Guantanamo Bay

[HydrogenBond]

If the US had detained these prisoners in Iraq and allowed the Iraqi's to have full control over them, there would be no political hoopla and far fewer prisoners alive to tell their tale. What happened was humane by comparison. The reality is not seen because certain political agendas need to stir up the mud for mud slinging.

[Tormod]

Rules are different for the military. Bummer for the terrorists. *shrug*

 

This is way off target. The point of this discussion is that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are not proven to be terrorists. They are there because the US Army and Government claim that they are. The prisoners have so far been denied any right to fight this claim.

 

Nah, I am quite comfortable sleeping at night with Gitmo holding these persons.

 

Good for you. It must be nice to be able to just close your eyes to a major injustice (which even US media are crying out about now) and pretend that it's all for the good for American people.

 

Neither side has perfected this yet, but its not like things are not being done to change Gitmo.

 

And this is of course not due to international pressure?

[TheBigDog]

My assertion that the executive intended to do this as long as it could comes from the fact that they fought it all the way to Supreme Court for three years, and in this time, not once did they consult the legislature for the legal authority to try the "enemy combatants" as they saw fit.

It is a myth that the President and the DoD have been unilaterally applying this policy without involvement of the other branches of Government. Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was sighted by Justice Scolia in his dissent of the recent Supreme Court decision. This act is proof of the ongoing process within the US government in regard to Guantanamo Bay.

 

Bill

[Michaelangelica]

So what information relayed in wikipedia regarding David Hicks is dubious?

 

 

Abuse occurs in situations like this on occasion. This is why we are seeing some soldiers charged with crimes. To paint the effort of the USA to fight terrorism as systematic abuse of human rights is misleading and degrades the efforts of many persons to change the world for the better.

 

 

"Abuse occurs" What?!

So that's OK is it?!

You have the hide to call USA a democracy with such bald, bland acceptance of due process and human rights abuse?.

I find that astounding.

Start acting like a democracy, not a Bully-Boy, then you might change the world

The USA is involvolved in systematic abuse of human rights and due process and is not changing the world for the better.

The abuse with Hicks is one we know about because we are Australians. There may be many others in similar situations

re your previous post

this is from Jim:

" If we are going to fight terrorists, then David Hicks seems to be exactlythe type of person who Gitmo was designed to hold. David Hicks has his own page on wikipedia.com and it seems it is Australia that doesnt want him back until the charges against him are resolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

Recent letters to The Australian have complained of anti-Americanism in

Australia resulting from assuming that what the Bush administration wants is

what Americans want, which is wrong. It is just as wrong for Americans to

assume that what the Howard administration wants is what Australians want.

Some polls have indicated that the majority of Australians do not agree with

John Howard and would prefer to see Hicks facing an Australian court for any

crime he may have committed against Australian law. Legal experts have said

that he can be charged under existing laws even if he cannot under the new

anti-terrorism laws.

 

>In 1999, Hicks travelled to Albania (leaving behind a failed relationship and two children), where he joined the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a paramilitary organisation of ethnic Albanian Muslims fighting against

Serbian forces in the Kosovo War, and served with them for two months.

Since the NATO forces were also fighting alongside the KLA against the

Serbian forces this hardly makes Hicks an enemy combatant.

 

In 2004 an Australian documentary called The President versus David Hicks was made by Curtis Levy, with the cooperation of Terry Hicks, who appears in the documentary.

In the documentary, Terry Hicks reads out excerpts of David Hicks's

letters, in which Hicks says that his training in Pakistan and Afghanistan is

designed to ensure "the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live

under Muslim law again". He denounces the plots of the Jews to divide

Muslims and make them think poorly of Osama bin Laden and warns his father

to ignore "the Jews' propaganda war machine."

He would not be the first Muslim to express anti-Jewish opinions.

 

In November 2005, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation programme "FourCorners" broadcast for the first time a transcript of an interview with Hicks, conducted by the Australian Federal Police in 2002. [3] In this interview Hicks acknowledged that he had trained with al-Qaeda in

Afghanistan, learning guerilla tactics and urban warfare. He also

acknowledged that he had met Osama bin Laden.

 

At the time he did these things neither Australia nor America was at war

with Afghanistan, and the Northern Alliance, whom the Taliban were fighting

at the time, were just as nasty a bunch of Muslim warlords as the Taliban

itself. Let us not forget that originally al-Qaeda & Taliban was sponsored by the CIA

and the Pakistan ISI to engage with the Soviet Union in guerilla warfare in

Afghanistan and Chechnia.

 

After arriving in Konduz on 9 November 2001, he joined a group which

included John Walker Lindh (the "American Taliban"). This group was engaged

in combat against Coalition forces, and during this fighting he was

captured

by Coalition forces.

 

Actually John Walker Lindh was captured by the Northern Alliance, wounded

and half starved after hiding in a cellar for days without food, and was

later handed over to the American forces. He was sentenced to 20 years

after a plea bargain in which he agreed not to testify about the way his

'confession' was extracted from him under duress.

http://www.answers.com/John%20Walker%20Lindh

Both David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib have also claimed that they were tortured

while in captivity.

Apparently carrying weapons in a foreign civil war is a serious crime but

torture of prisoners is not.

 

>And from this page

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...6/s1636275.htm<http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1636275.htm>

"The Australian Government's only concession to David Hicks is that if he

does stand trial before the US military court and is sentenced to jail, he

could serve that time in an Australian prison."

If he is going to serve his time in Australia, why not have him tried in

Australia as well?

I do not approve 100% of Gitmo, but I also think terrorists need to be

stopped and every effort should be made to ensure this occurs. While I know

the families of these persons (D. Hicks, J. Walker Lindh etc) are feeling

very badly about what their children/siblings have chosen to do, the bigger

picture is the rest of us need assurances that these persons from our own

countries will not be given the opportunity to inflict their idea of

'justice for allah' on the rest of us.

 

How does allowing an Australian citizen to be subject to an illegal trial in

a foreign country provide us with any assurance? On the contrary, it merely

shows that the human rights of Australians have a low priority for the

government that lets it happen.

[sebbysteiny]

There is every bit of evidence that the US intented to hold the prisoners at Gitmo without representation, recourse, or outside monitoring until they were all dead. And maybe add a few more along the way.

I'm afraid you will have to produce that evidence. Since there is 'every bit of evidence', the task should be easy.

 

detainees at Gitmo are not entitled to Red Cross visititation, which the ICRC actually did obtain a year after it's establishment. The US Government "rejected" their findings that they were engaged in "humiliating acts" (According the New York Times.)

 

My assertion that the executive intended to do this as long as it could comes from the fact that they fought it all the way to Supreme Court for three years, and in this time, not once did they consult the legislature for the legal authority to try the "enemy combatants" as they saw fit.

 

Furthermore, their assertion that "unlawful combatants" are not covered under Geneva is just wrong. There is such a thing as an "unlawful combatant" but even they are covered under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

 

In other words, at every step of the way the Bush Administration has chosen to defend Camp X-Ray in it's present operating condition as opposed to viewing it as a "necessary evil" until some framework was establish. They have never claimed anything other than that the "Authorization For Use of Force" amounts to giving George Bush a blank check to conduct the war on terror.

 

Therefore there is evidence that the US intended to hold those detained at Gitmo, as they were (which is, without representation, recourse, our monitoring outside of the military.) (The ICRC does not publicize it's findings - it deals directly with Governments, and did not "tell" on the Nazi's for the Holocaust. They would not SAY if people were being tortured at Gitmo.)

 

Of course, it's impossible to ascribe motives with accuracy - but their actions certainly indicate that the US Government was attempting to take the actions I described.

 

To be honest, it does not matter to me, nor most objective people, whether the Bush Administration wished to maintain GB. I have no doubt that Bush genuinely believed that a place like GB was essential for his war on terror and has been fighting tooth and nail for it against congress and the courts.

 

What was disturbing about your alligation was that "the US intented to hold the prisoners at Gitmo without representation, recourse, or outside monitoring until they were all dead. And maybe add a few more along the way." The idea that the bush wish to hold terrorists not for the time necessary to keep us safe (legitimate self defence even if you disagree with the politics) but to hold them (without trial) UNTIL THEY ARE DEAD POSSIBLY KILLING OTHERS ALONG THE WAY is an allagation of a most serious crime: the killing of many people (not for self defence) with the intention to kill aka MASS MURDER. Finding evidence to back up Bushes support for GB does not amount to 'every bit of evidence' supporting the main and most shocking and as yet unsubstantiated allegation of your statment.

 

agree that a place like this needs to exist, but it needs to be public, visible to advocates for the prisoners, and have a due proccess in place.

Your view is reasonable and logical and moral ONLY IF you are fully aware that to fullfil your demands will inflict certain death on the American (or British etc.) innocent civilians and / or secret agents. Many people believe that democracies must fight terror with one hand behind their back (eg the Israeli court) even if it costs countless lives, but others believe that the rights of the innocent and patriotic are worth more than terrorist murderers.

[Michaelangelica]

To be honest, it does not matter to me, nor most objective people, whether the Bush Administration wished to maintain GB.

A pity. It should matter

 

What was disturbing about your alligation was that "the US intented to hold the prisoners at Gitmo without representation, recourse, or outside monitoring until they were all dead. And maybe add a few more along the way."

If no "due process" or human rights are in place this is a logical conclusion

 

Your view is reasonable and logical and moral ONLY IF you are fully aware that to fullfil your demands will inflict certain death on the American (or British etc.) innocent civilians and / or secret agents. Many people believe that democracies must fight terror with one hand behind their back (eg the Israeli court) even if it costs countless lives, but others believe that the rights of the innocent and patriotic are worth more than terrorist murderers.

This is propaganda. It is unlikely to be true.

 

If by "one hand behind their back" you mean a respect for human rights and due process, then this is the only thing that seperates us from the Terrorist.

It is therefore essential to keep one hand behind our back.

 

"the rights of the innocent and patriotic" are being abrogated now.

[sebbysteiny]

To be honest, it does not matter to me, nor most objective people, whether the Bush Administration wished to maintain GB.

 

A pity. It should matter

 

Hello!!!!! Deliberate 'missing the point' alert. GB is Bush policy. In discussing its rights and wrongs, most people don't care about evidence proving Bush supports his own policies.

 

What was disturbing about your alligation was that "the US intented to hold the prisoners at Gitmo without representation, recourse, or outside monitoring until they were all dead. And maybe add a few more along the way."

If no "due process" or human rights are in place this is a logical conclusion

 

Okay, we are talking logic now. Why didn't you say so. Okay, so Bush supports a policy to hold suspected terrorists that has no "due process". Therefore he is a Mass murderer?????? Nope still not following. Perhaps you could explain that bizaar conclusion.

Your view is reasonable and logical and moral ONLY IF you are fully aware that to fullfil your demands will inflict certain death on the American (or British etc.) innocent civilians and / or secret agents. Many people believe that democracies must fight terror with one hand behind their back (eg the Israeli court) even if it costs countless lives, but others believe that the rights of the innocent and patriotic are worth more than terrorist murderers.

This is propaganda. It is unlikely to be true.

 

If by "one hand behind their back" you mean a respect for human rights and due process, then this is the only thing that seperates us from the Terrorist.

It is therefore essential to keep one hand behind our back.

 

"the rights of the innocent and patriotic" are being abrogated now.

 

I had a sneeking suspision you were in a self deluded reality. "This is propaganda. It is unlikely to be true." With one sweeping statement you have shown a total lack of understanding of the espionage community. I don't care what Bush says or what Blair says or what any other politicion or propagandaist says, if any evidence proving guilt was obtained from a source that is still active, any use of that evidence in "due process" (or even by simply taking preventative measures) will kill the source and any innocent people who that source has protected. This is an absolute undesputible truth even if you don't like some of the people arguing it. By demanding full "due process" you will be causing many innocent people to die.

 

However, you have understood properly the 'one hand tied behind ones back' argument in which the innocent people killed are worth the moral sense of being 'better' than the terrorists. However, I believe there are many other factors that clearly distinguish us from the terrorists. Is another necessary? That's a personal decision.

 

Lasly, I have seen no evidence that any people held are innocent and especially none that any were patriotic. If they were, what were they doing fighting for the Talaban anyway????

[Michaelangelica]

 

Okay, we are talking logic now. Why didn't you say so. Okay, so Bush supports a policy to hold suspected terrorists that has no "due process". Therefore he is a Mass murderer?????? Nope still not following. Perhaps you could explain that bizaar conclusion.

It's not my conclusion.

I was just saying that what had been posted was the logical outcome of GB processes.

I hope it won't be

I had a sneeking suspision you were in a self deluded reality. "This is propaganda. It is unlikely to be true." With one sweeping statement you have shown a total lack of understanding of the espionage community. I don't care what Bush says or what Blair says or what any other politicion or propagandaist says, if any evidence proving guilt was obtained from a source that is still active, any use of that evidence in "due process" (or even by simply taking preventative measures) will kill the source and any innocent people who that source has protected. This is an absolute undesputible truth even if you don't like some of the people arguing it..

 

You don't seem to understand what due process is.

It differs a little in my country but here is an American definition:

Explicit procedural guarantees in the U.S. Constitution

 

* Article One, Section 9:

o the right to writs of habeas corpus, except during rebellion or invasion

o the prohibition of bills of attainder (conviction and sentencing for a crime, typically treason, by a legislative act)

o the prohibition of ex post facto laws (punishing acts not crimes at the time they were committed)

* Article Three, Section 2:

o the right to a jury trial regardless of whether the crime occurred in a state or in another location

* The 5th Amendment:

o the right to a grand jury indictment in federal court, in capital and other "infamous" cases, except for members of the armed forces

o the prohibition of double jeopardy (prosecuting someone again for a crime on which a final judgment is already passed)

o the right to not testify against oneself (self-incrimination)

o the right to due process of law for life, liberty, and property (as enforced against the federal government)

* The 6th Amendment:

o in all criminal prosecutions:

+ the right to a speedy and public trial in the state where the crime occurred

+ the right to an impartial jury of one's peers

+ the right to know the charges and evidence

+ the right to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses

+ the right to compel witnesses to appear

+ the right to counsel

* The 7th Amendment:

o in civil trials in federal courts:

+ the right to a jury in civil trials

+ the guarantee that issues determined by a jury will not be redetermined by other courts in a manner contrary to the common law

* The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

o the right to due process of law regarding life, liberty, and property (as enforced against State governments)

The system of due process you want is the same used by the Nazis no one knows his accuser.

I am glad you understand the espionage community though; so few do.

 

 

 

By demanding full "due process" you will be causing many innocent people to die.

Balderdash.

An assertion that cannot, and by definition, will not be proved.

 

However, you have understood properly the 'one hand tied behind ones back' argument in which the innocent people killed are worth the moral sense of being 'better' than the terrorists.

Thank you for your gracious compliment. Yes I believe freedom is worth any price we pay for it, except freedom

However, I believe there are many other factors that clearly distinguish us from the terrorists. Is another necessary? That's a personal decision.

 

Such as?

 

 

Lasly, I have seen no evidence that any people held are innocent and especially none that any were patriotic. If they were, what were they doing fighting for the Talaban anyway????

I have listed the evidence have you read it? I refer you to the ABC's "Four Corners" show on David Hicks in particular if you can get it.

The USA and its friends in Pakistan supported & funded the Taliban for years like good patriotic citizens or has no-one told you?

By patriotic I meant people who believed in democratic principles.

 

I find it immensely sad that a country purporting to be the shining light in world democracies just isn't, not even a dim candle.. You don't even realise that the Terrorists have won the war

- and you keep giving them more ammunition (literally and figuratively) by Guantanamo Bully-Boy tactics

[Michaelangelica]

 

Okay, we are talking logic now. Why didn't you say so. Okay, so Bush supports a policy to hold suspected terrorists that has no "due process". Therefore he is a Mass murderer?????? Nope still not following. Perhaps you could explain that bizaar conclusion.

It's not my conclusion.

I was just saying that what had been posted was the logical outcome of GB processes.

 

 

I had a sneeking suspision you were in a self deluded reality. "This is propaganda. It is unlikely to be true." With one sweeping statement you have shown a total lack of understanding of the espionage community. I don't care what Bush says or what Blair says or what any other politicion or propagandaist says, if any evidence proving guilt was obtained from a source that is still active, any use of that evidence in "due process" (or even by simply taking preventative measures) will kill the source and any innocent people who that source has protected. This is an absolute undesputible truth even if you don't like some of the people arguing it.

By demanding full "due process" you will be causing many innocent people to die.

Balderdash. An assertion that cannot, and by definition, will not be proved.

 

However, you have understood properly the 'one hand tied behind ones back' argument in which the innocent people killed are worth the moral sense of being 'better' than the terrorists.

Thankyou for your gracious compliment. Yes I believe freedom is worth any price we pay for it, except freedom

However, I believe there are many other factors that clearly distinguish us from the terrorists. Is another necessary? That's a personal decision.

Such as?

 

you don't seem to understand what due process is.

It differs a little in my country but here is an American definition:

Explicit procedural guarantees in the U.S. Constitution

 

* Article One, Section 9:

o the right to writs of habeas corpus, except during rebellion or invasion

o the prohibition of bills of attainder (conviction and sentencing for a crime, typically treason, by a legislative act)

o the prohibition of ex post facto laws (punishing acts not crimes at the time they were committed)

* Article Three, Section 2:

o the right to a jury trial regardless of whether the crime occurred in a state or in another location

* The 5th Amendment:

o the right to a grand jury indictment in federal court, in capital and other "infamous" cases, except for members of the armed forces

o the prohibition of double jeopardy (prosecuting someone again for a crime on which a final judgment is already passed)

o the right to not testify against oneself (self-incrimination)

o the right to due process of law for life, liberty, and property (as enforced against the federal government)

* The 6th Amendment:

o in all criminal prosecutions:

+ the right to a speedy and public trial in the state where the crime occurred

+ the right to an impartial jury of one's peers

+ the right to know the charges and evidence

+ the right to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses

+ the right to compel witnesses to appear

+ the right to counsel

* The 7th Amendment:

o in civil trials in federal courts:

+ the right to a jury in civil trials

+ the guarantee that issues determined by a jury will not be redetermined by other courts in a manner contrary to the common law

* The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

o the right to due process of law regarding life, liberty, and property (as enforced against State governments)

the system of due process you want is the same used by the Nazis no one knows his accuser. I am glad you understand the es

 

Lasly, I have seen no evidence that any people held are innocent and especially none that any were patriotic. If they were, what were they doing fighting for the Talaban anyway????

The USA and its friends in Pakistan supported the Taliban for yers like good patritiotic citizens or has no-one told you.

By patriotic I ment people who believed in democratic principles

[Cedars]

This is way off target. The point of this discussion is that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are not proven to be terrorists. They are there because the US Army and Government claim that they are. The prisoners have so far been denied any right to fight this claim.

 

It must be nice to be able to just close your eyes to a major injustice (which even US media are crying out about now) and pretend that it's all for the good for American people.

 

And this is of course not due to international pressure?

 

These are people being held as illegal combatants and they are under the authority of the US military, captured in a war zone, and the fact is rules are different for the military than other branches of Justice, especially during war.

 

While you may not agree with the interpretations of the law that the Bush administration has made, thats for the courts to decide (which they are). It sucks for them (people sitting in Gitmo), but the wheels of justice can turn slowly, and this is even more true for the military. And as far as denials of their rights as I suggested in a previous post, Google for further information on how many have been released via appeals to courts.

 

While you may not like how slow things can go in the US courts, its a well know that even in the best of times (like no war) things are slow. It took me 16 years to finish a fight once (not a criminal case). Yes, I hated the time it took, but thats the way it works sometimes, for some people in some cases.

 

I dont consider the fact that these people are fed, housed, receive medical treatment, and given the opportunity to practice their religion a major injustice. I hope you did take the time to read the link I posted about the negotiations between the US and the home countries of these prisoners being worked on for more than a year (no exact date given).

 

I think alot of things in the world symbolize injustice (such as the UN not declaring the Rwanda butchery genocide) but as far as this group of killers, they do not rate very high on my scale of priorities in their present condition, and there is no pretend about American people being safer with these persons unable to shoot guns, plant IEDs etc.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html

 

After reading the above link, I hope you will understand that my previous point about "hurrying things up" to please orgs like Amnesty Int. may not be the wisest decision.

 

As far as international pressures, while it may give those who are voicing their concerns, writting letters, etc a warm fuzzy feeling that they have done something, I tend to think its the actions of the courts, pressures from the military, and deal making to get other agenda items passed thru by the Bush admin (congress pork vs Bush agenda) that is the real source of any changes. But this part is just my opinion based on the Bush administrations past reaction to international pressure (Kyoto, Iraq, etc). The Bush administration hasnt worried much about International opinions.

[Cedars]

"Abuse occurs" What?!

So that's OK is it?!

You have the hide to call USA a democracy with such bald, bland acceptance of due process and human rights abuse?.

I find that astounding.

 

Abuse occurs on occasion, thats right! Every situation people are in where there is an opportunity to abuse, there will always be a small percentage of people who go too far. Simple odds when dealing with the variables that are the human condition. But that doesnt mean they are all being abused, or tortured. These people who allege this have started proceedings and we will have to wait for that outcome.

 

Your own government has decided Hicks should resolve the charges brought against him before they are willing to go further with his situation. Next election, if the majority disagrees with the governments policy, you will have a new government. Apparently, with Howards re-election, the majority doesnt think things should change.

 

I do not care how long a few gun toting 'idealists' end up waiting in a prioritized line to have their day in court. I think Gitmo is a good place to keep these people until the courts can catch up with the idea of terrorism and how to handle it.

 

If Hicks had stayed home and taken care of his kids he wouldnt be in Gitmo. If Hicks had joined the Australian military he would not be sitting in Gitmo. Hicks had plenty of choices he could make that would have prevented his being held in Gitmo. What it boils down to is, Bad choice Hicks.

 

 

As far as Walker Lindh, you should read more of the links posted as sources in your Answers.com link. Such as this one:

 

http://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_cramer/2006/01/the_truth_about.html

 

"This group was stopped heading west early in the morning and had an armed standoff with Afghan and US forces. (Yes, Lindh’s group was fully armed during their purported “surrender,” and they had no good reason to explain why they not going east towards Pakistan). The stand off was tense until bombers appeared overhead. Dostum drove by on his way to Kunduz and told them to be disarmed and taken to his garrison called Qali Jangi. Lindh, during that entire time, was within feet of western journalists and US forces and could have simply identified himself as an American."

 

Lindh was wounded during the prison uprising, after he had 'surrendered'.

 

There is a very good reason why Walker Lindh plead guilty. He did what he was accused of.

[sebbysteiny]

Okay, we are talking logic now. Why didn't you say so. Okay, so Bush supports a policy to hold suspected terrorists that has no "due process". Therefore he is a Mass murderer?????? Nope still not following. Perhaps you could explain that bizaar conclusion.

It's not my conclusion.

I was just saying that what had been posted was the logical outcome of GB processes.

 

So what you are saying is that the GB process is open to potential abuse, but you are do not accept the conclusion that it IS definately being abused right now nor is Bush a mass murderer (the bizaar conclusion). Fair enough. However as yet, there do not appear to be any political prisoners or anybody held in GB in which Bush has an interest in keeping off the public streets for reasons other than for security concerns. When that changes, criticism of GB becomes very valid.

 

However, I believe that any process that works and has sufficient safeguards is a valid process and I believe that the media is a sufficient safeguard for places like GB.

 

I had a sneeking suspision you were in a self deluded reality. "This is propaganda. It is unlikely to be true." With one sweeping statement you have shown a total lack of understanding of the espionage community. I don't care what Bush says or what Blair says or what any other politicion or propagandaist says, if any evidence proving guilt was obtained from a source that is still active, any use of that evidence in "due process" (or even by simply taking preventative measures) will kill the source and any innocent people who that source has protected. This is an absolute undesputible truth even if you don't like some of the people arguing it..

you don't seem to understand what due process is.

It differs a little in my country but here is an American definition:

 

[some legal blurb listing standard trial conditions]

 

Well lets see: I've taken legal exams, I'm now qualified to work in law and will soon be working in a law firm. Hmmm, I think I understand what due process is. You could also refer to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human rights too if you like or, if you really want to get detailed, look at some famous cases based entirely on this principal.

 

My point is that "due process" in all terrorism cases (not all cases) will cause people to die. The alternative is not a nazi regime. That's just scaremongering. The alternative is a society which tries its best to look after the human rights of its citizens whilst for those it knows or with good reason genuinely believes to be a danger to society via Islamic (or other) terroristm, their human rights will only be protected as far as is safe. Hardly a "nazi regime".

 

The problem is there is a gap in the law. The Geneva conventions covers prisoners of war. A prisoner of war is a person who has become a soldier mainly because he is a patriotic citizen of that country or has been forced into joining. As such, a soldier is a tool of the government and a state should take out any issues with that government rather than making the soldier suffer for an act he is not responsible for. Once captured, a prisoner of war ceases to become a threat once the armed forces of the government who gave that soldier orders has been militarily defeated. Further, one does not need 'proof' and 'due process' to hold a prisoner of war. However, a terrorist is not a prisoner of war. A terrorists has made the individual choice (independant of government control) to dedicate his life to his cause. Al Qaeda's cause is to kill as many infidels as possible. As such, like a common criminal, he is a danger to society as an individual and even if Al Qaeda is defeated he will remain a danger until death or imprisonment. Thus all the law regarding prisoners of war is totally inapropriate against (Islamic) terrorists.

 

Alternatively one could look for the criminal law. A murderer is someone who kills with the intention to kill. One could attempt to try a murderer but his guilt would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and evidence must be provided. This is usually sufficient because most of the time, even good murderers leave tracks and often even the most sensitive information will not be a state secret and a threat to national security. Also, since most crimes have a personal connection, normal evidence procedures are usually sufficient. Thus, 'due process' is the best way to deal with criminals. However, terrorists, are not individuals, they are a collective group who work as a shadowy orginisation. They are experts at covering their tracks and playing the espionage game and most insight in their activities comes in the form of a source which, if revealed, could pose a genine threat to society. Therefore one cannot let terrorists be treated like normal criminals because the evidential burden of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is too high. One would either have to release those known to be terrorists or convict them using evidence whose release will cause cirtain death to innocents and secret agents.

 

Thus a third system specifically for terrorists must be found whereby the evidential burden is reduced and secret sources can be looked at without notifying the defence. Unfortunately all attempts to produce such a legal regime have breached existing human rights laws.

 

So one cannot treat them as a POW, nor as a criminal. What else other than GB can one use?

 

Also you seem to have little understanding of what makes our society great. Human rights is only one element. Our success with democracy and the free market, our open multiculturalism and tollerence to all other cultures, our freedom of thought and speech, our separation of church and state and our genuine desire to make the world a better place by freeing oppressed people and targeting aid to places hoping to establish peace in war torn regions also make Western Civilisation head and shoulders above any other civilisation that has ever existed.

 

Lasly, I have seen no evidence that any people held are innocent and especially none that any were patriotic. If they were, what were they doing fighting for the Talaban anyway????

The USA and its friends in Pakistan supported the Taliban for yers like good patritiotic citizens or has no-one told you.

By patriotic I ment people who believed in democratic principles

 

Lol, I don't even know where to begin to find clear problems with this argument.

 

Firstly, your definition of 'patriotic' is well off. Patriotic is someone who wishes to act in the interests of his country. Those Westerners found fighting for the Talaban against American and other Western forces are the antithesis of patriotic. The are an enemy of all Western the states. This is how the majority of GB inmates found themselves in GB.

 

Secondly, regardless of your defintion of 'patriotic' just because Western powers believed it was in their interests to support groups and regimes that later turned out to be a real threat to Western civilisation does not make it 'patriotic' to support those former allies once it is clear that those regimes are not Western allies by either definition. So your point is that in our past, our daddys elected leaders who made a bad choice of friends while fighting the cold war. That does not mean it is right or in any way patriotic to continue our daddy's mistakes for no reason other than habbit. What next? Are you going to propose that France had no right to protect itself from Nazi Germany because French and German troops were allies during the crusades? You need to understand that political climates CAN CHANGE. Your conclusion that 'therefore those trying to kill us right now are patriotic' is another logical obsurdity.

[TheFaithfulStone]

What was disturbing about your alligation was that "the US intented to hold the prisoners at Gitmo without representation, recourse, or outside monitoring until they were all dead. And maybe add a few more along the way." The idea that the bush wish to hold terrorists not for the time necessary to keep us safe (legitimate self defence even if you disagree with the politics) but to hold them (without trial) UNTIL THEY ARE DEAD POSSIBLY KILLING OTHERS ALONG THE WAY is an allagation of a most serious crime: the killing of many people (not for self defence) with the intention to kill aka MASS MURDER. Finding evidence to back up Bushes support for GB does not amount to 'every bit of evidence' supporting the main and most shocking and as yet unsubstantiated allegation of your statment.

 

That would be a straw man sebby, with a slippery slope thrown into boot.

 

My contention was that GB was designed to hold accused terrorists forever - I provided evidence that that was the intent of the Bush Administration. My contention was that GB could add prisoners. Clearly prisoners were added to Gitmo. I am not sure if prisoners are STILL being added to Gitmo.

 

I also don't think that imprisoning someone for life is the same as murdering them.

 

So - try again.

 

the rights of the innocent and patriotic are worth more than terrorist murderers.

 

The rights of one person are by definition of the same value as the rights of another person - whether both people are fine upstanding citizens, or whether one of them is a terrorist.

 

TFS

[Kayra]

Various quotes from Cedars. No context so beware.

 

I dont consider the fact that these people are fed, housed, receive medical treatment, and given the opportunity to practice their religion a major injustice.

 

 

Kinda sucks for the terrorists when altrusim gets tossed aside for the actions not being reciprocal eh?

 

 

Lots of people decide, most assuridly the governments of each of the detainees.

 

 

Good then let them figure out Gitmo is the prize that awaits them and not 72 raisin covered virgins

 

I would rather be assured this group of terrorists isnt able to take up arms again. I value my own freedom more than theirs. Bummer for them, but Hicks should have stayed home and he wouldnt be in Gitmo.

 

Cedars, you have made it abundantly clear from your posts that you have little regard for due process. You have clearly decided that your government has the right to:

• Arbitrarily decide whom they can jail
  
• Hold them without trial
  
• Hold them indefinitely
  
• Force them to give evidence against themselves. (torture)
  
• Deny them basic rights granted mass murderers, rapists, and child molesters in your own country.
  

You accept and even applaud your governments attempts to circumvent their own laws and even basic internationally established human rights.

 

You have agreed with me that the United States will feel justified in using methods that circumvent almost every aspect of what makes them a free country, and happily so.

 

All so long as they do not apply to US citizens.

 

Well, speaking as one of those non-US citizens… The US government, and more specifically the Bush Administration, can Bite me.

 

Sleep well Cedars… Sleep well indeed.

 

It is a myth that the President and the DoD have been unilaterally applying this policy without involvement of the other branches of Government. Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was sighted by Justice Scolia in his dissent of the recent Supreme Court decision. This act is proof of the ongoing process within the US government in regard to Guantanamo Bay.

 

Bill

U.S.: Landmark Torture Ban Undercut

 

That act?

Wouldn't you say that this myth has some basis in fact?

[Cedars]

Various quotes from Cedars. No context so beware.

 

 

'Nuff said.

[TheBigDog]

U.S.: Landmark Torture Ban Undercut

 

That act?

Wouldn't you say that this myth has some basis in fact?

The congress has granted the authority for military tribunals for the detainees to be conducted by the military, with oversight granted to the DC District Court. The Congress is also providing oversight in the form of reports of all trial activities.

 

It is long standing international law that prisoners taken during a war do not need to be released or charged until the end of hostilities. These are men captured in war. Because they are not fighting on behalf of any nation, but instead are at war on behalf of a nebulous organization there is no precedent in international law for how they should be handled. The Congress as the authority to make laws that differ from the guarantees for the constitution that are applied to the armed forces and those encountered in battle. These are the rules begin applied to the detainees, and that is why they are beging treated as they are. This is nothing new, and while it will not comfort those who see this as a new evil twist to the US, we are in fact working within our precident of law, and handling issues that are unprecidented at the same time.

 

Here is an interesting report given to the Congress in 2004 regarding the history of military tribunals in the US armed forces.

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32458.pdf

 

While the methods of gathering men to Guantanamo may be distressing, the historical legal precident allows for the current actions - interigation methods as another issue from the holding of the men in question.

 

What is interesting to note is that there is precident for using military tribunals even for US citizens on US soil. This could have been done for the "American Taliban", but the administration chose to use federal courts and rules instead - something they are not given credit for. The same could have happened to Atta, but again the decision was made to use the federal court system. In 1942 there were 8 German's who landed on US soil by submarine, and were intent to engage in sabotage. One of the eight had US citizenship. This did not stop Roosevelt from using a military tribunal to try him.

 

Bill

[Kayra]

“In common law, habeas corpus is the name of several writs which may be issued by a judge ordering a prisoner to be brought before the court. More commonly, the name refers to a specific writ known in full as habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, a prerogative writ ordering that a prisoner be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not the prisoner is being imprisoned lawfully.”

 

 

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/16/usdom12311.htm

Regarding the Graham-Levin Amendment

“The new language would expand the prohibition on habeas review to cover all other claims – making it almost impossible for detainees at Guantánamo to seek relief from torture or cruel treatment. “

 

Regardless of whether torture is going on (Like fake executions), some law makers are trying to remove the right for the US courts to even determine if humane treatment is being provided, or even intervene if it is not.

 

 

The congress has granted the authority for military tribunals for the detainees to be conducted by the military, with oversight granted to the DC District Court. The Congress is also providing oversight in the form of reports of all trial activities.

 

Military Tribunals (as defined by the United States) have been found by international laws to be insufficient to ensure human rights.

 

 

It is long standing international law that prisoners taken during a war do not need to be released or charged until the end of hostilities. These are men captured in war. Because they are not fighting on behalf of any nation, but instead are at war on behalf of a nebulous organization there is no precedent in international law for how they should be handled. The Congress as the authority to make laws that differ from the guarantees for the constitution that are applied to the armed forces and those encountered in battle.

 

They have that right, Congress is after all the legislature arm of the government... but only within the U.S. borders. Outside of US soil they are and should be bound by international agreement.

It is true that the world is in the throes of situations that have no legal precedence, and that makes this situation doubly dangerous. The precedents that the Bush administration (and other key parts of government) are trying to implement are, by growing international and internal awareness, not even in the realm of reason.

 

It is not what the government is doing that is at issue, but what the new precedents it is trying to set will allow it to do that is the real danger here. The precedents would give the military, and by chain of command, the executive branch of the government, powers that are in no way consistent with the US scheme of government. They allow the President to act without congressional authority, even in the face of statutory restrictions.

 

Anyone that can not see how insane it is to allow this has completely lost perspective in my opinion.

 

 

These are the rules begin applied to the detainees, and that is why they are beging treated as they are. This is nothing new, and while it will not comfort those who see this as a new evil twist to the US, we are in fact working within our precident of law, and handling issues that are unprecidented at the same time.

 

I personally do not see the US as some Evil entity. Quite the opposite. The very fact that it is struggling with this issue internally speaks well of it’s system of justice. As I see it though, the Bush administration is attempting to set a precedent that is wholly unacceptable.

 

 

Here is an interesting report given to the Congress in 2004 regarding the history of military tribunals in the US armed forces.

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32458.pdf

 

While the methods of gathering men to Guantanamo may be distressing, the historical legal precident allows for the current actions - interigation methods as another issue from the holding of the men in question.

 

What is interesting to note is that there is precident for using military tribunals even for US citizens on US soil. This could have been done for the "American Taliban", but the administration chose to use federal courts and rules instead - something they are not given credit for. The same could have happened to Atta, but again the decision was made to use the federal court system. In 1942 there were 8 German's who landed on US soil by submarine, and were intent to engage in sabotage. One of the eight had US citizenship. This did not stop Roosevelt from using a military tribunal to try him.

 

Bill

 

In point of fact, the administration had more precedent to choose a tribunal for the American then it did for anyone else.

 

Did you know that all officers in that tribunal for the Germans (including the defense) were, by US law, appointed by the President, and were subordinate to him?

Did you know that in that process, the suspects were not aware that one of the suspects had been promised immunity if he implicated the other saboteurs. The convicted suspects were executed by firing squad the same day they were convicted. The suspect who had been promised immunity was given a thirty year sentence.

Did you know that in 1944 the Roosevelt administration apprehended 2 more German spies, but decided that the previous tribunal of 1942 was fundamentally flawed and so used a different trial method?

 

This case was an internal matter occurring on US soil. Some other instances of tribunals were during the American Revolution by General Washington, and Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. After Lincoln, Congress put in place laws restricting the use of tribunals when civilian courts were open and operating.

 

Almost every other incident occurred during a state of martial law where the military court supersedes the judicial one in the area where martial law was declared.

 

The United States has the self declared right to disregard their own laws if they wish, on American Soil or within a country they are invading. It is up to the American People and Law Makers to decide if and when they will allow this.

 

When not on US Soil, would it not be prudent to at least pretend to adhere to International standards?

 

Supreme court Judge Joseph Story Put it nicely when, on speaking of the necessity of Congress to set rules for military conduct and defining the “Articles of War” that “The whole power is far more safe in the hands of congress, then in the hands of the executive; since otherwise the most summary and severe punishments might be inflicted at the mere will of the executive”

 

Bush is trying to do an end run on Congress. Keeping prisoners off American soil... When that was becoming problematic, then he attempted to have tribunals set up.

Since that has failed (as they thought it probably would), they are now offering to pay for, and build prisons in other countries... as well as pay for the training the guards, as long as the countries in question assures them that the prisoners will not be released. They are paying another country to violate rights that their own people and lawful government are currently struggling with determining the validity of.