Thomas Friedman on Gitmo

[Kelly the Dog]

Exactly!

 

This basic concept is what some on this board can't grasp.

 

9/11

Train bombings in Madrid

Attack on nightclub in Indonesia

Attack on hotel in Africa

Ricin attack headed off in England

Cechnyan(sp?) school attack in Russia

 

If this isn't global, I don't know what is.

346458[/snapback]

Semantics. Sure, it is deadly serious. Sure it is global. Sure it is much bigger than most people realize and/or are willing to admit. Is it a world war as the entire world knows it to be, with dozens of countries armies blowing as many millions as possible up on a daily basis? No.

 

It's a world crisis of the highest order, it's not a world war as we know it. It would become one, however, and millions would die instead of hundreds or thousands, if we start blowing up or exterminating all Muslims as some would like.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Semantics. Sure, it is deadly serious. Sure it is global. Sure it is much bigger than most people realize and/or are willing to admit. Is it a world war as the entire world knows it to be, with dozens of countries armies blowing as many millions as possible up on a daily basis? No.

 

It's a world crisis of the highest order, it's not a world war as we know it. It would become one, however, and millions would die instead of hundreds or thousands, if we start blowing up or exterminating all Muslims as some would like.

346539[/snapback]

 

Now who's using hyperbole?

[Kelly the Dog]

Now who's using hyperbole?

346547[/snapback]

You still?

[Campy]

A formal declaration of war requires a party (nation-state, really) to declare it against.

346524[/snapback]

Exactly. By the letter of the law, as we haven't declared war (regardless of the reason), these people are have rights when detained by a party to the US' federal system of government (ie, either at the national, state, or local level).

 

I'm not "for" terrorists by any stretch. I'm against the governments abuse of power in this case. Why? I guess for the same reason that I'm a proponent of the Second Ammendment although more Americans have been killed by other Americans with firearms than by terrorism. Rights are rights, even if they don't apply directly to me. I don't want the goverment overstepping the limits we gave it when we first agreed to allow it govern us.

[Ghost of BiB]

Some of them would, sure.  Hell maybe even most of them would.  But is the government now going to jail people indefinetly based upon what the government thinks an indivdual thinks? 

 

It's actually pretty simple.  Charge them.  Try them.  Punish them if found guilty, and release them if found innocent.

 

Based upon this thread and others, I honesty think where you and I disagree is that I believe in individual rights like due process, regardless of the atrocities the individual may (or may not) have committed, and you find such rights as an "inconvenience" at work.

346535[/snapback]

 

It goes a lot deeper than that, Campy. Maybe it's more like I view things objectively, and you view them emotionally. Without trying to sound melodramatic, I don't have that luxury. And yes, I find a LOT of things this country does an inconvienience at work. This is one of the lesser ones-but due to the attention it gets, not an insignificant one. I just SO love it when you guys are convinced we are creating more terrorists by having 400 guys locked up in jail-and you all completely blow off the riots and demonstrations going on across the Muslim world over the Newsweek incident. Which one do you think is going to increase the radical base more?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You still?

346551[/snapback]

 

Even during WWII, we never killed ALL Germans or ALL Japanese. Just enough of them such that they were forced to surrender unconditionally. That's what this war needs. The unconditional surrender of the Arab world to us.

[Ghost of BiB]

Even during WWII, we never killed ALL Germans or ALL Japanese. Just enough of them such that they were forced to surrender unconditionally. That's what this war needs. The unconditional surrender of the Arab world to us.

346557[/snapback]

 

And, as an aside- most nations involved summarily executed, or severely handled combatants caught not in uniform. They were treated as spies, or for lack of a better word-terrorists. Most often they were denied any rights under any convention.

[Johnny Coli]

If the Iraqi police capture a terrorist, they can do what they want to him.  We cant police human rights with every country and contractor thats involved. Do we know about what some of these other country's may be doing to their captive terrorist, probably. If the US captures some terrorists in Iraq and turns them over to the Iraqi police and they are tortured, is that are fault? Is that outsourcing?

346534[/snapback]

If we knowingly hand over someone we had our hands on first, with the intention of using the third party to obtain information using means that we do not feel comfortable employing ourselves, than I believe that would be outsourcing, yes.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

And, as an aside- most nations involved summarily executed, or severely handled combatants caught not in uniform. They were treated as spies, or for lack of a better word-terrorists.  Most often they were denied any rights under any convention.

346561[/snapback]

 

We should just respect their rights and give them hugs, maybe get them to sing a few verses of kumbya, then they would be nice and tell us all they know and like us better.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

And, as an aside- most nations involved summarily executed, or severely handled combatants caught not in uniform. They were treated as spies, or for lack of a better word-terrorists.  Most often they were denied any rights under any convention.

346561[/snapback]

 

Well, yes, yes, you are correct! Remember the story of the SS agents caught in NYC after their sub dropped them off on Long Island? They were fried in the chair within months.

 

IMO we're being TOO soft on these bastards because we're worried about what the Arab "street" thinks. Do you think that old farg Roosevelt cared what the German "street" thought when he roasted those Nazi bastards? NO!

 

Methinks the "Street" would be less prone to leaping and screeching if the shadows of B52s flew overhead.

[Campy]

It goes a lot deeper than that, Campy. Maybe it's more like I view things objectively, and you view them emotionally. Without trying to sound melodramatic, I don't have that luxury. And yes, I find a LOT of things this country does an inconvienience at work. This is one of the lesser ones-but due to the attention it gets, not an insignificant one. I just SO love it when you guys are convinced we are creating more terrorists by having 400 guys locked up in jail-and you all completely blow off the riots and demonstrations going on across the Muslim world over the Newsweek incident. Which one do you think is going to increase the radical base more?

346555[/snapback]

Using law to argue one's point isn't objective anymore?

 

I don't know where the "you guys" comment comes from, as I have always said that Newsweeks' comments were irresponsible to the Nth degree. Is it the subtle distinction that I posted that as irresponsible as I believe that article was, Newsweek has the right to publish it free of governmental censorship?

 

And lastly, you're drawing comparisons between Newsweek and our government? Newsweek is a private business whose ultimate responsibility is to its parent company's stockholders. The US government's ultimate responsibility is to you and me as it (supposedly) governs us using a set of rules that are limited by the restrictions we (collectively, as in over the last 225 years) have placed upon it.

[Ghost of BiB]

It isn't objective if the law doesn't have much, if any relevance to the situation. A hypothetical situation for example:

 

"We" are aware that country "A", not an enemy-but not a friend, either-is planning to trans ship a nerve agent pre-cursor to country "B" so it can be used to make Sarin by country "C" with an arrangement to sell the finished product to terror organization "D". It has been determined that the only reliable way of preventing this, is to interdict the shipment either in A or B. Neither of those countries is going to be of any tactical or operational help, so using their own forces or police is not an option. Attacking "C" is not an option because of other political considerations. The solution is to intercept and defeat the material using some particular force package of one kind or another. All of this, by international law is illegal. So, what do you do? Intercept and render safe the shipment? Or, let the nerve gas get made and try like hell to deal with it then?

 

And "You guys" was a generic term. Sorry I was cavalier in applying it to you.

[Campy]

It isn't objective if the law doesn't have much, if any relevance to the situation.

346589[/snapback]

I agree with that. But the laws on the books are relevant to Gitmo detainees as ruled in Rusal et al v Bush et al.

 

Perhaps we'd all be best served if the maroons who are debating steroids in sports and judical appointees would take the initiative and create a law that dealt specifically with suspected terrorists?

 

Like I said, I'm primarily concerned with the government acting in a manner prohibited by the laws on its books.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Like I said, I'm primarily concerned with the government acting in a manner prohibited by the laws on its books.

346601[/snapback]

 

And I'd be with you if it was acting outside the bounds of law when dealing with American citizens or citizens of governments that abide by the rule of law. But when it comes to these animals, there are no rules.

[Ghost of BiB]

Perhaps we'd all be best served if the maroons who are debating steroids in sports and judical appointees would take the initiative and create a law that dealt specifically with suspected terrorists?

 

I can agree with that, but then you'd have the same maroons having the same conversations going on here-only on national and international TV. Would only make it worse.

[erynthered]

If we knowingly hand over someone we had our hands on first, with the intention of using the third party to obtain information using means that we do not feel comfortable employing ourselves, than I believe that would be outsourcing, yes.

346567[/snapback]

 

That very well may be happening, who knows for sure. I would think that just the threat of that might make some of them piss their pants and tell the US what they want to know.

 

I'm not sure who's taking all Terrorist prisoners anymore. Is it a regional thing right now?

[Ghost of BiB]

That very well may be happening, who knows for sure. I would think that just the threat of that might make some of them piss their pants and tell the US what they want to know.

 

I'm not sure who's taking all Terrorist prisoners anymore. Is it a regional thing right now?

346618[/snapback]

 

It's usually listed on the back of the trading cards.

[Campy]

And I'd be with you if it was acting outside the bounds of law when dealing with American citizens or citizens of governments that abide by the rule of law. But when it comes to these animals, there are no rules.

346607[/snapback]

Here's the quandry though JSP - The 14th Ammendment and subsequent court interpretations doesn't specify that the right of due process is limited to only US citizens. It includes all people, except those detained in a declared state of war.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Here's the quandry though JSP - The 14th Ammendment and subsequent court interpretations doesn't specify that the right of due process is limited to only US citizens.  It includes all people, except those detained in a declared state of war.

346625[/snapback]

 

So, then, in your interpretation, are these people civilians or soldiers?

[Campy]

It's usually listed on the back of the trading cards.

346622[/snapback]

Some much needed levity. Thanks.

[erynthered]

It's usually listed on the back of the trading cards.

346622[/snapback]

 

 

Nope, just checked. It seems there are some still out there. Maybe you should get back to work.

 

 

 

http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/...rist_tradi.html

 

 

http://happyfunpundit.blogspot.com/2002_02...ve.html#9675425

[Ghost of BiB]

Nope, just checked. It seems there are some still out there. Maybe you should get back to work.   

http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/...rist_tradi.html

346640[/snapback]

 

This is the government. Federal Holiday Monday, which results in extreme screwing off on prior Friday. All the military were out and out off today, most of the civilians took "liberal leave" and when I woke up today I said...nah. didn't go in. I don't think there is anyone there to look for me anyway.

[Campy]

So, then, in your interpretation, are these people civilians or soldiers?

346626[/snapback]

What they're called really doesn't matter.

 

Personally, I think that if they were part of a nation's organized military (Geneva refers to them as an army under the direction of a "High Contracting Authority") captured on a battlefield (like the Iraqi army in Gulf I and the begining of Gulf II), it would make it a lot easier to justify detaining them for the duration of hostilities under the terms of Geneva.

 

But in this case, the administration claimed that the detainees aren't members of a High Contracting Authoritiy's military, and instead claimed that Geneva does not apply as they are "individuals detained as suspected terrorists."

 

Individuals detained by the US are granted certain rights as provided by law, provided they aren't being detained under the mechanisms in place during a state of declared war.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

What I call them doesn't matter.  They are individuals detained without due process, and they aren't being detained under a declared state of war. 

 

Personally, I think that if they were part of a nation's organized military (Geneva refers to them as an army under the direction of a "High Contracting Authority") captured on a battlefield (like the Iraqi army in Gulf I and the begining of Gulf II), it would make it a lot easier to justify detaining them for the duration of hostilities under the terms of Geneva.

 

But in this case, the administration choose to skirt Geneva  by declaring that the detainees aren't members of a High Contracting Authoritiy's military.  They are "individuals detained as suspected terrorists."

 

Individuals detained by the US are granted certain rights as provided by law.

346657[/snapback]

 

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you'd treat these "individuals" as if they were normal civilian criminals...giving them hearings and free lawyers and a public soap box?

 

I gotta say, that would take some serious huevos.

[Campy]

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you'd treat these "individuals" as if they were normal civilian criminals...giving them hearings and free lawyers and a public soap box?

 

I gotta say, that would take some serious huevos.

346664[/snapback]

Yep, that's what I'm saying.

 

And yeah, it'd take some balls. IMO if we are to do any justice to American ideals and the people who died fighting for them over the past two plus centuries, we are obligated to give the detainees their day in court.

 

You might not agree with me, but I'm glad that at least you took the time and effort to see where I'm coming from. Thanks for that.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Yep, that's what I'm saying. 

 

And yeah, it'd take some balls. IMO if we are to do any justice to American ideals and the people who died fighting for them over the past two plus centuries, we are obligated to give the detainees their day in court.

 

You might not agree with me, but I'm glad that at least you took the time and effort to see where I'm coming from.  Thanks for that.

346677[/snapback]

 

I would be curious to see what would happen if these animals were given public hearings.

 

And how exactly would you put them in front of a jury of their peers without collecting up a gaggle of camel-herders?

 

MWAAAA.....

 

No doubt it would probably be like "I am not subject to your infidel laws because Allah has prdained me 999 virgins in the afterlife!"

[Johnny Coli]

Yep, that's what I'm saying. 

 

And yeah, it'd take some balls. IMO if we are to do any justice to American ideals and the people who died fighting for them over the past two plus centuries, we are obligated to give the detainees their day in court.

 

You might not agree with me, but I'm glad that at least you took the time and effort to see where I'm coming from.  Thanks for that.

346677[/snapback]

While I completely agree with you, the government's position, right or wrong, has been that to try these individuals under the same legal procedure afforded a civilian, ie prosecuting with evidence, would reveal how that evidence was gathered in the first place, compromising intelligence.

[Campy]

While I completely agree with you, the government's position, right or wrong, has been that to try these individuals under the same legal procedure afforded a civilian, ie prosecuting with evidence, would reveal how that evidence was gathered in the first place, compromising intelligence.

346687[/snapback]

I don't care if it's a military-style tribunal, provided they receive due process. In fact, that might even be better, provided all records of the proceedings are made public except sensitive intelligence information that could jeopardize our intel gathering efforts or cause an informant or undercover agent to be outted.

 

It doesn't have to be difficult.

[Ghost of BiB]

While I completely agree with you, the government's position, right or wrong, has been that to try these individuals under the same legal procedure afforded a civilian, ie prosecuting with evidence, would reveal how that evidence was gathered in the first place, compromising intelligence.

346687[/snapback]

 

I wasn't going to go there, but FTIW, our closest hold security stuff is that which pertains to intelligence collection. It is the one category that is unifromly considered NOFORN. It would not be a good thing to bring that to light in a trial. Then you'd have these fish tossed back into the pond for lack of evidence - going by our American humanitarian rights of the accused as opposed to the victims rules, of course.

[Ghost of BiB]

I don't care if it's a military-style tribunal, provided they receive due process.  In fact, that might even be better, provided all records of the proceedings are made public except sensitive intelligence information that could jeopardize our intel gathering efforts or cause an informant or undercover agent to be outted.

 

It doesn't have to be difficult.

346701[/snapback]

 

So....you are going to give the acused the precise data that put him in prison, by discussing the particulars at trial...then, possibly allow him to go back to Pakistan and describe all that to the rest of the gang? Plus, America being America-the frenzied masses inflamed by the press will never allow "Secret Trials". It HAS to be a media event.

[Johnny Coli]

I wasn't going to go there, but FTIW, our closest hold security stuff is that which pertains to intelligence collection. It is the one category that is unifromly considered NOFORN. It would not be a good thing to bring that to light in a trial. Then you'd have these fish tossed back into the pond for lack of evidence - going by our American humanitarian rights of the accused as opposed to the victims rules, of course.

346702[/snapback]

What about Campy's suggestion of a military tribunal?

 

The issue I have is the government saying that we can't try these people because it would reveal what intel we got on them and how we got it.

 

There is no independent body to oversee that we aren't just rounding up people based on shoddy evidence. There is no independent body even listing who we have in custody to begin with. A case could be made that if the enemy knew who we had in custody, then that in of itself would compromise the intelligence gathering. But where does it stop? When does it cross the line and become a South American banana republic "disappearing" people for the security of the nation? It smacks of Orwellian paranoia.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

What about Campy's suggestion of a military tribunal?

 

The issue I have is the government saying that we can't try these people because it would reveal what intel we got on them and how we got it. 

 

There is no independent body to oversee that we aren't just rounding up people based on shoddy evidence.  There is no independent body even listing who we have in custody to begin with.  A case could be made that if the enemy knew who we had in custody, then that in of itself would compromise the intelligence gathering.  But where does it stop?  When does it cross the line and become a South American banana republic "disappearing" people for the security of the nation?  It smacks of Orwellian paranoia.

346713[/snapback]

 

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I see "disappearing" these people as a good thing.

[Campy]

So....you are going to give the acused the precise data that put him in prison, by discussing the particulars at trial...then, possibly allow him to go back to Pakistan and describe all that to the rest of the gang? Plus, America being America-the frenzied masses inflamed by the press will never allow "Secret Trials". It HAS to be a media event.

346703[/snapback]

Whatever it takes to have our government operate within the law while respecting the sensitivity of the most compromising intel.

 

I imagine there are ways to make it happen. A military tribunal where we can censor and seal the most sensitive information (specific names, specific intel gathering methods, etc) by allowing one camera in the court and treat the footage like the censored pool footage released during Iraq I? I dunno, but that might be one suggestion.

 

I don't claim to know all of the answers, but we are Americans - If there's a solution, we can find it.

[Ghost of BiB]

What about Campy's suggestion of a military tribunal?

 

The issue I have is the government saying that we can't try these people because it would reveal what intel we got on them and how we got it. 

 

There is no independent body to oversee that we aren't just rounding up people based on shoddy evidence.  There is no independent body even listing who we have in custody to begin with.  A case could be made that if the enemy knew who we had in custody, then that in of itself would compromise the intelligence gathering.  But where does it stop?  When does it cross the line and become a South American banana republic "disappearing" people for the security of the nation?  It smacks of Orwellian paranoia.

346713[/snapback]

 

I thought they were already having military tribunals, and that several had been released. Others get brought in. It's a continual process. It just seems to me that after the 9/11 fiasco, everyone would prefer to err to the side of caution.

[Johnny Coli]

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I see "disappearing" these people as a good thing.

346714[/snapback]

Yes, let's return to Nicaraguan death squads and smuggling coke to arm counter-insurgents. Those sure were happier times under Reagan. It's Morning in America all over again.

[VABills]

I thought they were already having military tribunals, and that several had been released. Others get brought in. It's a continual process. It just seems to me that after the 9/11 fiasco, everyone would prefer to err to the side of caution.

346722[/snapback]

There have been. About 200 or so.

 

Sorry I was looking that up yesterday. Just didn't think anyone would like facts.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Yes, let's return to Nicaraguan death squads and smuggling coke to arm counter-insurgents.  Those sure were happier times under Reagan.  It's Morning in America all over again.

346729[/snapback]

 

Which just so happened to work in the case of Nicaragua. They're now a democratic country and no problem for us.

 

That strategy could work in Iraq and Afghanistan if our country had the balls to do it.

[Johnny Coli]

Which just so happened to work in the case of Nicaragua. They're now a democratic country and no problem for us.

 

346736[/snapback]

Yup. Great place to vacation. Pina Colada's and char-broiled nun.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Yup.  Great place to vacation.  Pina Colada's and char-broiled nun.

346751[/snapback]

 

WAS like that. Not now.

[Campy]

Sorry I was looking that up yesterday.  Just didn't think anyone would like facts.

346732[/snapback]

Facts like that they were denied lawful counsel?

 

Facts that the tribunals were held despite that the detainees hadn't been charged with a crime?

 

Or is it just conveniently ignoring all of the facts posted in this thread with regard to the legal issues surrounding this situation - like the fact that the US government is breaking the very laws and violating the very rights we've entrusted them to defend?

 

The military tribunal-type courts that I referred to in an earlier post should be a hybrid IMO. Civilian procedure and and a matter of public record, with military to adjudicate and seal the uncensored tesitimony/evidence (to be released when it becomes lawfully unclassified - is it 40 years?) and censor the publicly releasedrecords to maintain the sensitivity of intel.

 

The press needs to have access to the public version of the trial records very quickly, not a year after a hearing is held as is the case with the records to which you refer.