.
Move them somewhere else. Give them everything they need. Red Cross parcels and weekly (monitored) telephone calls.
you are likely to end up with a large part of Spain shoved up your sphincter.
Well, by your logic; I’d be humiliated and therefore entitled to fire mortar rounds at your house.
Thrill - I take your point about the MCA2006 - I’ll have to get back to you. Gotta log off for a while.
That’s actually all I needed to hear. I’m sick of you guys pretending like we live in a vacuum where Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and the MCA of 2006 never happened. I have repeatedly argued that the other branches of government would curb the power of the President if he appeared to be going too far and they have. Call me vindicated.
However, this isn’t why they were kept at GTMO. They were kept there to remove them from the basic principles of American justice. So they could be ‘enhanced interrogated’.
This has nothing to do with justice. Where did you get that idea? It’s about waging war.
As for the interrogation techniques: they came about because the interrogation professionals didn’t believe that they were getting results with the methods in place. The Administration evaluated the techniques, defined them, and determined the limited circumstances under which they could be used.
The man who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed firmly believes that doing so prevented further attacks.
How are they different? Regardless of this, you are dodging the issue, which is whether or not enemy combatants should be detained for the duration of a conflict.
Under what conditions will this conflict be “concluded”? WWII ended when Germany and Japan surrendered. There was a clear, defining moment when that conflict ended, and anyone being held could be repatriated.
What conditions would have to be met before the nebulous war on terror has completed its duration?
See, this is the point. Nobody would argue about holding a foreign fighter captive for the duration of a war. The problem is that this is a war which will never end, like the “war on drugs” or the “war on poverty.” So what you are saying is that since someone is an avowed enemy of the United States we can and should be entitled to hold them in detention for the duration of their entire lives.
“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whther Nazi or Communist.” — Winston Churchill
That, my friend, is totalitarian. I don’t give a fuck how you dress it up.
The man who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed firmly believes that doing so prevented further attacks.
What else do you expect him to say? “Well, we violated about a hundred laws, both international and domestic, and we didn’t really get jack shit. So, come throw me in prison.”
Given the way that the Bush administration willingly threw all those junior enlisted pukes into federal prison for following orders at Abu Ghraib, do you think this guy is going to admit to anything else? He’s got to justify his actions somehow.
Besides, the issue isn’t whether waterboarding someone will get information, of course it will. The issue is whether is will get information better than through standard interrogation, and the answer to that is unequivocally “no.” The other issue is that doing so is clearly and unambiguously illegal.
I haven’t got too involved in these debates as I bow to the greater knowledge of the other posters (notably Thrill) but I would ask MW and Thrill - exactly what your point is with this as far as how you see things should be working.
As far as I see it:
1. A guy was detained on suspicion of wanting to blow shit up.
2. He was ‘tried’* and found to be not guilty
3. Upon release he blew shit up.
Are you saying that he shouldn’t have been tried, or that upon being found not guilty he should have still been detained? Or that the process of trying him is flawed?
* I put ‘tried’ in inverted commas because I’m not sure of the details of the trial so didn’t want to be innaccurate. This should not be taken as tacit implication of my hatred for the USA or sympathy with terrorists. Troop numbers may go up as well as down. The opinions of this post may not reflect those of all Europeans. Not to be taken orally. If pregnant or Liberal please consult your GP before reading. All rights reserved, Britishcress (tm)
1. A guy was detained on suspicion of wanting to blow shit up.
2. He was ‘tried’* and found to be not guilty
3. Upon release he blew shit up.
Exactly. And their point is that, since he subsequently blew shit up, he never should have been tried in the first place, since it enabled him to be released, and if he were detained he couldn’t have blown shit up. Thus the only logical conclusion to their argument is that anyone we suspect of wanting to blow shit up should be detained for the duration of the conflict. And since this is a conflict which will never end, we should be able to detain anyone we like for the duration of their lives.
Well, by your logic; I’d be humiliated and therefore entitled to fire mortar rounds at your house.
Ah no. You wouldn’t be entitled to. See this is another straw man (Manwhore, notes!). You assume that because someone is diss’d it means that their rage justifies violence, when actually it does no such thing. It explains it, in the sense that we know what provoked it, but doesn’t necessarily justify it.
Humiliation is the opposite of dignity - once people have lost dignity, the same rules about society no longer apply, and all kinds of behaviors become possible. The whole point of humiliation studies is not to pat those who commit violence on the head and say, “Oh, we understand, you did it because you were humiliated.” It’s to say “let’s look at what happens to people when they are humiliated, how we can prevent humiliation from happening where possible, and mitigate against its effects once it has happened.”
So what you are saying is that since someone is an avowed enemy of the United States we can and should be entitled to hold them in detention for the duration of their entire lives.
If they are determined to be unlawful enemy combatants, then their lives are forfeit. We can detain them for life or hang them from a tree as befits war criminals. Argue all you like, but I have 500 years of standard military procedure on my side.
Your Churchill quote actually bolsters my argument. The Nazi war criminals that he faced were given military tribunals (just as Bush is doing and wanted to do since 2001) and hanged by the neck until they were dead, dead, dead. If it’s civil rights you’re concerned with, can you please name just one American citizen detained without trial since Padilla was ordered to be tried or to be released by the Supreme Court? Just one, please. Also, I’ll put the same challenge to you that I put to stogy: show me one precedent in all of Western civilization where unlawful enemy combatants (assassins, spies, raiders, saboteurs, etc) were given any measure of civil rights by the nation that captured them.
I’ll save you some time. You can’t.
What else do you expect him to say? “Well, we violated about a hundred laws, both international and domestic, and we didn’t really get jack shit. So, come throw me in prison.”
Good stuff. The same guy also admitted that he now thinks waterboarding is torture. Wouldn’t that declaration against self-interest kind of blow your point away that he’s somehow in fear of retribution?
Given the way that the Bush administration willingly threw all those junior enlisted pukes into federal prison for following orders at Abu Ghraib, do you think this guy is going to admit to anything else? He’s got to justify his actions somehow.
Really? You want to have this argument again? I’ll give you the synopsis once more:
There is no way in hell that the Administration determined that enhanced interrogation techniques should be carried out by a bunch of unsupervised goofy Army reservists with a personal camera.
That’s old, I know, but here’s something new:
According to the recently released Yoo memo, the prohibitions against torture still applied on military prisons in occupied territories! Don’t believe me? Read it in Yoo’s own words:
If, however, the interrogations take place outside the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction and are otherwise outside the United States, the tortUre statute applies. Thus, for example, interrogations conducted at GTMO would not be subject to this prohibition, but interrogations conducted at a non-U.S. base in Afghanistan [or Iraq--Thrill] would be subject to section 2340A.45
There you go, Lee; an Administration official proclaiming that the conduct that happened at Abu Ghraib was unlawful before it occured. Neither you nor any investigative body have ever been able to demonstrate that the incident at Abu Ghraib was directed by anyone above the military units involved and you never will because it was not. Please feel free to continue bringing it up.
The issue is whether is will get information better than through standard interrogation, and the answer to that is unequivocally “no.”
Whatever you mean by “standard” interrogation, I don’t know. I firmly believe as a trained professional in this area that rapport building and positive encouragement are best and I’ve said so before. However, I accept that there are extreme circumstances for which extreme measures should be permissible. Given that waterboarding was used on less than one-tenth of one percent of all of the detainees captured during the GWoT, it is clear that the Administration is in sync with my viewpoint.
The other issue is that doing so is clearly and unambiguously illegal.
No, it isn’t. You can accuse the Administration of using loopholes in the law by staging the harsh interrogations at GTMO, but it was certainly not illegal.
Truly, Lee, if you want to continue to believe that the world has stood still and it’s still 2005, you aren’t doing yourself any favors. If I were in your position, I would be gratified that my point of view has won out.
You were opposed to detaining American citizens without trial. Well, did you miss Hamdi v. Rumsfeld? You won.
You were opposed to waterboarding. Well, did you notice that Director Hayden declared that it hasn’t been used in years? You won.
You were opposed to GTMO. Well, did you notice that every single presidential candidate has vowed to close the prison at GTMO? You won.
You were opposed to warrantless wiretaps. Well, did you notice that the Democrats won Congress and are refusing to authorize these wiretaps anymore? You won.
It’s 2008, Lee. Can we move on?
Humiliation is the opposite of dignity - once people have lost dignity, the same rules about society no longer apply, and all kinds of behaviors become possible.
Let’s keep it going:
Once they have lost dignity, they fight without honor and engage in methods of warfare that are illegal. Once they do so, the rights of soldiers in wartime do not apply to them and they can be incarcerated until they rot or hanged.
What you fail to understand is that they will always find a grievance against us so long as it advances their agenda. I wish that this whole thing were as simple as knocking over people’s houses with bulldozers or the occupation of Iraq but it isn’t. It’s older than that and they don’t mean to stop even if the Israelis quit bulldozing their houses and the US leaves Iraq. Do not confuse their short-term goals with their long-term goals, no matter how noble the former sound.
I’m gonna try to explain the broader scope of my concerns with Gitmo, torture, extraordinary rendition, etc. Because when we get into debates about a specific issue or case, it’s easy for me to see how I get lumped with the “crying for the terrorists” bunch.
Let me be clear - I’m a firm supporter of the death penalty. I have no issues whatsoever with appropriate punishment for confirmed terrorists, illegal enemy combatants, etc. I don’t even cry that much about the collateral damage that comes from taking out a bomber before he can reach his target.
But there are broader issues that bother me. Please read through this whole thing, because the various issues feed on each other to paint a larger picture. Don’t nitpick specific points until you’ve read through the broader argument.
First, there is a sense of a dragnet to the “illegal enemy combatant” roundup, and I worry very much about innocent people, or people with minor issues, getting swept up with the bad guys. It’s similar in concept to the issue of drunk-driving checkpoints. Sure, you’re gonna catch the occasional drunk, but what else are you sweeping up at the same time, that would never have been in the criminal system without this broad brush. Now, I think this has died down somewhat in the last few years, because some of the hysteria has died down, but this concern is at the root of my concern about the other issues.
Given that concern - that some innocent people, or people guilty of minor offenses rather than the major ones, will get caught up in the sweep - the fact that these people had no recourse to get that corrected was a massive concern. This piece has been largely remedied by the MCA; the only remaining concern I have in this area is w.r.t. timeliness.
Now on “torture” or “enhanced interrogation techniques”, I have two conerns. The first is that these will be applied to the innocents or not-majorly-guilties caught up in the dragnet. Even with MCA, the opportunity for these folk to be subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques” is still present (the timeliness issue I mentioned). Even worse - they may confess to something they didn’t do, and this is likely completely unrecoverable, given the rules of evidence as they exist under UCMJ and the security ratings associated with evidence/intelligence.
The 2nd part on “enhanced interrogation techniques” - I think the loophole defined in the Woo memo is very narrow, and I would really hate if some REALLY bad guy (e.g. KSM) gets off because some court(s) interpret things differently than Woo did. So there’s a double-edged sword to the “enhanced interrogation techniques”, in that it can hurt us with good guys (or not-so-bad guys) AND with really-bad guys.
Because of my belief that people with power tend to abuse that power (a belief that has been borne out, e.g. the FBI abuse of FISA/NSL), that the risks of harm are too high for the position that is generally taken here. Not that everyone with power abuses it - I’m not slamming the military, cops, intelligence services in general. But it’s clear that bad seeds will abuse the powers they are given, and they exist in all circles. I would rather us err on the side of letting some maybe-not-so-bad guy go, and finding out he actually was bad, than have us torturing innocent people into confessing to things just to stop the torture.
If this view of the world makes me a bleeding heart, I’m OK with that. But to me, I think my views are centrist and libertarian, because it’s really about protecting the good or minorly-bad guys, not crying for the really-bad guys.
(donning asbestos underwear now)
There are two points that you’re missing about enhanced interrogation techniques, dwex:
1. They appear to be used for the purpose of intelligence-gathering, not for convictions. In the case of KSM, there is ample evidence that he was the planner of 9/11 and carried out other acts for AQ without his confession. The statements made by John Kiriakuo are that attacks were prevented, not that they got what they needed to send KSM to prison. This is significant because the fact that he was waterboarded would not automatically mean that he had to be set free if the Court decreed it was unlawful to waterboard him, only that his confession would not be admissible on due process grounds.
2. A confession from any type of interrogation--"standard" or harsh--must be corroborated with independent information. It may be that an interrogation is conducted using rapport-building and the detainee is not coerced in any way, but he may still lie to interrogators simply because he does not want to tell the truth. Corroborating information from confessions is a major part of interrogation techniques. Would information gained from a guy who just got waterboarded for 30 seconds be suspect? Absolutely, but not really any less so than a guy who just started babbling without being interrogated at all. Both require that the information be checked against other sources. To assume that the statements made by a detainee after the use of any of the Category II or III techniques are taken as Gospel is simply unrealistic. Kiriakou claims that KSM’s information was valuable, which implies that it did check out, but I don’t know for sure, of course.
What I can tell you is that investigators usually ask questions of the suspect that they already know the answer to but the suspect doesn’t realize they know. This is done in any type of interrogation and is just one way to determine a suspect’s truthfulness.
Thrill,
Hi. Here we go on MCA2006:
1. Under Geneva, Article 3 anyone who is captured in battle without uniform is entitled to be placed before a tribunal to determine their status as a combatant. However, it would seem from the Hamdan vs Rumsfeld case that, this was not ever adequately carried out::
Judge Robertson in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld125 held that the Third Geneva Convention, which he considered self- executing, had not been complied with since a Combatant Status Review Tribunal could not be considered a ‘competent tribunal’ pursuant to article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention.126 Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established to review the status determination of enemy combatants; that status, however, was not under review. According to Robertson the prisoner of war status and enemy combatant status do not exclude one another. The judge, therefore, rejected the Government’s argument that ‘[t]he ...determination that Hamdan was a member of or affiliated with al Qaeda is also determinative of Hamdan’s prisoner-of-war status”.127 The government argued that the president had already determined that detained Al Qaeda members are not prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Robertson ruled that such determination was not relevant since “[t]he president is not a ‘tribunal”.128 Until proper determination had taken place Hamdan was to be treated as a prisoner of war.129 As a consequence, the military commission procedure itself was thought not to meet the requirements of the Third Geneva Convention. Hamdan was entitled to the protections of the latter Convention as a prisoner of war and could, therefore, only be tried “[a]ccording to the procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power”130 which would be a court-martial convened under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Procedures before military commissions do not meet the standards of court-martials and for that reason were considered unlawful.131
So to appear before the commission you must be charged. But those who are not charged didn’t appear before a recognizable commission. Hence, they are letting them all go.
2. Having read through a fair part of MCA2006, it would seem that the purpose of the Military Commissions is not to determine the status of those who have already been determined to be ‘enemy combatants’. It is to try people for crimes committed as acts of war. The others, those who are not going to be charged have already been/will be released. For those who remain, your rights to habeas corpus and Geneva are already lost before you get to trial.
(g) GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOT ESTABLISHING SOURCE OF RIGHTS.—No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.
3. Even determining that someone is an enemy combatant, or an unlawful enemy combatant doesn’t really change a persons rights under international law: I stumbled across this earlier tonight (It’s also the most explicit legal argument against torture I’ve yet seen):
Geneva Conventions - First Additional Protocol,
Article 75.-Fundamental guarantees
1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.
2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents(a) Violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:
(i) Murder;
(ii) Torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;
( iii ) Corporal punishment ; and
(iv) Mutilation;
(b) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
(c) The taking of hostages;
(d) Collective punishments; and
(e) Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.
This has the status of customary law, and has been recognized explicitly by the US navy supplement to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, making it enforceable in the US.
Among the prisoners at Guantanamo are/were people who were picked up in Pakistan, not carrying out any attacks on US forces, nor involved in any nefarious activities. They were sold by Pakistani forces for the substantial bounty that was offered by US forces in Afghanistan after the war. They are civilians under the Geneva convention and CANNOT be forcibly repatriated or renditioned to other country. Doing so puts the US in breach of international law.
4. Anyone who is deemed to have provided material aid to a terrorist group opposed to the United States can still be picked up. I could send fifty bucks to an education charity in India, only to find that the funds had been diverted to an Arab extremist group, and be picked up and packed off to Guantanamo. There isn’t a lot my government could do about it, either.
5. Hearsay and information gained under torture can be used as evidence against the ‘accused’ without the right to reply.
If they are determined to be unlawful enemy combatants
Not any more - see above.
We can detain them for life or hang them from a tree as befits war criminals.
You can’t actually do that either - not without putting them before an acceptable legally sound tribunal with a solid defence.
1) So you don’t think a defense attorney could successfully challenge the Yoo loophole and get KSM off (or at least reduced sentence) because he was tortured (even if the “fruit of the poison tree” wasn’t directly used in the case)? Maybe that wouldn’t happen under UCMJ like it could in a civilian court. IANAL, but it worries me.
2) Again, not clear to me how things work under UCMJ. In civilian courts, you’re correct by the letter of the law. But jury gets wind of “he confessed”, and it sticks in their head; major work for the defense to unring the bell.
Beyond that, though - the broader issue of torturing innocent people remains, whether the coerced confession leads to a conviction or not. I’m not unrealistic enough to believe it would never happen, but in our current situation, I believe we’ve created circumstances where it’s likely to happen.
Anyhow - thank for not flaming.
And if you know of a site that explains, in layman’s terms, how UCMJ differs from civilian procedures in criminal cases, I’d be interested in reading it. I understand some of the concepts, but not any of the real workings.
Also, I’ll put the same challenge to you that I put to stogy: show me one precedent in all of Western civilization where unlawful enemy combatants (assassins, spies, raiders, saboteurs, etc) were given any measure of civil rights by the nation that captured them.
Geneva Convention IV means that people who are spies/saboteurs etc. are still entitled to protection unless doing so threatens the security of the state:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
There are plenty of incidences of spies etc being executed, but they are still entitled to a fair trial by a competent tribunal. If that tribunal decides on execution as punishment, and it is lawful in that state, then it can be deemed legitimate.
What you fail to understand is that they will always find a grievance against us so long as it advances their agenda. I wish that this whole thing were as simple as knocking over people’s houses with bulldozers or the occupation of Iraq but it isn’t. It’s older than that and they don’t mean to stop even if the Israelis quit bulldozing their houses and the US leaves Iraq. Do not confuse their short-term goals with their long-term goals, no matter how noble the former sound.
You talk about the Palestinians as if they are one monolithic political entity. I know Palestinian Christians, peace activists, and academics. None of them want the death of Israel. Now I am no fool (despite all the available evidence). There are sections of Palestinian society who do want to drive the Israelis into the sea. But then there are also right wing Israelis who want to drive all the Palestinians out of the West Bank into Jordan.
The only way there’ll be peace in Palestine is if the Palestinians give up the right of return (to Israel) in exchange for complete control of the West Bank and Gaza. A majority on both sides already know this, but there are enough people on the extremes firing away to keep it all blazing.
The Israeli right and the Palestinian hardliners play each other, effectively silencing the middle voice. I don’t suppose you remember feelers a couple of years ago toward recognizing Israel? An Israeli airstrike put paid to that, followed by Hamas missile attacks. Neither of them really wanted it, as it would have worked against their long term objectives.
So to appear before the commission you must be charged. But those who are not charged didn’t appear before a recognizable commission. Hence, they are letting them all go.
No, the options in Hamdan were to either give them a hearing or release them. In some cases, they did release immediately or they determined after a hearing that certain detainees were not unlawful and in other cases, they found that they were and continued to hold them.
Regarding your statemets about the Geneva Convention, what you don’t get is that international treaties do not have any enforcement mechanisms. What Geneva calls on member countries to do is define and outlaw torture in their own statutes. The US did so but it was written in such a way that GTMO is omitted from the jurisdiction. Regardless of what Geneva says, it is only US law that is binding on US servicemen and agents.
Your other points deal with “what-ifs” as far as I’m concerned. There should absolutely be tribunals to determine whether or not a detainee is an unlawful enemy combatant. You, President Bush, and I are all in agreement. Bush was planning the tribunals in 2001 but delayed them until after the Supreme Court ruled on the matter. It was as a result of the Court’s rulings against the Administration that the MCA was developed.
I’m not sure why you’re trying to drive home the point to me about using military tribunals. I’ve been in favor of them from the beginning.
So you don’t think a defense attorney could successfully challenge the Yoo loophole and get KSM off (or at least reduced sentence) because he was tortured
It’s possible. Consider United States v. Alvarez-Machain. A jury voted to acquit a defendant partly because he had been kidnapped and forcibly brought to the US to stand trial. This practice is actually permissible as far as the courts are concerned, but the jury didn’t like it.
2) Again, not clear to me how things work under UCMJ. In civilian courts, you’re correct by the letter of the law. But jury gets wind of “he confessed”, and it sticks in their head; major work for the defense to unring the bell.
The jury in any kind of court must heed the judge’s instructions. If a confession is supressed for any reason, the jury must be told to ignore it. I have no doubt that KSM’s lawyers will use the fact that he was waterboarded to get his statements supressed, but even if they do, it won’t affect the outcome of the case.
Geneva Convention IV means that people who are spies/saboteurs etc. are still entitled to protection unless doing so threatens the security of the state:
My challenge was civil rights, not rights as a combatant. Pay attention and quit trying to move the goalposts.
There are plenty of incidences of spies etc being executed, but they are still entitled to a fair trial by a competent tribunal. If that tribunal decides on execution as punishment, and it is lawful in that state, then it can be deemed legitimate.
Again, I wanted the tribunals all along, as did Bush. Your point is moot.
You talk about the Palestinians as if they are one monolithic political entity
Well, I can’t help but notice that they have this nasty habit of electing bona fide terrorists to lead them.
So reading more of the MCA and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (which is slightly modified by the MCA), I’m still trying to figure out the path by which the “enemy combatant” classification can be appealed. It appears that there is a review panel, run by the DoD, whose proceedings are closed. It also appears that their decision can be appealed to the DC Circuit of the US Court of Appeals.
This isn’t the same thing as a Habeas Corpus challenge (which is strictly controlled in the MCA), so I’m not completely clear on this.
Which gets to my broader thesis - my heart doesn’t bleed for the illegal enemy combatants, but I worry a lot about mis-classification due to error or abuse.
Having read through a fair part of MCA2006, it would seem that the purpose of the Military Commissions is not to determine the status of those who have already been determined to be ‘enemy combatants’. It is to try people for crimes committed as acts of war. The others, those who are not going to be charged have already been/will be released. For those who remain, your rights to habeas corpus and Geneva are already lost before you get to trial.
I cite the MCA because it does in fact lay out what is to be done with unlawful enemy combatants. Combat Status Review Tribunals determine whether or not a detainee should be tried as an unlawful enemy combatant as is laid out in the MCA:
DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS
DISPOSITIVE.—A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a
Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal
established under the authority of the President or the Secretary
of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive
for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission
under this chapter.
Also, regarding habeas, American citizens still have the right to challenge their detention even if they are pronounced as unlawful enemy combatants. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld:
Justice O’Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. Pp. 14—15.
Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concluded that Hamdi’s detention is unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant.
Here’s where you lose it:
Hearsay and information gained under torture can be used as evidence against the ‘accused’ without the right to reply.
Hearsay can be permitted under certain circumstances in civilian court. As for your mention about information gained under torture, I should have known that you wouldn’t be able to debate me for long without lying your ass off. From the MCA:
EXCLUSION OF STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY TORTURE.—A
statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in
a military commission under this chapter, except against a person
accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
Keep trying, stogy. I’m enjoying myself.
Dwex, I think you’re looking for this.
Dwex, I think you’re looking for this.
Combat Status Review Tribunals
That’s the defining document on how the status determination is made. What I’m trying to find is the process by which that determination can be reviewed/appealed. The Wikipedia article on CSRT quotes an article stating:
The Military Commission Act does provide a process where captives can appeal the Combatant Status Review Tribunal had properly followed OARDEC’s own rules when it confirmed their enemy combatant status.[20] If and when captives are able to file these appeals they would be heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
The only mention of anything like this that I can find in the MCA is Section 10, which refers to modifications of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which appears to provide for a review in the DC Circuit of the US Court of Appeals (see secion 1005(e)).
It’s all rather convoluted, and I’m a bit lost.
The determination cannot be appealed. It is given to the Executive branch to determine who is an enemy combatant.
Notice also that the determination of status is made by “a preponderance of evidence” (51% certainty or more) rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Your Churchill quote actually bolsters my argument. The Nazi war criminals that he faced were given military tribunals (just as Bush is doing and wanted to do since 2001) and hanged by the neck until they were dead, dead, dead.
Nazi war criminals were tried in a court with international legitimacy, not a kangaroo court manufactured by the Bush administration to give the veneer of legitimacy. This is why the Nuremberg trials are held in such high regard by history, that even the fucking scum of the Nazi party were given a fair trial. It demonstrated that our values were better than theirs.
Good stuff. The same guy also admitted that he now thinks waterboarding is torture. Wouldn’t that declaration against self-interest kind of blow your point away that he’s somehow in fear of retribution?
Indeed. It also bolsters my argument that we’re now a nation which officially tortures people, doesn’t it?
According to the recently released Yoo memo, the prohibitions against torture still applied on military prisons in occupied territories! Don’t believe me?
This is the same Yoo who simply got around this inconvenient fact by redefining the word “torture,” right?
Given that waterboarding was used on less than one-tenth of one percent of all of the detainees captured during the GWoT, it is clear that the Administration is in sync with my viewpoint.
How the hell do you know this statistic?
No, it isn’t. You can accuse the Administration of using loopholes in the law by staging the harsh interrogations at GTMO, but it was certainly not illegal.
I’ve quoted the relevant laws here a hundred times. It was clearly illegal. Use the search box on the front page.
You were opposed to waterboarding. Well, did you notice that Director Hayden declared that it hasn’t been used in years? You won.
Whew! Well, I’m glad he cleared that up!
You won.
No I didn’t. We all lost. The fact you can’t see that is pretty pathetic.
Nazi war criminals were tried in a court with international legitimacy, not a kangaroo court manufactured by the Bush administration to give the veneer of legitimacy. This is why the Nuremberg trials are held in such high regard by history, that even the fucking scum of the Nazi party were given a fair trial. It demonstrated that our values were better than theirs.
So what would you recommend? Letting the Hague try al-Qaeda members so they can die of old age before being convicted like Milosevic?
Indeed. It also bolsters my argument that we’re now a nation which officially tortures people, doesn’t it?
No, we don’t waterboard anymore. Which is a shame because apparently it works--contrary to what you’ve been saying.
This is the same Yoo who simply got around this inconvenient fact by redefining the word “torture,” right?
Nice evasion.
How the hell do you know this statistic?
We’ve detained thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq. Three were waterboarded. That’s a teeny-tiny proportion.
I’ve quoted the relevant laws here a hundred times. It was clearly illegal. Use the search box on the front page.
Read the Yoo memo and before you dismiss it, ask yourself why not one Administration official has been charged with torture or even conspiracy despite the paper trail and the Democrats running Congress. There was no crime.
No I didn’t. We all lost. The fact you can’t see that is pretty pathetic.
Well, if you don’t want to be satisfied, that’s your choice.
The determination cannot be appealed. It is given to the Executive branch to determine who is an enemy combatant.
That’s not right (or if it is, then that’s just fucking broken). Sec 1005(e)(2)(A) of the Detainee Treatment Act states:
IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant.
which certainly seems to provide for an appeal of the classification.
Notice also that the determination of status is made by “a preponderance of evidence” (51% certainty or more) rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Yeah. I think this is standard for UCMJ, is it not?
You didn’t read enough of it, dwex:
(C) SCOPE OF REVIEW- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of--
(i) whether the status determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal with regard to such alien was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government’s evidence); and
(ii) to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
They can’t question whether it was right or wrong, only whether or not the tribunals followed the rules set by SecDef or whether the SecDef’s rules were Constitutional.
Yeah. I think this is standard for UCMJ, is it not?
No.
I cite the MCA because it does in fact lay out what is to be done with unlawful enemy combatants. Combat Status Review Tribunals determine whether or not a detainee should be tried as an unlawful enemy combatant as is laid out in the MCA:
Yes, I saw this when I read through it. But you’ve missed the point here. You need to read your own post a little more carefully. The point is what it doesn’t say. It only determines
that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
There is no timeframe or actual mechanism for anyone else who is not charged as an enemy combatant to be released under the provisions of the MCA. None at all. Nothing. Not a sausage. You are either charged, you are released, or you are in limbo. Hence the tribunals are still in technical breach of the Geneva conventions. I am still looking at enforcement mechanisms in the US for international law, but at the very least, you can expect a nasty letter from Amnesty!
Hearsay can be permitted under certain circumstances in civilian court. As for your mention about information gained under torture, I should have known that you wouldn’t be able to debate me for long without lying your ass off. From the MCA:
So...I’m a bit slow… you’ll have to bear with me… not a legal mind and all that… so when Binyam Mohomad says he is facing evidence gained by torture (in Morocco), he must be lying. He couldn’t be telling the truth - after all, we’ve heard it from you. He’s a terrist. Except he’s not. Yet. Until the courts have said so. Apparently.
The last British resident left in Guantánamo Bay is suing the UK government for refusing to produce evidence that he was a victim of extraordinary rendition and torture.
Binyam Mohamed faces a US military commission which could sentence him to death, and his lawyers say proving that the case against him is based exclusively on evidence extracted by torture, following his rendition by the CIA, is vital to his defence.
And apparently where I lose it is also where the Baltimore Sun loses it too:
The military tribunals have been a work in progress for prosecutors and judges and a logistical nightmare for detainee lawyers, who are trying to responsibly defend their clients against charges related to alleged acts of terrorism. Classified evidence, witnesses who can’t be produced, hearsay statements and evidence resulting from torture are allowed in this system.
(Liars, all of them, those newspapers, obviously, too).
Let’s go back to this:
Hearsay can be permitted under certain circumstances in civilian court. As for your mention about information gained under torture, I should have known that you wouldn’t be able to debate me for long without lying your ass off.
So, as an example, I’m in court on terrorism charges. Someone produces evidence against me which I can’t see. I don’t know where it came from. Or who said it. Or under what circumstances it was produced. And the onus is on me, as an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ (which I’m not actually yet), to provide substantially better evidence. I have no idea whether or not it was obtained by torture, and neither, quite possibly will my defense counsel, or perhaps even the tribunal itself. That’s a fucking legal disaster in my book.
Keep trying, stogy. I’m enjoying myself.
I’m running out of steam here myself- long day.
Nice evasion.
It’s not an evasion, it’s the strategy the administration based its entire policy on.
1. There are a set of rules prohibiting torture.
2. The administration wants to engage in prohibited activities.
3. To get around this, they simply redefine the word torture to not include the activities they wish to engage in.
4. Bush: “We do not torture.”
We’ve detained thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq. Three were waterboarded. That’s a teeny-tiny proportion.
I wish you were here so I could laugh in your fucking face at your astonishing naivete if you actually believe that horseshit.
No, we don’t waterboard anymore. Which is a shame because apparently it works--contrary to what you’ve been saying.
Yeah, there’s just that pesky problem that there’s no proof that it works better than legal, accepted, legitimate methods. There’s also the problem that I’ve quoted dozens of experts in this field, including professors at West Point, who are appalled at the views regarding torture that young people hold today, primarily because of shows like 24, where torture *always* works immediately.
Methinks you’ve been watching a little too much Jack Bauer.
Read the Yoo memo and before you dismiss it, ask yourself why not one Administration official has been charged with torture or even conspiracy despite the paper trail and the Democrats running Congress. There was no crime.
I’ve read the Yoo memo. The administration retroactively covered its ass, and the Democrats are too fucking gutless to make an issue out of it. You, of all people, should know the politics involved. If the Democrats tried anything like that the GOP would have a field day with it, and they’d tear them a new asshole at the ballot box.
To clarify:
Before a vote is taken of the findings, the military judge or the president of a court-martial without a military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members of the court as to the elements of the offense and charge them--
(1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt;
(2) that in the case being considered, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and he must be acquitted;
(3) that, if there is reasonable doubt as to the degree of guilt, the finding must be in a lower degree as to which there is no reasonable doubt; and
(4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt is upon the United States.
So, as an example, I’m in court on terrorism charges. Someone produces evidence against me which I can’t see. I don’t know where it came from. Or who said it. Or under what circumstances it was produced. And the onus is on me, as an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ (which I’m not actually yet), to provide substantially better evidence. I have no idea whether or not it was obtained by torture, and neither, quite possibly will my defense counsel, or perhaps even the tribunal itself. That’s a fucking legal disaster in my book.
No, you just don’t get it. These are terrists!
Stogy: I can’t do much more than show exactly where the law says that torture is inadmissible as evidence in a military tribunal. I have done this. Your sources are incorrect (not that you’ve actually cited them; you haven’t).
(4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt is upon the United States.
And the rules of evidence make it astonishingly easy for the United States to meet this “burden.”
And the rules of evidence make it astonishingly easy for the United States to meet this “burden.”
So, in short, the life of a falsely accused individual depends on the competence of the federal government in the absence of independent oversight. I don’t even trust the government to get the little stuff right!
So, in short, the life of a falsely accused individual depends on the competence of the federal government in the absence of independent oversight. I don’t even trust the government to get the little stuff right!
Exactly. It’s amazing to watch people who, in every other capacity, fully understand the need for checks and balances and independent oversight, to argue against them when the issue is “scary brown people with names what sound like terrists.”
Hmm. Getting into nitpicking maybe but:
including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence
would imply to me that the “did they prove their case” (under this definition of “prove") is available to the court. I.e. this seems to allow the court to review whether or not the conclusion was actually supported by the preponderance of the evidence.
Regardless - it is my opinion that there must be a review/escalation process for these determinations, even it stays within the DOJ or some review board appointed by the executive. Because once a determination has been made, the detainee can be held indefinately, since there is no requirement to speedily bring charges.
1. There are a set of rules prohibiting torture.
2. The administration wants to engage in prohibited activities.
3. To get around this, they simply redefine the word torture to not include the activities they wish to engage in.
4. Bush: “We do not torture.”
They did not redefine anything for legal purposes. You say that the acts were illegal and they were not.
I wish you were here so I could laugh in your fucking face at your astonishing naivete if you actually believe that horseshit.
And I would just shake my head at you sadly that you’ve given yourself over to speculation without anything amounting to proof. If you know that more than three detainees have been waterboarded, show your evidence.
Yeah, there’s just that pesky problem that there’s no proof that it works better than legal, accepted, legitimate methods.
I thought I made it clear over like 10,000 times now that I think what you call “standard” methods are the best option. It looks like you’re trying to win a leg-wrestling match with your own other leg, frankly.
The administration retroactively covered its ass, and the Democrats are too fucking gutless to make an issue out of it.
How could the Administration retroactively cover its ass if what it did was illegal? That doesn’t make sense.
No, you just don’t get it. These are terrists!
There it is! Lee, you’re going to find it increasingly more difficult to argue this topic as time goes on. Your arguments have not changed in three years but events have been moving on without you.
How could the Administration retroactively cover its ass if what it did was illegal? That doesn’t make sense.
Er, by saying “Well if we *had* done bad thing X, that would have been illegal and naughty, but actually what we did was less-bad thing Y which is just on the legal side as long as you don’t look too closely”. It makes perfect sense if you remember that “illegal” is often a matter of interpretation (which is why we spend all that money on the court system).
And the rules of evidence make it astonishingly easy for the United States to meet this “burden.”
Yes, in fact, we should do away with our whole system of justice since innocent people go to jail every now and then. I think it’s bizarre that you think that we can’t use an objective system of tribunals as well as the idiot Europeans can try one Serbian war criminal with their court.
(4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt is upon the United States.
Er… that’s the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE - Congressional Code of Military Criminal Law applicable to all military members worldwide
I think the Bush administration would be highly surprised to be suddenly following its rules.
It makes perfect sense if you remember that “illegal” is often a matter of interpretation (which is why we spend all that money on the court system).
Well, Yoo “interpreted” the law to mean that the Administration wasn’t torturing anyone and therefore it wasn’t illegal. Apparently, this “interpretation” was correct, seeing as how not one single US Attorney can be bothered to indict not one single Administration official. What do they know, though? It’s not like they’re bloggers.
So, in short, the life of a falsely accused individual depends on the competence of the federal government in the absence of independent oversight. I don’t even trust the government to get the little stuff right!
This is the heart of the matter for me. If someone is validly an illegal enemy combatant, I don’t cry for them, and have no issues with them not getting standard civilian jurisprudence. It’s the fact that people can be incorrectly classified as such (by error or by malice) that I am concerned about.
Er… that’s the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE - Congressional Code of Military Criminal Law applicable to all military members worldwide
No shit, Sherlock Homo! That’s what dwex asked for. Scroll up.
I hate having to slow down for your benefit, stogy.
Stogy: I can’t do much more than show exactly where the law says that torture is inadmissible as evidence in a military tribunal. I have done this. Your sources are incorrect (not that you’ve actually cited them; you haven’t).
I’m tired and too lazy to post links - just stick ‘em into Google and you’ll get them, but the Binyam Mohamed story is all over the intreweb thingy. He is suing the British government because it has allowed evidence gained by torture in Morocco to be used against him in the US. If what you are saying is true, then he has nothing to worry about.
I’d be pretty worried if I were him. He’s facing capital charges. Now I have no idea if he’s guilty or innocent, but the system needs to be better than this.
Well, Yoo “interpreted” the law to mean that the Administration wasn’t torturing anyone and therefore it wasn’t illegal.
Hmm. I think what Yoo interpreted was specific contexts in which US and international laws regarding torture did not apply (i.e. illegal enemy combatants held at US facilities in foreign territory), not that were weren’t torturing people. It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one.
No shit, Sherlock Homo! That’s what dwex asked for. Scroll up.
I hate having to slow down for your benefit, stogy.
Sorry - you didn’t contexualize it. I thought it was for me.
If what you are saying is true, then he has nothing to worry about.
Yes, this would be grounds for an appeal.
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
UCMJ is the governing set of rules of jurisprudence that applies to MCA. Hence 100% applicable to this discussion.
It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one.
That wasn’t Yoo’s only basis. Read the memo in depth and you’ll see that he claims that the prohibitions on torture only cover the “most extreme” acts.
At any rate, I will admit that the Administration exploited loopholes in the law, but did not break it. Call it what you will, but it was not “illegal”.
UCMJ is the governing set of rules of jurisprudence that applies to MCA. Hence 100% applicable to this discussion.
Fine. But it doesn’t mention ‘hearsay’, ‘Geneva’ or ‘torture’, classified evidence,’security’ or many other key words.
At any rate, I will admit that the Administration exploited loopholes in the law, but did not break it. Call it what you will, but it was not “illegal”.
I agreed with this in the thread where we discussed the Yoo memo. With the ever-important comment that it’s a lawyer’s opinion, not a legal precedent, with all the caveat emptor that implies.
I still stand by “we shouldn’t do this shit”, but that’s for another discussion, I think.
OK. That’s it for me. I can’t keep my eyes open any longer. It’s been a blast.
[/day]
But it doesn’t mention ‘hearsay’,
As I explained above, stogy: hearsay evidence IS ADMISSIBLE IN FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL COURTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES!
torture
I’m going to stop citing sources if you fail to read them. It is specifically forbidden by the MCA. Furthermore, other articles in the UCMJ prohibit mistreatment of prisoners. The nimrods at Abu Ghraib were prosecuted under the UCMJ. Jesus Jones!
Geneva
The Geneva Convention is not supreme in US Law to the Constitution.
classified evidence,’security’
MCA, MCA, MCA…
Only a leftist would fail to understand that allowing terrorist detainees the right to view classified evidence being used against them which they can pass back to their organizations is a really stupid idea. You want to give them phone calls too. Brilliant.
Only a leftist would fail to understand that allowing terrorist detainees the right to view classified evidence being used against them which they can pass back to their organizations is a really stupid idea. You want to give them phone calls too. Brilliant.
This is the heart of the conflict. On one hand, you have the principles of a fair trial and checks and balances. On the other hand, you have the issues of security and classification. I think the correct balancing point is closer to the “liberty” than the “security” side, particularly for a status hearing.
I think the correct balancing point is closer to the “liberty” than the “security” side, particularly for a status hearing.
Foreign enemy combatants are not entitled to our civil liberties. Never, ever have been. Not one of you can show otherwise.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights
But only if they’re American citizens.
Thrill - I challenged all of those points (except perhaps the supremacy one).
As I explained above, stogy: hearsay evidence IS ADMISSIBLE IN FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL COURTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES!
Yes. It is. But only in specific circumstances. And usually only to corroborate other information/sources.
Torture
is specifically forbidden by the MCA
And I have just quoted one very recent example of someone who is being tried on the basis of information gleaned from torture in a third country.
Although legally it could be argued that, as it isn’t actually overridden by any specific constitutional article, the Geneva Conventions share equal status in US law as the constitution.
Only a leftist would fail to understand that allowing terrorist detainees the right to view classified evidence being used against them which they can pass back to their organizations is a really stupid idea. You want to give them phone calls too. Brilliant.
Ah dear. I think if they are going to be ‘kept’ they should be reclassified as POWs and allowed contact with their families. The ‘evidence’ thing worries me as not even their counsel has access to it. The government can do anything they like. There are no checks, balances or anything.
Consequently, I have no idea about the guilt or innocence of one Binyam Mohamed. And neither does anyone else.
[exhaunts left]
This is relevant - the treaties the US is party to discussing the rights of non-citizens.
This is the heart of the conflict. On one hand, you have the principles of a fair trial and checks and balances. On the other hand, you have the issues of security and classification. I think the correct balancing point is closer to the “liberty” than the “security” side, particularly for a status hearing.
I don’t think anyone here is on the side of security over liberty. My original point to the post is about being wary of Al Quaeda’s ability to mock our system.
There seems to be this slippery slope argument that if we do not give terrorists American civil rights, speed them through trials and turn them beck over to thier nations of origins it somehow implies that Americans have lost our rights.
I think the biggest mockery to our sstem is allowing a person such as this whisk through our legal system and do what he did.
For those of us who love our system, this is a fundamental failure of it. there really isn’t much else to say about it.
But only if they’re American citizens.
Were British POWs allowed to challenge their detention in civilian Continental courts, Orpheus?
Straight up yes or no.
This is relevant - the treaties the US is party to discussing the rights of non-citizens.
None of which has a thing to do with war. Hopelessly irrelevant to this discussion.
Stop wasting my time.
Foreign enemy combatants are not entitled to our civil liberties. Never, ever have been. Not one of you can show otherwise.
the Geneva conventions make it very clear that non uniformed combatanats explicitly performing combat operations in civilian environments are not to be given POW status, nor any of the rights granted in the Geneva conventions.
It was written that way to discourage that sort of behavior of this type of warfare. Of course when you don’t care whether you or the other warring party has the intention to fight humanely it certainly makes a good case to actually stick to the Geneva Conventions, menaing we shouldn’t reward this barbaric behavior by giving these people civil liberties sight unseen.
Of vourse if they would wear uniforms and make a flag they fought for like “the AlQuaedastan” we could have this discussion.
Until that day you are merely granting these thugs Robinhood status due to an emotional empathy for the underdog, regardless of rules to the game.
Cheaters never win.
How could the Administration retroactively cover its ass if what it did was illegal? That doesn’t make sense.
It’s right there in the Military Commissions Act that you’ve been quoting all day.
Two provisions of the MCA have been criticized for allegedly making it harder to prosecute and convict officers and employees of the US government for misconduct in office.
First, the MCA changed the definition of war crimes for which US government defendants can be prosecuted. Under the War Crimes Act of 1996, any violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was considered a war crime and could be criminally prosecuted. Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act amended the War Crimes Act so that only actions specifically defined as “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 could be the basis for a prosecution, and it made that definition retroactive to November 26, 1997. The specific actions defined in section 6 of the Military Commissions Act include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages. According to Mariner of Human Rights Watch, the effect is “that perpetrators of several categories of what were war crimes at the time they were committed, can no longer be punished under U.S. law."[29] The Center for Constitutional Rights adds:
The MCA’s restricted definitions arguably would exempt certain U.S. officials who have implemented or had command responsibility for coercive interrogation techniques from war crimes prosecutions.
. . . .
This amendment is designed to protect U.S. government perpetrators of abuses during the “war on terror” from prosecution.[30]
In 2005, a provision of the Detainee Treatment Act (section 1004(a)) had created a new defense as well as a provision to providing counsel for agents involved in the detention and interrogation of individuals “believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity”. The 2006 MCA amended section 1004(a) of the Detainee Treatment Act to guarantee free counsel in the event of civil or criminal prosecution and applied the above mentioned legal defense to prosecutions for conduct that occurred during the period September 11, 2001 to December 30, 2005. Although the provision recognizes the possibility of civil and or criminal proceedings, the Center for Constitutional Rights has criticised this claiming that “The MCA retroactively immunizes some U.S. officials who have engaged in illegal actions which have been authorized by the Executive.” [31]
Exactly what I said, they legislatively and retroactively covered their asses, because they knew goddamned well what they were doing was illegal and they feared being tried for war crimes.
Yes. It is. But only in specific circumstances. And usually only to corroborate other information/sources.
So?
And I have just quoted one very recent example of someone who is being tried on the basis of information gleaned from torture in a third country.
Assuming that he actually was tortured (jihadis are trained to lie about this), then the statements will be supressed. If they are not, he should be able to appeal. Why is this so complicated?
Although legally it could be argued that, as it isn’t actually overridden by any specific constitutional article, the Geneva Conventions share equal status in US law as the constitution.
Wrong. Go to the back of the line.
Ah dear. I think if they are going to be ‘kept’ they should be reclassified as POWs and allowed contact with their families.
Let’s see how deranged you are: can we wiretap their phone when they call home?
Were British POWs allowed to challenge their detention in civilian Continental courts, Orpheus?
I’m not sure what you mean - what conflict, when, etc etc etc. Give me some context.
None of which has a thing to do with war.
That’s the thing though - this “war” lacks a defined end point. Terrorism will never go away, so the war on terror can never end. The “wartime exceptions” are all based on the idea that the war will have a defined end point. The closest precedent we have to this is the Cold War, and you’ll note that Soviet spies arrested in the US were given full access to the civilian court system. Even the ones who were in the US illegally.
Let’s see how deranged you are: can we wiretap their phone when they call home?
If a) they’re informed it’s being tapped and b) they can still have private conversations with their lawyer, then sure, why not.
Your point is valid, Manwhore. There is a large contingency that doesn’t get that the rules of jurisprudence have ALWAYS been different in civilian courts, military courts & for PoWs, under our Constitution. Even as liberal as I tend to be on some of these things, I knew that much.
I was unaware of all of the precedent around the definition of “illegal enemy combatant”, until we really got into these debates (I though there were only criminals and PoWs).
It’s nuts to think that civilian jurisprudence applies to PoWs and illegal enemy combatants. We should be held to any treaties we have signed, under the conditions by which we signed them. Even in that context, though, the rules are pretty varied. Go back and re-read the Woo memo. Independent of the torture issue, it’s a pretty comprehensive review of these various definitions of jurisprudence.
I think we, as a country, need to ensure that the classification is done right, given the (relatively) new nature of the conflict we’re in. And to err on the side of caution in classification. Even if we wind up letting the occasional nutjob go (like the one this thread is based on). We probably disagree on that, but it’s what I believe.
We need to get away from this whole torture thing. One, it’s stupid. Two, there’s far more evidence that it doesn’t work than that it does. Three, it hurts us as a country. We probably disagree about that too.
The question about rules of evidence once charges are brought is another area of discussion. A way needs to be found to allow classified materials to be used by the defense, but not by the defendent. There are standard ways of dealing with this in civil jurisprudence - independent counsel, analysis & decision by the judge, etc, etc. The times when classified materials are made completely unavailable are relatively rare (although they do happen - state secret classifications, etc). I don’t know how this is generally handled under UCMJ, or for these tribunals. But the material should be part of the defense. I’m quite certain that this could be addressed, without exposing the classified material to the defendants.
Holy Mother of Crap! Did you really just link Wikipedia?
(snicker)
I’ll stick with my link, thanks! Here’s the amended passage:
In subsection (c)(3), the term
‘grave breach of common Article 3’ means any conduct (such
conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of
the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949),
as follows:
‘‘(A) TORTURE.—The act of a person who commits, or
conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering
(other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful
sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical
control for the purpose of obtaining information or
a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any
reason based on discrimination of any kind.
‘‘(B) CRUEL OR INHUMAN TREATMENT.—The act of a
person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit,
an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or
mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental
to lawful sanctions), including serious physical
abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
‘‘(C) PERFORMING BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS.—The act
of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject,
one or more persons within his custody or physical
control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical
or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body
or health of such person or persons.
‘‘(D) MURDER.—The act of a person who intentionally
kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether
intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing
any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons
taking no active part in the hostilities, including those
placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or
any other cause.
S. 3930—35
‘‘(E) MUTILATION OR MAIMING.—The act of a person
who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to
injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally
in the course of committing any other offense under this
subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in
the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring
the person or persons by any mutilation thereof
or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ
of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.
‘‘(F) INTENTIONALLY CAUSING SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.—
The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires
or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more
persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the
law of war.
‘‘(G) RAPE.—The act of a person who forcibly or with
coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires
or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating,
however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim
with any part of the body of the accused, or with any
foreign object.
‘‘(H) SEXUAL ASSAULT OR ABUSE.—The act of a person
who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages,
or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with
one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts
to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.
‘‘(I) TAKING HOSTAGES.—The act of a person who,
having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons,
threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person
or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person
other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain
from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the
safety or release of such person or persons.
‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—In the case of an offense under subsection
(a) by reason of subsection (c)(3)—
‘‘(A) the term ‘severe mental pain or suffering’ shall
be applied for purposes of paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B)
in accordance with the meaning given that term in section
2340(2) of this title;
‘‘(B) the term ‘serious bodily injury’ shall be applied
for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) in accordance with the
meaning given that term in section 113(b)(2) of this title;
‘‘(C) the term ‘sexual contact’ shall be applied for purposes
of paragraph (1)(G) in accordance with the meaning
given that term in section 2246(3) of this title;
‘‘(D) the term ‘serious physical pain or suffering’ shall
be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) as meaning
bodily injury that involves—
‘‘(i) a substantial risk of death;
‘‘(ii) extreme physical pain;
‘‘(iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious
nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or
‘‘(iv) significant loss or impairment of the function
of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and
‘‘(E) the term ‘serious mental pain or suffering’ shall
be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) in accordance
S. 3930—36
with the meaning given the term ‘severe mental pain or
suffering’ (as defined in section 2340(2) of this title), except
that—
‘‘(i) the term ‘serious’ shall replace the term ‘severe’
where it appears; and
‘‘(ii) as to conduct occurring after the date of the
enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
the term ‘serious and non-transitory mental harm
(which need not be prolonged)’ shall replace the term
‘prolonged mental harm’ where it appears.
‘‘(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT
TO COLLATERAL DAMAGE OR INCIDENT OF LAWFUL ATTACK.—
The intent specified for the conduct stated in subparagraphs
(D), (E), and (F) or paragraph (1) precludes the applicability
of those subparagraphs to an offense under subsection (a) by
reasons of subsection (c)(3) with respect to—
‘‘(A) collateral damage; or
‘‘(B) death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful
attack.
‘‘(4) INAPPLICABILITY OF TAKING HOSTAGES TO PRISONER
EXCHANGE.—Paragraph (1)(I) does not apply to an offense under
subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3) in the case of
a prisoner exchange during wartime.
‘‘(5) DEFINITION OF GRAVE BREACHES.—The definitions in
this subsection are intended only to define the grave breaches
of common Article 3 and not the full scope of United States
obligations under that Article.’’.
(2) RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made
by this subsection, except as specified in subsection (d)(2)(E)
of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, shall take
effect as of November 26, 1997, as if enacted immediately
after the amendments made by section 583 of Public Law
105–118 (as amended by section 4002(e)(7) of Public Law 107–
273).
Did the 12 year old who edited your page there happen to mention what exactly is no longer a crime? This seems to cover everything you’ve been going on about.
Let’s assume though that the Administration did get this “retroactively” changed. Congress passed it and the President signed it. It’s the law and therefore the Administration didn’t do anything illegal (assuming that you don’t think that the Administration ordered any of the above). Sort of a roundabout way to make my point, but there it is.
I’m not sure what you mean - what conflict, when, etc etc etc. Give me some context.
Uh, the only conflict in which we fought the British and called ourselves “Continentals”. It happened right about the time that passage you quoted was.
That’s the thing though - this “war” lacks a defined end point.
So did the Revolutionarly War. I wasn’t aware that warfare ran on a time limit like a soccer game.
The closest precedent we have to this is the Cold War, and you’ll note that Soviet spies arrested in the US were given full access to the civilian court system. Even the ones who were in the US illegally.
We were not in a state of war with the Soviets (hence “Cold” War). We did convict captured German saboteurs in a court-martial, however, who were captured on US soil.
If a) they’re informed it’s being tapped and b) they can still have private conversations with their lawyer, then sure, why not.
Lawyer, yes. All others, no.
That’s the thing though - this “war” lacks a defined end point.
So did the Revolutionarly War. I wasn’t aware that warfare ran on a time limit like a soccer game
More like a defined “end state”, rather than end time.
In any traditional war, the end state is relatively easy to define (capitulation of one or more parties). E.g. in WWII, the war with Italy ended before the war with Germany or Japan. AFAIK, we repatriated Italian POWs when Italy surrendered & then switched sides.
In the GWoT, you really can’t define an end state (unless it’s “there’s no more terrorists”, which is unrealistic). We could, in theory, defeat AQ (e.g. maybe killing OBL would cause the group to shut down), but that wouldn’t likely stop various Jihadists from trying to kill off Americans.
So if the intent is to hold them out of combat, as opposed to being explicitly punitive, then they will be held indefinately (as in “no end state”, not “no end date").
I’d been thinking about raising this point before, but hadn’t because while I recognize the issue, I haven’t yet figured out what impact it can/should have on my worldview.
Holy Mother of Crap! Did you really just link Wikipedia?
Yes, because it describes the way the MCA was amended to provide retroactive protection from prosecution for acts that were illegal at the time they were committed. Read it again, follow the links.
Did the 12 year old who edited your page there happen to mention what exactly is no longer a crime? This seems to cover everything you’ve been going on about.
From the MCA:
SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
(a) IMPLEMENTATIONOFTREATYOBLIGATIONS.—
(1) INGENERAL.—The acts enumerated in subsection (d)
of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as added by
subsection (b) of this section, and in subsection (c) of this
section, constitute violations of common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions prohibited by United States law.
(2) PROHIBITIONONGRAVEBREACHES.—The provisions of
section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
this section, fully satisfy the obligation under Article 129 of
the Third Geneva Convention for the United States to provide
effective penal sanctions for grave breaches which are encom-
passed in common Article 3 in the context of an armed conflict
not of an international character. No foreign or international
source of law shall supply a basis for a rule of decision in
the courts of the United States in interpreting the prohibitions
enumerated in subsection (d) of such section 2441.
Your own quote above shows that only a “grave breach” of one of these prohibitions is grounds for a prosecution, whereas merely breaking one of them was grounds. The “grave breach” standard is what provides the retroactive immunity.
Let’s assume though that the Administration did get this “retroactively” changed
No need to assume anything, it’s right there in the MCA.
Congress passed it and the President signed it. It’s the law and therefore the Administration didn’t do anything illegal (assuming that you don’t think that the Administration ordered any of the above).
Guy rapes your daughter. Congress passes, and the governor signs, a law making rape a $50 fine, and retroactively dates it to back before her attack. Thus her attacker pops down five $10s and walks out the door a free man.
Nice and legal, right? He didn’t do anything wrong, did he?
Your own quote above shows that only a “grave breach” of one of these prohibitions is grounds for a prosecution, whereas merely breaking one of them was grounds. The “grave breach” standard is what provides the retroactive immunity.
What constitutes a “grave breach” is still up for interpretation by the courts. Under the MCA, “intimidation” can be such an offense. Would you say that anything used by our interrogators has been a “grave breach” of the prohibition against intimidation?
Guy rapes your daughter. Congress passes, and the governor signs, a law making rape a $50 fine, and retroactively dates it to back before her attack. Thus her attacker pops down five $10s and walks out the door a free man.
Nice and legal, right? He didn’t do anything wrong, did he?
A ludicrous overreach, but yes, it’s correct. I don’t judge these things based on my emotions.
Uh, the only conflict in which we fought the British and called ourselves “Continentals”. It happened right about the time that passage you quoted was.
I’m not American, and I don’t have a great deal of interest in colonial squabbles - hence, I was unaware that they called themselves “continentals”. Here, that’s a kind of soup. Regardless, that conflict pre-dates the Geneva conventions and the idea of “humane warfare”.
So did the Revolutionarly War.
What do you call the Treaty of Paris then?
We were not in a state of war with the Soviets (hence “Cold” War).
Who exactly are you at war with at the moment, then? Who will the peace treaty be signed with? What strategic objective is there that will lead to the defeat of the enemy overall, rather than in individual cases?
We did convict captured German saboteurs in a court-martial, however, who were captured on US soil.
Right, and Roosevelt got away with doing that because it was wartime. I don’t have any problem with military tribunals for those captured during an actual war (for instance, Iraq before it regained sovereignty or Afghanistan until the fall of the Taliban). It’s the possibility that this broad, sweeping power the government has given itself might go on for ever and ever.
What do you call the Treaty of Paris then?
Did anyone know 7 years into the Revolutionary War when it was going to end and on what terms?
Who exactly are you at war with at the moment, then? Who will the peace treaty be signed with? What strategic objective is there that will lead to the defeat of the enemy overall, rather than in individual cases?
Well, according to the AUMF, we are at war with AQ and it’s state sponsors. There probably won’t be a treaty (can you name the treaty that ended the Korean War?).
Regardless, that conflict pre-dates the Geneva conventions and the idea of “humane warfare”.
Continental POWs were kept on British prison hulks for the duration of the war. It’s my understanding that they didn’t get habeas corpus.
is there that will lead to the defeat of the enemy overall, rather than in individual cases?
We’ll never declare victory. We can’t because we won’t really know when it happens.
Nevertheless, we can prosecute enemy combatants and do what we have to do. If they get life in prison, so be it.
Right, and Roosevelt got away with doing that because it was wartime.
A declaration of war would be just peachy by me. However, the president is acting under the AUMF and may continue to prosecute the war until Congress ends it.
It’s the possibility that this broad, sweeping power the government has given itself might go on for ever and ever.
Unless you’re saying that you would rather that we NOT fight AQ, I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t think we really have a choice in the matter.
Continental POWs were kept on British prison hulks for the duration of the war. It’s my understanding that they didn’t get habeas corpus.
Heh. That’s nothing compared to what used to happen in naval warfare back in those days. Capture sailors were impressed into service, and captured officers were ransomed. And then when they got home, the captains got court-martialed for losing their ship…
Did anyone know 7 years into the Revolutionary War when it was going to end and on what terms?
No, but it was pretty clear what victory or defeat meant. Hence “end state” rather than “end time”, as I discussed above.
Look at it from the British point of view. How did they define victory? The war took on the character of a civil war in the South, they didn’t have enough troops to hold every city, there was an ongoing insurgency, and other European powers entered the war against them and expanded the war into other theatres. How long did they think it could last?
Great discussion all the way around, why is it that the best threads start late at night? When I wake up I am 50 posts behind.
Humiliation is the opposite of dignity - once people have lost dignity, the same rules about society no longer apply, and all kinds of behaviors become possible. The whole point of humiliation studies is not to pat those who commit violence on the head and say, “Oh, we understand, you did it because you were humiliated.” It’s to say “let’s look at what happens to people when they are humiliated, how we can prevent humiliation from happening where possible, and mitigate against its effects once it has happened.”
stogy, these lame theories have been debunked many times over. Poverty, humiliation, and disenfranchizement have all been used over the years as a root cause for terrorism, all have failed the smell test. A strident adherance to ideology is the cause, thats how highly educated, well off financially and well connected individuals can turn to terrorism, their faith tells them to, all other expanations are nothing but window dressing.
Because once again (and I’m getting REALLY fucking tired of repeating myself on this subject) I DO NOT FUCKING DEFEND CHINA’S POLITICAL SYSTEM, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE. Does that sink in? How many fucking times are you going to insinuate my support for China’s politics simply because I happen to mention that (gasp!) some things here are actually pretty cool? I’m getting FUCKING SICK of it, and you can put yourself on official fucking notice that if you pull this stunt one more time you’re fucking gone.
FWIW, I think this was unfair to manwhore. In a communist country, everything is linked politically, for you to think that the freedoms you enjoy there that you wave in our faces is not inextricably linked to politcs is naive. If you are going to be touchy on the issue, set some ground rules now that nobody here can criticize China or the freedoms that you parade around, or speak about any experiences you have over there, that way the line is established and nobody will step over it. You yourself have used these examples, things you can do over their with impunity that is more “freedom embracing” than what is avaiable or normal here, thats fine, but it goes both ways and thats all manwhore was doing, using your examples to make a point, no need to go postal on him.
Great discussion all the way around, why is it that the best threads start late at night? When I wake up I am 50 posts behind.
I have this problem because I am in the eastern time zone. I go to bed just when things start hoppin’ :( ..
stogy, these lame theories have been debunked many
times over. Poverty, humiliation, and disenfranchizement have all been used over the years as a root cause for terrorism, all have failed the smell test.What I saw in terms of a debunking worked only for individuals, however, if you apply humiliation to an entire people, culture, or religious group, it still has currency. If you have a rebuttal, I’d like to see it.
A strident adherance to ideology is the cause, thats how highly educated, well off financially and well connected individuals can turn to terrorism, their faith tells them to, all other expanations are nothing but window dressing.
I think you’ll find there are plenty of suicide bombers who weren’t particularly Islamic in practice or belief. What was with the 9.11 conspirators smoking and drinking before boarding?
I think you’ll find there are plenty of suicide bombers who weren’t particularly Islamic in practice or belief. What was with the 9.11 conspirators smoking and drinking before boarding?
It was the night before they were going to commit suicide. Do you have a point?
It was the night before they were going to commit suicide. Do you have a point?
Well surely if they were only motivated by religious dogma, then they would hardly be likely to blow points with the big guy?
Scott Atran in the Washington Quarterly (Summer, 2004):
Among Palestinians, perceptions of historical injustice combine with personal loss and humiliation at the hands of their Israeli occupiers to nurture individual martyrs and general popular support for martyr actions. Saleh observes that a majority of Palestinian suicide bombers had prior histories of arrest or injury by Israel’s army, and many of the youngest suicide shooters had family members or close friends with such a history.52 Shikaki has preliminary survey data suggesting that popular support for suicide actions may be positively correlated with the number of Israeli checkpoints that Palestinians have to pass through regularly to go about their daily business and the time needed to pass through them (this can involve spending hours at each of several checkpoints, any of which can be arbitrarily closed down at any time to prevent passage). Humiliation and revenge are the most consistent sentiments expressed by recruits as well as their supporters, though expressed more as community grievances than as personal ones.
Altran, btw dismissed poverty, lack of education etc as sole causes for suicide bombings. Pretty much like you say, Rich. AQ recruiters don’t work amongst these groups.
Support and recruitment for suicide terrorism occur not under conditions of political repression, poverty, and unemployment or illiteracy as such but when converging political, economic, and social trends produce diminishing opportunities relative to expectations, thus generating frustrations that radical organizations can exploit. For this purpose, relative deprivation is more significant than absolute deprivation. Unlike poorer, less-educated elements of their societies, or equally educated, well-off members of our society, many educated, middle-class Muslims increasingly experience frustration with life as their potential opportunities are less attractive than their prior expectations. Frustrated with their future, the appeal of routine national life declines, and suicide terrorism gives some perceived purpose to act altruistically, in the potential terrorist’s mind, for the welfare of a future generation. Revolutionary terror imprints itself into history when corrupt and corroded societies choke rising aspirations into explosive frustration.
Detainees evince little history of personal hardship but frequently cite relatives or respected community members who participated in earlier jihads, or close peers presently engaged, as influencing decisions to join the fight.53 Of course, ideology and grievance are not mutually exclusive. Jessica Stern’s interviews with jihadists and their supporters in Kashmir reveal that both abound.
It’s a great article if you can read all of it. Unfortunately, it’s password protected.
Well surely if they were only motivated by religious dogma, then they would hardly be likely to blow points with the big guy?
There are hadiths to explain drinking under circumstance under Islam. there are also fatwahs which allow for suicide warriors (look up the Moros) and rituals to intoxicate the Holy Warrior before battle. Under these fatwahs one my do what the hijackers did before battle.
You know nothing of Islam. Stick to sushi.
Altran, btw dismissed poverty, lack of education etc as sole causes for suicide bombings. Pretty much like you say, Rich. AQ recruiters don’t work amongst these groups.
I love how you fell right into it, in almost a textbook fashion. Take a look:
I don’t support keeping prisoners in Guantanamo forever. But I am fed up with limousine liberals and ivory-tower academics who are so easily duped by Al-Qaeda (yet again). As a result of this mistake, several innocent people are now dead. Think about that.
Are you starting to understand, stogy? Do you get it yet?
Are you starting to understand, stogy? Do you get it yet?
I am assuming you, you know, have an actual argument?
Yeah, it’ll take me a minute to clearly spell it out for you so keep your panties on. I can’t get into it just this second.
Yeah, it’ll take me a minute to clearly spell it out for you so keep your panties on. I can’t get into it just this second.
No worries - heavy work day this end.
Regardless, that conflict pre-dates the Geneva conventions and the idea of “humane warfare”.
Actually, the Revolutionary War perfectly makes my point about how our actions are in direct contradiction to the values that America claims to possess. There are countless sites which detail General George Washington’s strident opposition to prisoner mistreatment during the Revolutionary War. This site quotes a biography of Washington.
Of course, we’ll never know all the gory details of George Washington’s many military adventures, but I think that it is well worth considering Washington’s treatment of enemy soldiers he captured just after a series of particularly brutal battles. At the Battle of Long Island, Hessian mercenaries ran their bayonets through disarmed members of the Continental Army. At the Battle of Princeton, British soldiers killed wounded Continental Army soldiers that they found helpless on the battlefield. Nonetheless, when Washington prevailed in battle and captured hundreds of prisoners, he denied the American rebel soldiers’ appetite for vengeance.
The American soldiers asked for permission from Washington to beat the prisoners with sticks until they were bloody and broken, but Washington told them, “Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren.” David Hackett Fischer, author of Washington’s Crossing, writes that George Washington “often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extend even to their enemies.”
The arguments I make, and the values I hold, are those upon which this country was founded.
How low we have sunk.
Here’s one more. From the WaPo.
On Sept. 14, 1775, Washington wrote two letters to Col. Benedict Arnold, who led an American force into Canada. Five of Washington’s points for invasion merit particular attention.
• First, if the citizens don’t want us there, don’t go. Washington told Arnold, “You are by every means in your power to endeavour to discover the real sentiments of the Canadians towards our cause, and particularly as to this expedition; ever bearing in mind that if they are averse to it, and will not co-operate, or at least willingly acquiesce, it must fail of success. In this case you are by no means to prosecute the attempt.”
The expense of starting the mission and the disappointment of not completing it, Washington wrote, “are not to be put in competition with the dangerous consequences which may ensue from irritating them against us.”
• Second, the safety of American personnel depended on how they treated people. Washington wanted Arnold to “conciliate the affections” of the Canadian settlers and Indians and ordered Arnold to teach the soldiers and officers under his command “that not only the Good of their Country and their Honour, but their Safety depends upon the Treatment of these People.”
• Third, proper treatment of prisoners was necessary. The prominent British parliamentarian William Pitt, who championed American grievances, had a son serving in Canada. John Pitt was never taken into American custody, but in the event that Pitt was captured, Washington warned Arnold, “You cannot err in paying too much Honour to the Son of so illustrious a Character, and so true a Friend to America.”
This insistence on kind treatment extended beyond Pitt. Washington wrote, “Any other Prisoners who may fall into your Hands, you will treat with as much Humanity and kindness, as may be consistent with your own Safety and the publick Interest.”
Washington told Arnold to restrain the Continental troops and their Indian allies “from all Acts of Cruelty and Insult, which will disgrace the American Arms, and irritate our Fellow Subjects against us.”
• Fourth, any Americans who mistreated Canadians should be punished. “Should any American Soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any Canadian or Indian, in his Person or Property,” Washington wrote, “I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary Punishment as the Enormity of the Crime may require.” In an accompanying letter Washington added, “Should it extend to Death itself it will not be disproportional to its Guilt, at such a Time and in such a Cause.”
• Fifth, respect the people’s religion. “As the Contempt of the Religion of a Country by ridiculing any of its Ceremonies or affronting its Ministers or Votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every Officer and Soldier from such Imprudence and Folly and to punish every Instance of it.”
American ideals won immediate support from the Canadians, but American misconduct squandered it. Contrary to Washington’s orders, some American commanders disrespected Canadians’ religion, property and liberty.
Lamenting this American misconduct, Washington wrote to Gen. Philip Schuyler on April 19, 1776, “I am afraid proper measures have not been taken to conciliate their affections, but rather that they have been insulted and injured, than which nothing could have a greater tendency to ruin our cause in that country; for human nature is such that it will adhere to the side from whence the best treatment is received.”
George Washington. What a fucking pussy, duped by those England-worshipping ivory tower academics.
Yeah, it’ll take me a minute to clearly spell it out for you so keep your panties on. I can’t get into it just this second.
This is what I asked you yesterday, and I’m still a little confused as to what you are arguing.
I don’t support keeping prisoners in Guantanamo forever. But I am fed up with limousine liberals and ivory-tower academics who are so easily duped by Al-Qaeda (yet again)
So what do you propose, if you don’t want to either a) Give them a trial or b) Not give them a trial? I seem to be missing something in your argument…
I have this problem because I am in the eastern time zone. I go to bed just when things start hoppin’ :( ..
Try living on the other side of the Atlantic! Being a European RTFTLCer requires dedication!!!
ps - Excellent discussion - props to Thrill and Dwex
I guess we aren’t done with this thread yet.
On the flip side of Washington, he had absolutely no trouble declaring British spies to be unlawful enemy combatants, putting them before military tribunals, and executing them by hanging. He wasn’t that big on habeas corpus. A better parallel to study would probably be Major John Andre rather than the Hessians.
Nobody is talking about the use of techniques for the purpose of revenge or punishment, but to learn information. I’d be curious to know what interrogation techniques were in George Washington’s day. Information is limited, but I wouldn’t doubt that much of what you call torture today was not unreasonable.
The primary lesson I’ve learned about Washington from all of this is that he’s the first American leader to set up a system of military tribunals for unlawful enemy combatants.
Fifth, respect the people’s religion
When are youplanning to follow that advice?
Britishcress, I was busy yesterday so I let your questions fall by the wayside. Is there anything that hasn’t been clarified which I can answer?
I just want to clarify something: in the Revolutionary War, a common punishment for soldiers in the American army was flogging. Whatever Washington’s attitude was toward light shoving, threats, open palmed slaps, or other coercive methods against unlawful enemy combatants; he was hunky-dory with the concept of whipping his own soldiers for certain offenses.
Is flogging torture?
Pretty much Thrill, althugh I’m still wading through it (its 10am here)… Its a complex issue, especially to someone whose exposure to the US legal system is through CSI and Lionel Hutz.
Nobody is talking about the use of techniques for the purpose of revenge or punishment, but to learn information.
That’s exactly the issue. I think the primary reason people support these techniques is because they desire revenge and punishment, and use as an excuse the lame and often-debunked argument about obtaining information. Compare it to the thinking about criminals getting ass-raped in prison.
Information is limited, but I wouldn’t doubt that much of what you call torture today was not unreasonable.
Indeed. But we have to judge Washington’s words by the standards in Washington’s day. He was quite cognizant of the moral aspects of the treatment of prisoners, as well as the practical and political implications of mistreating them. We seem to have lost that perspective.
The primary lesson I’ve learned about Washington from all of this is that he’s the first American leader to set up a system of military tribunals for unlawful enemy combatants.
Show me anywhere Washington used the phrase “unlawful enemy combatants” in his entire life. Ever. Once.
When are youplanning to follow that advice?
I respect someone’s right to worship as they see fit. When they drag their asinine superstitions into the political realm they become fair game.
Don’t want me insulting your sky pixie? Keep him in your church.
I just want to clarify something: in the Revolutionary War, a common punishment for soldiers in the American army was flogging.
During the Revolutionary War people, including Washington, also owned slaves. Exactly what point are you trying to make by applying specific activities from that era to the modern day?
I’m talking about the rhetorical and practical logic behind treating prisoners well, and you’re talking about specific actions and cultural norms from 230 years ago.
Weak.
Its a complex issue, especially to someone whose exposure to the US legal system is through CSI and Lionel Hutz.
That’s pretty much where most Americans learn about their own legal system, unfortunately.
I think the primary reason people support these techniques is because they desire revenge and punishment, and use as an excuse the lame and often-debunked argument about obtaining information.
I dispute that. For one thing, the request to use these techniques came from the interrogators themselves; not maniacal Administration officials.
Second, if you refer to the Counter-Resistance Techniques memos, you notice that the Staff Judge Advocate at GTMO went to great lengths to emphasize that the techniques were not being used maliciously nor did they want to inflict lasting harm.
But we have to judge Washington’s words by the standards in Washington’s day. He was quite cognizant of the moral aspects of the treatment of prisoners, as well as the practical and political implications of mistreating them. We seem to have lost that perspective.
Does this mean that you’re now in favor of military tribunals that deny habeas corpus to captured enemy combatants?
Show me anywhere Washington used the phrase “unlawful enemy combatants” in his entire life. Ever. Once.
He did not use the specific phrase. The phrase itself is a recent term and would have been called a “spy” or “insurgent” in his day. The concept though, that captured combatants who do not observe the laws of war lose the protections of POW status was well-established in Washington’s time and he had absolutely no problem using a similar process to President Bush’s military tribunals for determining a combatant’s status, subjecting them to court-martial, and having them hanged.
Exactly what point are you trying to make by applying specific activities from that era to the modern day?
I’m doing the same thing you are.
I’m talking about the rhetorical and practical logic behind treating prisoners well, and you’re talking about specific actions and cultural norms from 230 years ago.
I’m just saying that given a choice, I’d rather be a member of the army that waterboards three terrorists than a member of the one that whips its own soldiers. That’s all I’m saying.
That’s pretty much where most Americans learn about their own legal system, unfortunately.
Sad but true. Don’t leave out “Judge Judy” and “Law and Order”, though.
I want to touch on an earlier question for you that’s been buried in this thread:
Do you believe that the use of “intimidation” by interrogators in accordance with this Administration’s policies constitutes a grave breach of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?
Does this mean that you’re now in favor of military tribunals that deny habeas corpus to captured enemy combatants?
I’ve never said that enemy combatants are entitled to habeas protections EXCEPT when they are captured on American soil. American citizens, capture on American or foreign soil, should always be granted habeas and every other Constitutional right, even if they are waging war against the United States.
As far as foreign fighters go, what I find disturbing is the kangaroo court system we have set up where the accused is often not permitted to see the evidence against him, nor face his accusers, that sort of thing. I think it’s perfectly possible to defent Amurka from terrists while still acting in a civilized manner, according to the laws and customs which were in place prior to 9/11.
The phrase itself is a recent term and would have been called a “spy” or “insurgent” in his day.
Uh, no. “Spy” and “insurgent” are clearly defined and understood term. “Unlawful enemy combatant” is a bullshit term dreamed up by the Bush legal team to mean “any person we want to lock up.”
The concept though, that captured combatants who do not observe the laws of war lose the protections of POW status was well-established in Washington’s time and he had absolutely no problem using a similar process to President Bush’s military tribunals for determining a combatant’s status, subjecting them to court-martial, and having them hanged.
But we’ve come a long way since then. What you’re doing is akin to discussing contemporary civil rights issues and using the Dred Scott decision as precedent. Washington did a lot of things in his time (like own slaves) which would clearly not be tolerated today. The point of his quotes is not to show the specifics of how prisoners to be treated, but the idea that even back then, when barbarism was common, Washington understood the need for honor and accountability among his men. What we have now is a political class with no honor and no accountability, and because of this we end up with Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and can now proudly place ourselves on the list of nations which legally sanctions torture. (And spare me the “three times” nonsense.)
I’m just saying that given a choice, I’d rather be a member of the army that waterboards three terrorists than a member of the one that whips its own soldiers. That’s all I’m saying.
True. And I’d rather live in a country which recognized that civilized people treat even the most vile of their enemies with a certain level of treatment than one which either tortures them themselves or ships them off to somewhere which will do the torturing for us.
We had the chance to do this right from the beginning and we did it completely wrong. So now, no matter what we do, our actions will have zero legitimacy.
Do you believe that the use of “intimidation” by interrogators in accordance with this Administration’s policies constitutes a grave breach of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?
That depends. Prior to this administration there were none of these mysterious “gray areas” which suddenly appeared after 9/11. The rules were established and customary, so whatever was acceptable prior to their “modifications” would be acceptable to me.
Take the belly slap. Is this torture? No, of course not. But how many times can it be done? Once? Twice? How about 338 times? Then there’s sleep deprivation, which Solzhenitsyn described as the worst of all the tortures the Soviets inflicted on him in the gulag. I work 18 hour days all the time. So at what point does making a man stay awake qualify as torture? Then there are “stress positions,” which were mysteriously called “barbaric torture” when the Vietcong did them to our captured pilots but now are called “fraternity hazing” by the contemporary conservative right. In London there is a museum of torture and it’s full of instruments which were designed to place people into cramped, unnatural positions for extended periods of time. This was during the Middle Ages, and now we’ve casually redefined that as the pleasant-sounding “stress position.” So, how long can we keep a man tied in an agonizing position before it rises from “stress” to “torture”?
It seems to me that this was pretty well established among all civilized nations until the administration, its flunkies, and its supporters all bought their bullshit arguments.
I wanted to clarify something too. No vitriol please - it’s an honest question.
I am still not 100% sure that the MCA2006 covers those who are not going to be charged with some kind of crime. Given that the tribunals to determine the status of prisoners under the Geneva convention were determined to be not a competent means of assessing those who were held, where does this leave those who will not be charged?
stogy - You’re looking for Combatant Status Review Tribunal (also at Wikipedia), and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (also known as the McCain Amendment) (full text). This was modified slightly by the MCA, not materially.
I still have questions about the appeals process for the classification. It appears to me that the detainee can appeal his classification (the “preponderance of the evidence” clause in 1005(e)(2)(c)(i)), but cannot appeal being detained, through the DC Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. If this is true, then this should be sufficient to protect the mis-classified. If not, I would want to see that fixed.
There is no requirement that charges be brought against a detainee - they are being detained to keep them out of combat, not to prosecute them for specific crimes (in general). Conceptually, this winds up with them being held indefinately, given that the “end state” of the GWoT is basically impossible to define. That’s an issue that should be addressed, but not one that keeps me up at night - IF there is an avenue to correct a mis-classification.
Yeah, it’ll take me a minute to clearly spell it out for you so keep your panties on. I can’t get into it just this second.
This is what I asked you yesterday, and I’m still a little confused as to what you are arguing.
I don’t support keeping prisoners in Guantanamo forever. But I am fed up with limousine liberals and ivory-tower academics who are so easily duped by Al-Qaeda (yet again)
So what do you propose, if you don’t want to either a) Give them a trial or b) Not give them a trial? I seem to be missing something in your argument…
Sorry, BC and stog, I do mean to get to you guys it’s just really busy again (of course when the thread gets the juiciest).
I won’t be around to defend this but i’ll try to leave something to chew on for a while (I won’t be back to comment until later this evening, but I promise I don’t walk away from threads :).
The question you posed BC I think i can answer, and I believe is at the heart of John’s post.
So what do you propose, if you don’t want to either a) Give them a trial or b) Not give them a trial? I seem to be missing something in your argument…
John left it as more of a question, so the burden of answer is on both sides who have an opinion on the matter. stogy said we need to bolster the “system” (still having a little trouble with that answer) and accept that unfortunate events like these happen from time to time.
I believe that that’s an ideal to strive for, but I think we need to take John’s comment for what it is. Whether or not this man was mistreated is really in the eye of the beholder (depending on who you ask and what they believe) but one thing is for sure. the system operated correctly and there was a failure. John eludes to the idea that we were ‘duped’ by tthis Al Qaeda member. This sentiment is nothing new, and has been echoed for quite sometime.
Many of our liberal leaning readers view the legal system as some sort of Gingerbread man scenario for these detainees where if we haven’t got them on anything tangible in the sense that we view law, we have to let them go. This may be all well and good, but when people atart referencing law, and making comparative examples to things like organized crime and drugs, one has opened the door to the exact draconian measures that this side of the aisle seems to want to avoid.
Drug laws are harsh, ever evolving, and unconstitutional to say the least. The laws, and measures granted to the authorities to crack down on organized crime can be a frightening thing to behold if taken down to the singular level, as it would pertain to us and our individual civil liberties. To narrow the focus a little bit, I don’t believe that making those comparasions are the greatest analogies for dealing wth these detainees. They open the door to let the federal government do whatever they want (as examples of the War on Drugs, or mafias will provide) and clearly demonstrate that if you’re upset with the handling of these people now you could be mortified if you support the comparasion for what it would allow.
As for the individual case of this man, left, right and center should be very aware of this case for one reason. We all failed. that’s all John pointed to. We failed to save people because the system failed. I won’t say it’s a horrible system, but I will say it failed us. My point being that the issue is not so easily summarized as we have heard of in the past as “try them, free them, and let them be.” I don’t have a definitive solution. I have an opinion.
I believe John was appealling to our intuitive side by saying “let’s take this case by case”. We have a scumbag in our custody, we know he’s a scumbag, but we have the finger waggers combing through the rule books looking for technicalities to set a guilty man free. (breaking into two)
We probably knew in our haerts that this man was no good. Yes, the rules allow for him to fet off on technicalities, and he exploited them with a flawless accuracy (probably by design). Looking at this test case, we can appeal to a practical notion that conservatives have appealled to for years now. sometimes we have actually caught the bad guy.
I don’t know who makes that call, but in all of the comparative examples I gave you about organized crime and drugs, we put our faith in the systerm to do what’s “right”. the scripture of the rules are bone chilling in all examples, and provide a myriad of texts that can be abused, but we accept the notion on a greater level.
I don’t believe that it is “paranoid” or “hysterical” to accept that the USA has enemies. I think anyone trying to make the claim that terrrorism is not real is delusional to sayt the least. It is a threat to be fairly monitored and assessed for it’s reality. in that assessment, we have an individual such as this, we make a judgement call. Society used to do it all the time. In this singular example, I believe we could have (through lie detectors, psychological evaluation, etc.) determined this man to be a danger and kept him detained longer than we did. If we did in fact do this and he still commited suicide, i throw my arms up. If he was simply rushed through a trial, and we didn’t have anything to put on him so we let him go, knowing that he was guilty…
I say shame on us.
stogy - You’re looking for Combatant Status Review Tribunal (also at Wikipedia), and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (also known as the McCain Amendment) (full text). This was modified slightly by the MCA, not materially.
Thanks Dwex - I looked at this yesterday (my time) but was too lazzy to go back in the thread to chase it up. I still don’t understand quite how it works though if a person is captured, particularly one who is not captured by US forces, or is arrested as a civilian. If they are judged to be POWs, then by all means, they can be placed in POW camps (with full Red Cross access etc) until such time as it is deemed safe for both the public and themselves to be released. If they are going to be charged with a crime - such as a war crime - then that’s also fine (provided that all legal procedures are carried out in a way that is legitimate).
But where does that leave those who are in the middle? Those who are not covered by any scenario? As Manwhore points out:
Many of our liberal leaning readers view the legal system as some sort of Gingerbread man scenario for these detainees where if we haven’t got them on anything tangible in the sense that we view law, we have to let them go.
If they are neither going to be charged, nor are they POWs, then yeah, they are civilians. I don’t see any middle ground.
Of course, I could be wrong. I’m often wrong.
Well, this is the root of one half of the GTMO debate (the other being the torture issue) - is there a status that isn’t civilian and isn’t PoW. I used to believe it was black & white, either/or. Debating this stuff with Thrill has caused me to do a lot of reading & research, and there certainly seems to be precedent over the last 50+ years of international law, for an “unlawful combatant” designation. Since this is a different kind of war, I’m willing to explore this possibility, because the standard definition of PoW doesn’t really work when you’re dealing with organizations like AQ. If in the end, we decide they are PoWs, I’d be OK with that. But I don’t want them to be classified as civilian criminals either.
We probably knew in our haerts that this man was no good.
That’s actually not good enough. Georgie boy bases a whole lot of decisions on gut feeling and look where that has got us. The systems are there to do their best to protect us from ourselves while at the same time protecting us from the system itself. It’ s no wonder we end up at times with a Frankenstein’s monster.
It’s not a perfect system, and yes people die as a result of its imperfections. But the alternative is too horrific to contemplate.
I do take Thrill’s point - that the checks and balances in the system have ultimately reigned in the excesses of this administration, but at huge cost to the standing of the United States, and if the theory of humiliation I posted above is correct, the undermining of the US intentions in the ME.
I actually heard an Iraqi Muslim guy the other week railing against democracy - his argument was basically, “if a democracy can produce excesses like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, then we don’t want it”. While I think he was wrong, I could see where he was coming from. He couldn’t see its value when the results were the same as the previous government he had lived under.
The checks and balances may have worked, but the damage has already been done.
there certainly seems to be precedent over the last 50+ years of international law, for an “unlawful combatant” designation.
But why is there a need to distinguish them? Why do we need a grey area? Isn’t the main purpose of the grey area to create wriggle room for enhanced interrogation? That’s what I always assumed.
That’s actually not good enough.
But this is not the criteria by which UEC’s are tried, hence the release of the 20 highjacker Mohammad al-Qahtani. Given the circumstances of his involvement there is no chance in hell he was “not involved”, yet for some reason he was released. As an aside, I understand the secrecy element of the military and its needs for keeping their cards close to the vest, but its situations like this where I wish there was more transparency and we could be told why this obviously dangerous man (we have not hear dthe last of this guy) was summarily released.
that the checks and balances in the system have ultimately reigned in the excesses of this administration, but at huge cost to the standing of the United States, and if the theory of humiliation I posted above is correct, the undermining of the US intentions in the ME.
Not to be an apologist for the administration (no eyes rolling, please) but I expected mistakes to be made given the fact that this was an animal that has never been delt with before. Much like the way the Iraqi war was fought initially and how the standard methods of warfare was woefully inadequate for the task, the new concept of fighting terrorists, and dealing with UEC’s, was naturally going to be a work in progress. Some could argue the transition took too long, too many stops and starts in the adaptation of a more affective means (the surge, counter insurgency tactics, winning the hearts and minds of the inhabitants), but the US military as our military justice system dies not turn on a dime. I think they got the bugs worked out and the military tribunals are ready to begin.
But why is there a need to distinguish them?
For the obvious reason that they do not fall into the catagory of POW. Great detail is used to define a POW, a soldier, wearing a distinctive uniform clearly indentified targeting military objectives, not trageting civilians with a clearly indentified command structure. Thats why spies have been executed since the dawn of warfare, the very fact that they use trickery or subtrafuge to conceal their identity as opposed to a true POW who does not, clearly marks them as outside the realm of the POW and thus not afforded its protections.
But why is there a need to distinguish them?For the obvious reason that they do not fall into the catagory of POW
Thanks for trying, but you missed the point of my question. Once again:
If they are guilty of crimes, charge them under the MCA2006. There is provision for that. What you described above (trickery or subtrafuge as spies to conceal their identity) might fit that. They can be charged as spies/war criminals what have you.
If they are POWs, then remove them from combat, protect them from others and others from them.
But some people are arguing here for another category - a grey area. And I can’t see any purpose in it other than to provide a legal cover to hang on to them indefinitely and provide cover for various legally dubious ‘tortures’.
Why aren’t the two categories enough to provide protection?
clearly marks them as outside the realm of the POW and thus not afforded its protections.
Actually, the protections for those who are not deemed POWs, and not civilians (i.e. those covered by MCA2006 are pretty much the same as those under the regular Geneva conventions), as article 75 of the first additional protocol points out.
Here’s something else that seems to show what I am saying. From Newsweek (2004):
“In the run-up to the war on Iraq,” Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz “pushed a highly unorthodox plan to deploy one of the U.S. government’s most controversial legal tactics--the designation of suspected terrorists as enemy combatants--in hopes of finding new evidence of alleged connections between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Al Qaeda.
“The proposal ... called for President George W. Bush to declare Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as an enemy combatant in the war on terror. This would have allowed Yousef to be transferred from his cell at the U.S. Bureau of Prison’s ‘supermax’ penitentiary in Florence, Colo., to a U.S. military installation,” they write.
It was Wolfowitz’s contention, they inform, that “U.S. military interrogators--unencumbered by the presence of Yousef’s defense lawyer--might be able to get the inmate to confess what he and the lawyer have steadfastly denied: that he was actually an Iraqi intelligence agent dispatched by Saddam to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993 as revenge for the first Persian Gulf War.”Isikoff and Hornball state that the “previously unreported Wolfowitz proposal--and the high-level consideration it got within the Justice Department--sheds new light on the Bush administration’s willingness to expand its use of enemy-combatant declarations inside the United States beyond the three alleged terrorists, two of them American citizens, who have already been designated [as enemy combatants] by the White House.”
Additionally, they write, it “underscores the persistence with which Wolfowitz and his allies within the Pentagon pursued efforts to uncover evidence of links between Saddam’s government and Al Qaeda--a key, and still disputed, element in the Bush administration’s case for war.”
It certainly sounds from this like the designation of enemy combatant, or illegal enemy combatant was designed to skirt around the legalities of torture, rather than ensure the safety of the general public.
rather than ensure the safety of the general public.
Some would argue that finding out what this guys knows is ensuring the safety of the general public.
Maybe I’m missing some nuance you are providing but this seems like pretty obvious stuff.
By saying:
Why aren’t the two categories enough to provide protection?
You are happy with only POW’s and spies as the only two categories of enemy and I’m aying that the UEC does not fall into either category. He is not a POW be your own admission and he is not a spy (an agent employeed by a state to obtain secret information), hence the need for a third category.
Say Petreaus gets a tip of an AQ safe house at such and such an address. A raid is conducted and 12 “people” are arrested, all are either armed or within reach of a weapon that they all grabbed at entry point. AQ material is strwen through out the house as well as weapons, ammunition, RPG’s, and explosive making equipment. A lap top is found at the house and in it are files on all 12 people, their backgrounds and info on how they were recruited. Now none of these 12 guys are POW’s, nor are they spies, so what do you call them? No “crime” was actually committed yet so what do you do with them?
No “crime” was actually committed yet so what do you do with them?
They may not fit the technical desctription of POWs under the Geneva convention, but why wouldn’t you just treat them the same way? Article 75 still gives them the same protections. So why not treat them the same? They weapons and literature tying them to a terroris group.
This was done because POWs have legal rights. It was done, as the article I posted above article above, to clear the way for torture.
They may not fit the technical desctription of POWs under the Geneva convention, but why wouldn’t you just treat them the same way?
Because POWs benefit from the customary law of combatant immunity. As combatants have been authorized to use force, they may not be prosecuted for common crimes committed in the context of hostilities.
They weapons and literature tying them to a terroris group.
So you would like them classified as POW’s and held in a POW camp until the end of hostilities?
Does anyone know how this was handled with the Viet Cong? NVA detainees were clearly PoWs, but the VC? I’ve come across a couple of sources that claim that the “unlawful enemy combatant” concept was used with the VC, under a process by which all detainees were considered PoWs until a review panel deemed that they were actually to be treated under this alternative designation. But other references dispute that, using the treatment of VC as PoWs as argument against the current practice.
Does anyone know how this was handled with the Viet Cong?
Quite a number were just shot.
So you would like them classified as POW’s and held in a POW camp until the end of hostilities?
Yeah, unless you are going to charge them with something, or unless the tribunal determines that they are not a threat, or that they can be classified as civilians.
Yeah
Alright, just trying to pin you down, you are now on the record. I ask because some don’t believe we can hold these guys forever, you do, OK.
Under the scenario I provided lets assume that these 12 are brand new recruits, haven’t really done anything yet except assemble their stash of weeapons and explosives. They are not going to be “tried” for anything and they have already been classified as a threat and not civilians (from the data on the lap top hard drive). Naturally we are going to want to talk to these guys but after they have been “debriefed”, we can just stick them in a POW camp (Gitmo or something similiar) and thats the end of it.
Naturally we are going to want to talk to these guys but after they have been “debriefed”, we can just stick them in a POW camp (Gitmo or something similiar) and thats the end of it.
I don’t think GITMO actually qualifies as a regular POW camp. And as Dwex point out, it has become far too much of an international symbol of injustice. A proper camp - where they are not locked up 22 hours a day, which is open to international scrutiny, and permits regular human contact - perhaps even cable.
The length of the war is a problem - I doubt any country could justify holding people indefinitely. I don’t have an answer to it.
Damn, stog! If I didn’t know any better I’d say you might have taken a pause! Good show!:)
I ask because some don’t believe we can hold these guys forever
This gets to a point I made above. One of the reasons the standard definition of PoW doesn’t work is because part of that principal revolves around recognizing the end of hostilities and hence repatriation.
In the GWoT, it’s basically impossible to define such an end state. Even if you restrict the discussion to specific groups (AQ, Taliban), it is still difficult to define. Hence these folk can literally be held forever, to keep them out of the conflict.
Something about that isn’t right; there needs to be an end state.
But, as I mentioned above - as long as there’s a mechanism by which a mis-classification can be challenged and rememdied (I’m still not clear if there actually is one or not), I have no issues with holding the correctly-classified and figuring out the meta-issue later.
But I would like to see the people in charge acknowledge that this end-state issue exists, because of the non-standard definition of this war.
This gets to a point I made above. One of the reasons the standard definition of PoW doesn’t work is because part of that principal revolves around recognizing the end of hostilities and hence repatriation.
I believe this is why the government went to such lengths to create a line of delineation between the catagories. Stogy thinks it was just an excuse to get these guys on the rack but no doubt they were aware of the complexities of the issue and the need for a policy to cover this new breed of fighter.
In the GWoT, it’s basically impossible to define such an end state. Even if you restrict the discussion to specific groups (AQ, Taliban), it is still difficult to define. Hence these folk can literally be held forever, to keep them out of the conflict.
A vexing problem to be sure. I really don’t want to keep these guys locked up forever. The cost is enormous and fairness is an issue. Maybe an indocrination program for the foot soldiers or the newer members run by respected Islamic clerics that can instill a proper path to their faith, where violence is removed and abhored, coupled with a strict parole policy (we know who you are, where you live and who your family is, so keep your nose clean or else), or maybe this is unworkable and I’m talking out of my ass, I don’t know.
Next entry: Eating Your Way Out Of A Chocolate Factory
Previous entry: Sit Yo' Ass Down!
Server Drive
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 4325
Total Logged in members: 5
Total guests: 68
Total anonymous users: 0
AlexinCT,
FPrefect,
Hal_10000,
InsipiD,
mikedomi39,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
You May Have Already Been Counted
(11 total, Last @ 09:42)
InsipiD: I've been noticing the fair share theme of these since they started running. Grrrr.
You May Have Already Been Counted
(11 total, Last @ 09:34)
mikedomi39: It’s not the government’s business to take a census A census is mandated by the Constitution.
You May Have Already Been Counted
(11 total, Last @ 09:07)
Ed Kline: How about this...It's not the government's business to take a census. I wont cooperate at all. I never have.
You May Have Already Been Counted
(11 total, Last @ 06:27)
Hal_10000: I don't watch much TV, so I haven't seen the commercials. They are an abomiation. The Census Bureau head is an Obama appointee and his nomination was somewhat controversial as he has, i the past, advocated making statistical corrections to the Census to account for lower minority participation. That's not…
You May Have Already Been Counted
(11 total, Last @ 06:05)
AlexinCT: To be honest, the cost doesn’t me. $42 million is about what the government spends every five minutes. Obamacare will probably spend ten times that much designing their logo. And some hundreds of times more trying to come up with a way to deny people coverage so they can "manage"…
Last 30 Comments
Right on, Manwhore! Give it to them!
And while we’re about it, let’s lock up everyone who ever murdered forever so that they don’t do it again.
And let’s bulldoze the houses of suicide bombers’ families. There’s the way to stop them! Certainly, none of their brothers or sisters would then ever be likely to replicate their brother’s feats.
And let’s cut off the hands of shoplifters, so that they can’t put anything else down their underwear.
And let’s flog or stone anyone who commits adultery. That’ll make them think twice.
And the drug addicts? I’ve got something special planned for them!