The "war on terror" is a "mistake",

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

I have to question the facts in the paper below, just as I do any "information" given. The foot note on page two states, "The authors are counsel for two detainees in Guantanamo."

I would hope that there are "impartial" studies that could be quoted instead, as I would propose that this "data" is very biased (as it should be).

 

[wolfen]

Since everyone is trumpeting about human rights violations at Guantanimo, I wonder what Daniel Perls wife would say about her husbands civil rights being violated. And they were violated worse than anyone who has been detained at Guantanimo.

Thank you, at least I'm not the only one who remember that

 

[MontyB]

Since everyone is trumpeting about human rights violations at Guantanimo, I wonder what Daniel Perls wife would say about her husbands civil rights being violated. And they were violated worse than anyone who has been detained at Guantanimo.

You know I don't care about the human rights of terrorists, when you find them you can lock them up in and type of prison you like, you can string them up by the testicle's, shoot them or if you really have to, force them to watch The View 24/7 what I don't like in all this is the void that seems to exist around them and the cyclic justification for keeping people locked up with no recourse to clear themselves or be held accountable for their crimes.

Most of us are used to living in societies that have finite processes to justice:
- Investigation.
- Trial.
- Release or sentence and punishment.

It strikes me that peoples complaints with Gitmo are that the trial part has been completely over looked and that these people are in prison because they are terrorists and by default are terrorists because they are in prison.

So even though I don't care about the treatment of those convicted of terrorism I do get very nervous when a government can take you off the streets and drop you in a prison with no possible way of clearing yourself other than via outside intervention (such as the media).

 

[wolfen]

Just think Monty, somday here soon, maybe they will let us kill terrorists

 

[Ted]

This was just posted by the News Manager: "AP - Two of the five men accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11 attacks offered unapologetic admissions of guilt..." http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/gitmo-war-court-back-what-t71385.html

Yep.... they admitted. And water-boarding isn't torture. If they would have stuck me there I would sing like a canary too. Having someone in a cell for a couple of years, using somewhat deviant means of interrogation for a democracy and no outlook on any trial or charge.... I am not the least bit surprised they admitted.

And you keep going on about Daniel Perls human rights being violated. He had done nothing wrong (as far as we know) and his rights were violated. You are upset about this. But fill in the name of some of the prisoners at Gitmo and you don't mind on bit. In both cases you don't know if either of them has done something wrong...

 

[senojekips]

Since everyone is trumpeting about human rights violations at Guantanimo, I wonder what Daniel Perls wife would say about her husbands civil rights being violated. And they were violated worse than anyone who has been detained at Guantanimo.

The beheading of Daniel Perl was carried out by small group of extremist persons, it was not organised by the country's government, and deliberately done to try and bypass the law of the land and deny the prisoners, natural justice, and POW status.

People are murdered all over the world every day by crackpot groups. Most people expect better from the government of the most powerful nation on earth.

 

[Ted]

Well said Senojekips. This is the point I tried to make only a tad less eloquently.

 

[perseus]

You know I don't care about the human rights of terrorists, when you find them you can lock them up in and type of prison you like, you can string them up by the testicle's, shoot them or if you really have to, force them to watch The View 24/7 [ quote]

Monty I agree with your emphasis on whether they are guilty, however as discussed elsewhere a terrorist to one person is a freedom fighter to another. Which of the following would you include for this treatment?

A Palestinian who blew up a bus with children on?
as above but with soldiers on?
Israelis who deliberately targeted civilians
Bomber Harris
The million or so members of the KKK back in the 60s
Animal rights protestors
Che Guvera
Nelson Mandela
Anti-Abortionists
Suffrajets (OK forget about the testicles bit)
German spies in WW2
The French Resistance in WW2
Anti globalisation movements
Environmental movements
The Soldiers involved in the My Lai Massacre
Likewise for similar atrocities in Iraq

Lets say all of the above were involved in a death of someone but probably caused no more suffering than a common murderer

 

[perseus]

With regard to whether any of these groups should be tortured at all surely depends on whether any good will come of it. That is do they know something which will reduce suffering (assuming it would be realistic to extract the truth) rather than torture them just because they seem to deserve it and the torturer may have been bullied themselves. This may seem a liberal attitude but it is more right wing than international rules theoretically allow.

Incidentally Obama has requested a halt to military trials at the Guantanamo detention camp. One judge has already suspended a case.

 

[HokieMSG]

The beheading of Daniel Perl was carried out by small group of extremist persons, it was not organised by the country's government, and deliberately done to try and bypass the law of the land and deny the prisoners, natural justice, and POW status.

People are murdered all over the world every day by crackpot groups. Most people expect better from the government of the most powerful nation on earth.

THe U.S. Army uses the Law of Land Warfare (FM27-10) it is lengthy (248 pages).

Chapter 3 Prisoners of War
64. Qualifications of members of Militias and Volunteer groups.
a. Command by a responsible person
b. Fixed distinctive sign
c. Carrying arms openly
d. Compliance with the Law of War
...
73. Persons comitting hostile acts not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war.
If a person is determined by a competent military tribunal, acting in conformity with Article 5, not to fall in any of the categories listed in Article 4, GPW (par 61.), he is not entitled to be treated as a prisioner of war. He is however a "protected person" within the meaning of Article 4, GC (par 247.). NOTE: Par 247 and 248 outline the status of protected persons engaging in conduct hostile to the opposing belligerent.
...
247. Definition of protected persons
Long section outlining the specific definition of a protected person.
248. Derogations
a. Domestic and Occupied Territory
A person who is suspect of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individuals shall not be entitled to claim such rights and priveledges uder the present convention as would, if excercised in favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of the State.
...
...
In each case such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in ease of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular tril prescribed by the present convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and priveledges of a protected person under the present convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power.

You can correctly descern from this that as long as the US government has:
1. Determined that a person is not entitled to be treated as a POW.
2. Listed this same person as a protected person
3. Determined that granting the rights outlined in par 248 would endanger the security of the State.
They can indefinitely detain said individual.

 

[perseus]

The other issue is because these prisoners have been subject to torture their evidence will now be inadmissable so the system has totally backfired.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

The other issue is because these prisoners have been subject to torture their evidence will now be inadmissable so the system has totally backfired.

Perhaps I'm making light of it... but not being given a Bible or Qur'an is NOT torchure.

 

[LeMask]

AB short momma, you shouldnt focus on torture.
You should focus on bad treatment as a whole.

Make the prisonners listen to loud music for hours is torture. If we start to find excuses for mistreating human beings...

I can go on. If we force someone to have sex with a beautiful woman, is it torture? If we "torture" (burn, put dirt on it) a holy book like the Coran in front of a religious extremist, is it torture?

Stop joking around for a minute.

So let's be clear on some points. We dont give a damn about your personnal positions. The men who take care of these prisonners are agents of the state. There is no room for their personnal feelings/opinions etc...

You dont like these terrorists? fine. But you dont have the right to take them prisonners. Only the state have the right to do such things.

And the state have to respect some laws. And these laws are important. From POW treaties to comon human rights... These terrorists have rights.

Even if they dont recognize these rights, we still recognize these rights. That's the difference between us and them.

And we cant let you adopt their laws like that.

So "they torture, we torture" isnt an argument.
"they evil, we evil just with them." doesnt work neither...

If you torture a person, you have to go to jail. If you enjoy hurting people, you need psychologic treatment. If you dont respect some differences in opinion and allow them to exist, you have nothing to do inside a democracy. If you are racist, islamophobic or anything like that... You have to go back to school + psychological treatment.

There is a lot of crazy things happening around us... I'm not an idealist. But I prefer to actually use the little ressources we have to do things right, rather than to start doing **** anyway because "things cant be perfect."

HokieMSG, I have a little question for you. First, thank you for posting these POW laws. But I have a question for you, if it happens that you studied these laws carrefully.

My question is "what if these laws cant be respected?" I mean that I cant see the Iraqis respect such laws. If they carry weapons openly, they get shot. If they carry uniforms, they will be spotted very easily.

I think that it's crazy to ask people things they cant do. How are they supposed to fight a superior invading army?

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

AB short momma, you shouldnt focus on torture.
You should focus on bad treatment as a whole.

LeMask, I added the quote I was addressing in my last post to clarify what I was focusing on at that time. Hope it helps.

As far as I'm concerned, the US has well defined rules on how we will treat others, even terrorists. Yes, some people do break the rules, and when discovered, they get into trouble.

Personally, I'm tired of hearing how "big bad American is mistreating those poor terrorists". IMHO, perhaps they should have thought more carefully before taking the action they did. I taught my children early to think through the consequences before they do anything.

That is just my opinion, I speak only for myself.

 

[Ted]

Personally, I'm tired of hearing how "big bad American is mistreating those poor terrorists". IMHO, perhaps they should have thought more carefully before taking the action they did. I taught my children early to think through the consequences before they do anything.

That is just my opinion, I speak only for myself.

But that is the entire point! If they are proven terrorist, well have fun with them. But these people's quilt hasn't been proven at all.... They haven't been charged, been on trail or anything. And in the US it is still innocent until proven guilty, or at least so some of you claim. The way you are thinking now you should have taught them: even if you haven't done anything you can get arrested at any moment and held indefinitely.

 

[HokieMSG]

The other issue is because these prisoners have been subject to torture their evidence will now be inadmissable so the system has totally backfired.

Be careful. Evidentiary rules in the MCM are different, though similar to civilian laws. Don;t confuse the 2.

 

[HokieMSG]

HokieMSG, I have a little question for you. First, thank you for posting these POW laws. But I have a question for you, if it happens that you studied these laws carrefully.

My question is "what if these laws cant be respected?" I mean that I cant see the Iraqis respect such laws. If they carry weapons openly, they get shot. If they carry uniforms, they will be spotted very easily.

I think that it's crazy to ask people things they cant do. How are they supposed to fight a superior invading army?

LeMask. I'll try to answer your questions.
Concerning each point individually.
a. Command by a responsible person
This is usually supposed to be an officer of the regular military but can be elected by member of the group.

b. Fixed distinctive sign
Can be as small as wearing a helmet or headgear. The fine point is that it has to be distinctive and recognizable.

As far as your statement about "
c. Carrying arms openly
No hiding weapons. Not really an issue as a lot of people in Iraq are armed and carry them everywhere.

d. Compliance with the Law of War. They must follow the Law of War or at least not violate the law of war to qualify.

To answer "what if these laws cant be respected?". Irrelevant. To qualify as a POW you have to follow the rules. If you do not, you are not eligible for treatment as a POW.

They have to figure out how to work within the rules if they want protection from the them.

As far as fighting a superior invading army, look to the Revolutionary War or the Civil war. In the first case the defenders won, in the second, they did not.

 

[perseus]

Be careful. Evidentiary rules in the MCM are different, though similar to civilian laws. Don;t confuse the 2.

My understanding is that it will be very difficult to try them

In May 2007, Martin Scheinin, a United Nations rapporteur on rights in countering terrorism, released a preliminary report for the United Nations Human Rights Council. The report stated the United States violated international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that the Bush Administration could not try such prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal and could not deny them access to the evidence used against them....

On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, described the SCR Tribunals as "an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus" although "both the DTA and the SCRT process remain intact."

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

John Bellinger, who was Condoleezza Rice's legal advisor, spoke about the political battles that took place over its future....there is still the thorny issue of what evidence would be admissible in a federal court. Namely the "enhanced" interrogations used to extract information by the CIA.
Mr Bellinger is clearly uneasy talking about torture. But he says it was "very unfortunate" that techniques like waterboarding - simulated drowning - were ever used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7841805.stm

 

[HokieMSG]

My understanding is that it will be very difficult to try them



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



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7841805.stm

The MCM (Manual for Courts Martial) is pretty explicit about the pre trial investigation and rules of evidence during the pre trial investigation.

Bascially it says that the investigating officer can consider evidence that will not be allowed at trial. Spcifically evidence that might impact National Security.

The MCM also has an entire section (Section III) devoted to evidentiary rules.

The government can also us the MCM to punish offenses against the Law of War.

 

[wolfen]

Personally after Obama closes Gitmo's detention center, I think we ought to take the terrorists back to Iraq, turn them lose, and watch them run away through a 50x scope while we draw a nice bead on em and squeeze the trigger