if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Right Back At Ya!
by
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 act
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!