Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Werent ther tribunals before they went to Gitmo?
Quote:
No, it says a fair and competent tribunal.
According to who? Thats a very general statement. Do the Taliban and AQ have any fair and competent tribunals to try those they capture? How can you expect ! side to follow the conventions past where its required while allowing the otherside to ignore them totally. This is real war not MTW. Peoples lives are at stake here. None of the people there are nice guys. If all of them being locked up stops 1 attack on the US its worth it in my book. Once more their licky to be alive and treated as well as they are. Ive been in jail and I can garuntee these have it better. That aint right.
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
According to who? Thats a very general statement. Do the Taliban and AQ have any fair and competent tribunals to try those they capture? How can you expect ! side to follow the conventions past where its required while allowing the otherside to ignore them totally. This is real war not MTW. Peoples lives are at stake here. None of the people there are nice guys. If all of them being locked up stops 1 attack on the US its worth it in my book. Once more their licky to be alive and treated as well as they are. Ive been in jail and I can garuntee these have it better. That aint right.
I can't figure out which argument you're trying to make here.
Is it that the Geneva Conventions and Laws of Land Warfare do not require a tribunal? I can easily demonstrate that is false if you like.
Or are you arguing that since Al Qaeda didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, the USA is not obligated to respect its own treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Or is it that America can violate human rights, abduct other nations' citizens and torture all it wants so long as it helps America?
Or is it that 'none of the people there are nice guys'? Have you met any of them? Are you sure that none of them were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, or that none of them were handed over by the Northern Alliance because they got bounties from the USA for doing so? How do you know all these things, when you've seen no evidence regarding any of their cases?
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Do the Taliban and AQ have any fair and competent tribunals to try those they capture? How can you expect ! side to follow the conventions past where its required while allowing the otherside to ignore them totally. This is real war not MTW. Peoples lives are at stake here. None of the people there are nice guys.
Because I thought this was good against bad. The good ones always have to follow the rules, the bad ones do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
If all of them being locked up stops 1 attack on the US its worth it in my book. Once more their licky to be alive and treated as well as they are. Ive been in jail and I can garuntee these have it better. That aint right.
Sorry, I cannot follow your reasoning.
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Quote:
Is it that the Geneva Conventions and Laws of Land Warfare do not require a tribunal? I can easily demonstrate that is false if you like.
I said they had a tribunal .
Quote:
Or is it that America can violate human rights, abduct other nations' citizens and torture all it wants so long as it helps America?
Ive seen no evidence of that either.
Quote:
Or are you arguing that since Al Qaeda didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, the USA is not obligated to respect its own treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Again merely accusations and opinions.
Quote:
Or is it that 'none of the people there are nice guys'? Have you met any of them? Are you sure that none of them were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, or that none of them were handed over by the Northern Alliance because they got bounties from the USA for doing so? How do you know all these things, when you've seen no evidence regarding any of their cases?
And how do you know their innocent. War is hell and its ugly. This isnt a game. There are times one has to put faith in ones government.
Quote:
Because I thought this was good against bad. The good ones always have to follow the rules, the bad ones do not.
Youve failed to show we are not following the rules but is there any doubt the enemy has no rules? Live in the real world please. Again their treated better than many prisoners in US jails that did nothing more wrong than sell some pot. This is much to do about nothing.
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Thanks! I think I understand the way the US government argues.
I do not think that it is honest.
Panzer says that in this critical situation the US cannot be considerate of the rights of potential terrorists. That is honest for me!
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
I can't figure out which argument you're trying to make here.
Let me see if I can make it clear.
Quote:
Is it that the Geneva Conventions and Laws of Land Warfare do not require a tribunal? I can easily demonstrate that is false if you like.
That is not what he stated - a Tribunal has been held. Some question the validity of the tribunals that have been held - but no one has shown that they tribunals are not legimate in the basic priniciple of the thing. This might be because the United States Military and the United States Government refuses to allow an impartial investigation into the tribunals - or because of how some would like to read the Geneva Conventions and ignore the Hague Conventions of 1907 in their reasoning.
THe Tribunal does not have to be one established by a Courts Maritial - it can consist soley of officers of the military making a ruling based upon the evidence they have.
Quote:
Or are you arguing that since Al Qaeda didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, the USA is not obligated to respect its own treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Al Qaeda has violated all aspects of the Hague Convention of 1907 - and in warfare they have removed themselves from the protection of that convention which is the basis of the Geneva Conventions. They have no protections under the Geneva Conventions once a Tribunal has determined their statuse. A tribunal has met and determined the status of the AQ and Taliban fighters captured in Afganstan - and that tribunal in Afganstan decided that these individual needed to be sent to GITMO - followed by another tribunal at Gitmo. (All from reading different reports - not first hand accounts).
Now one could safely argue that once its determined that the individual does not fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions ie has to be treated as a POW (and POW status means the nation can hold the individual until the end of hostilities or a parole is given) - that it becomes a criminal manner and the individual should be tried under the trail procedures and rules of the nation in which they were captured in - or by the nation which captured them.
THe Geneva Conventions states which one - but I don't remember the actual wording of that paragraph.
Quote:
Or is it that America can violate human rights, abduct other nations' citizens and torture all it wants so long as it helps America?
The answer to this is no - however show where an individual has been abducted by the United States. Most of the individuals that I would say should not be held at Gitmo from outside Afganstan and now Iraq were handed over by other countries. Others sent to other locations by the United States - like the Canadian citizen were sent when that nation did not want to take the individual back under the conditions that the United States would of liked them to.
Quote:
Or is it that 'none of the people there are nice guys'? Have you met any of them? Are you sure that none of them were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, or that none of them were handed over by the Northern Alliance because they got bounties from the USA for doing so? How do you know all these things, when you've seen no evidence regarding any of their cases?
And neither have you - so neither of you are speaking from first hand experience now? Accusing one person of such a thing - when you yourself are guilty of it - how wonderful.
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain
And how do you know their innocent. War is hell and its ugly. This isnt a game. There are times one has to put faith in ones government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
And neither have you - so neither of you are speaking from first hand experience now? Accusing one person of such a thing - when you yourself are guilty of it - how wonderful.
Woah here boys--both of you have misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying they are innocent--just that we can't presume they are guilty without a single shred of evidence. You are both assuming they are guilty; I am simply pointing out that has yet to be determined.
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Quote:
Woah here boys--both of you have misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying they are innocent--just that we can't presume they are guilty without a single shred of evidence.
How do you know theres not a single shred of evidence? And do you really believe that we are holding these people without good reason? Again just because we are not privy to it doesnt mean theres no evidence. Im sure theres plenty. This is where we dissagree it seems.
Quote:
I am simply pointing out that has yet to be determined.
The tribunals have determined theres enough evidence on these people to hold them. That much has been determined.
What happened to all your legal arguments?
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
That is not what he stated - a Tribunal has been held. Some question the validity of the tribunals that have been held - but no one has shown that they tribunals are not legimate in the basic priniciple of the thing. This might be because the United States Military and the United States Government refuses to allow an impartial investigation into the tribunals - or because of how some would like to read the Geneva Conventions and ignore the Hague Conventions of 1907 in their reasoning.
C'mon Redleg, you know I'm not objecting to the basic principle of the tribunal; that is a straw man. You know I'm objecting to the process, and I think you would object to it as well. It is not regular--the rules are being made up for it as we speak. Only some detainees--from allied nations to whom the US government is showing favoritism--get lawyers; others just get advisors who haven't even been to law school. The American Bar Association and the military lawyers in the US have criticized the process. The lawyers originally assigned to some detainees were fired when they complained the process was inherently unfair. The 'judges' have little to no legal training; one admitted he had no knowledge of the Geneva Conventions! You're defending this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
The answer to this is no - however show where an individual has been abducted by the United States. Most of the individuals that I would say should not be held at Gitmo from outside Afganstan and now Iraq were handed over by other countries. Others sent to other locations by the United States - like the Canadian citizen were sent when that nation did not want to take the individual back under the conditions that the United States would of liked them to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain
Ive seen no evidence of that either.
Neither of you have heard of 'extraordinary renditions'? Its all over the news. Here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...400484_pf.html
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:...nditions&hl=en
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in674973.shtml
I won't even go into ghost detainees, the cases of abductions in Sweden, Romania, etc., because the US has actually defended this practice openly. The evidence is at your fingertips gentlemen.
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Hey have you heard this one?
Quote:
US suspected of keeping secret prisoners on warships: UN official
I AM
I AM SEEKING
With photo
AFP Photo
The UN has learned of "very, very serious" allegations that the United States is secretly detaining terrorism suspects in various locations around the world, notably aboard prison ships, the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism said.
While the accusations were rumours, rapporteur Manfred Nowak said the situation was sufficiently serious to merit an official inquiry.
"There are very, very serious accusations that the United States is maintaining secret camps, notably on ships," the Austrian UN official told AFP, adding that the vessels were believed to be in the Indian Ocean region.
"They are only rumours, but they appear sufficiently well-based to merit an official inquiry," he added.
Last Thursday Nowak and three other UN human rights experts said they were opening an inquiry into the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where Washington has been holding more than 500 people without trial, and into other such locations.
The United States has neither refused nor granted requests by Nowak's group to visit Guantanamo.
"We have accepted, upon the request of the State Department and Pentagon, to limit our investigation for now to Guantanamo, but even in accepting this we have not had a positive response" to the request for a visit, Nowak said.
He said that if the "investigation into Guantanamo leads us to other things, we will follow them. We will bring up all these matters to the US government and expect Washington to say officially where these camps are."
The use of prison ships would allow investigators to interrogate people secretly and in international waters out of the reach of US law, British security expert Francis Tusa said.
"This opens the door to very tough interrogations on key prisoners before it even has been revealed that they have been captured," said Tusa, an editor for the British magazine Jane's Intelligence Review.
Nowak said the prison ships would not be "floating Guantanamos" since "they are much smaller, holding less than a dozen detainees."
Tusa said the Americans may also be using their island base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean as a site for prisoners.
Some 520 people suspected of terrorism are currently being held without trial at Guantanamo and others are in camps the United States has refused to acknowledge, the human rights organization Amnesty International has said.
The United States has said that prisoners considered foreign combattants in its "war on terrorism" are not covered by the Geneva Conventions.
Again theres no proof that anyone at Gitmo was abducted from another country.
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
C'mon Redleg, you know I'm not objecting to the basic principle of the tribunal; that is a straw man. You know I'm objecting to the process, and I think you would object to it as well. It is not regular--the rules are being made up for it as we speak. Only some detainees--from allied nations to whom the US government is showing favoritism--get lawyers; others just get advisors who haven't even been to law school. The American Bar Association and the military lawyers in the US have criticized the process. The lawyers originally assigned to some detainees were fired when they complained the process was inherently unfair. The 'judges' have little to no legal training; one admitted he had no knowledge of the Geneva Conventions! You're defending this?
Then I confused your arguement because you seem to be stating that no valid tribunal has been held because some question it. Well the validaty or not of the tribunals are unknown to us are they not? Careful of stating its a strawman arguement - because it seems that you yourself are guilty of that.
Criticism does not make the process invalid or wrong, it just means its not prefect.
I was a judge on two military trails - and I did not have any previous legal training. However I did have a JAG representive that I could ask questions of concerning court procedures. Military Tribunals do not necessary mean that the individuals sitting on the court have legal training. So sure I will defend it since I sent an individual to prision under the same regulations these tribunals are established under - the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
And frankly we don't know the facts - we only know what is reported and what we ourselves have experienced. You believe its completely wrong, and I believe that the officers that are involved are attempting to do the best they can under the guidelines of the UCMJ that they must follow.
Now on the lawyers being fired because they questioned the process - could it be that is only there side of the arguement. Since I haven't seen a report stating why lawyers have been fired - stating all the reasons in an impartial investigation - I am not sure if they were fired for what they stated - or that there might be other reasons.
A news story without actual proof because it has not been brought on trail. Its an allegation - and you attack the United States for making such allegations about individuals who might or might not be terrorist, like the individual from Canada who the Canadians refused to take back. But seem to accept it at face value when its saying the United States did it, however did you notice this little statement or did it escape your notice.
Scheuer, who supervised the CIA's special unit dedicated to tracking down Osama bin Laden and started the agency's rendition program, said he doubted that the CIA was involved in Nasr's disappearance. "The agency might be sloppy, but not that sloppy," he said. "There is no way they would sanction a kidnapping on Italian soil."
So who did it there Hurin the article contradicts the facts in several instances.
This article does not truely cover your point at all - but talks about sending prisoners to other countries who might or might not torture their prisoners, nor does it state that the countries they would be sent to are their home country of record from such documents as the individual's passport.
Hundreds of detainees held by the U.S. government remain at risk of being sent to countries known for their systematic use of torture, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice charged in a new report released today. The report, Beyond Guantánamo: Transfers to Torture One Year After Rasul v. Bush, reveals that the Administration continues to employ strategies that keep “War on Terror” detainees outside the ambit of the U.S. legal system.
It goes to mention the same Italy case as your first article. Not much of a proof of a systemic problem.
Covers the same subject a little better then the previous two. However it once again fails to mention that the Canadian Citizen in question was going to be returned to Canada if the Canadian government would try them on the evidence that the Canadian government provided to the United States which caused his detention in the first place. Not a balanced piece of reporting at all is it? It also doesn't mentioned that many of these individuals are returned to their orginial countries of orgin.
Quote:
I won't even go into ghost detainees, the cases of abductions in Sweden, Romania, etc., because the US has actually defended this practice openly. The evidence is at your fingertips gentlemen.
Please do - why should I research your points for you. The evidence is not as clear cut as you would image.
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Hey have you heard this one?
Again theres no proof that anyone at Gitmo was abducted from another country.
That and the article forgot to mention Johnson Atoll in the middle of the Pacific
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Ok, let me get this straight: You guys are willing to believe:
1. Every single allegation against the detainees at Gitmo, despite the fact that you have seen absolutely no evidence and have no knowledge whatsoever about any of their cases.
1. Not a single allegation against the American military, despite the fact that many pieces of evidence are now in the public domain (the flight numbers and paths of the airplanes used to abduct people in other countries, testimony of detainees and witnesses, the homicides and deaths the US military has acknowledged at Bagram and Abu Ghraib), and that an Italian judge has reviewed the case and ruled that there is sufficient evidence for 13 arrest warrants?
Shouldn't your standards be the same for all?
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Quote:
Ok, let me get this straight: You guys are willing to believe:
1. Every single allegation against the detainees at Gitmo, despite the fact that you have seen absolutely no evidence and have no knowledge whatsoever about any of their cases.
How can we when we dont know what those allegations are specificaly?
Quote:
Not a single allegation against the American military, despite the fact that many pieces of evidence are now in the public domain (the flight numbers and paths of the airplanes used to abduct people in other countries, testimony of detainees and witnesses, the homicides and deaths the US military has acknowledged at Bagram and Abu Ghraib)
We never said that either. We know there have been abuses and they have been looked into and reported to death.
Quote:
and that an Italian judge has reviewed the case and ruled that there is sufficient evidence for 13 arrest warrants?
AS Redleg sais so then are you saying these 13 are guilty? You seem all to ready to belive that yet doubt us.
Quote:
Shouldn't your standards be the same for all?
They are. You are the one who wants the US to be held to higher standards than the rest of the world and especially terrorists.
Re: What Could Be Worse Than Gitmo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Ok, let me get this straight: You guys are willing to believe:
1. Every single allegation against the detainees at Gitmo, despite the fact that you have seen absolutely no evidence and have no knowledge whatsoever about any of their cases.
Well since the vast majority are from Afganstan and were captured fighting against United States forces - not as members of the Taliban. Then those individuals have absolutely no protections via the Geneva Conventions, and have recieved not only one tribunal - the first being the one in Afganstan that got them seperated from the others and sent to Gitmo - plus others. The question was not about every single allegation - but the purpose of Gitmo. Have there been a few abuses of sending individuals who should not have been sent to Gitmo - never said there was none - just that its not as systemic as you would like to believe.
Quote:
1. Not a single allegation against the American military, despite the fact that many pieces of evidence are now in the public domain (the flight numbers and paths of the airplanes used to abduct people in other countries, testimony of detainees and witnesses, the homicides and deaths the US military has acknowledged at Bagram and Abu Ghraib), and that an Italian judge has reviewed the case and ruled that there is sufficient evidence for 13 arrest warrants?
Shouldn't your standards be the same for all?
Never stated that either. And now your using a strawman - because you are not applying your same standards to all either.
Your confusing my support of Gitmo as blind support, where its far from that. I support it because I do not see a better opition for individuals captured on the battlefield as illegal combatants. Because in all honesty the Hague Convention of 1907 state clearly that a summary court martial and a summary execution is what the capturing force can do to such combatants.
