It's not easy, running a gulag

[HoreTore]

As to human rights abuses: what human right are you referring to?

I can't speak for him, but I'll name the obvious ones:

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

[Pindar]

Not really the vector has certainly not reached the same magnitude but it is certainly on the go from Western to Eastern justice systems. It is a mini-me gulag not a diet coke evil one.

Direction is going towards:
Torture
Worse conditions for prisoners.
Length of time increasing between detention and trial
Less and less standard defendant means to address the crime they have been accused of.
etc

I don't understand your examples. It sounds like you are confusing criminal and martial legal codes. One thing I'll point out is there is no requirement under the law that trials be held. They are discretionary.

Also the occasional prat party thrown in. You know naked pyramids and dog bites.

Are you talking about Guantanamo Bay or something else?

No. A system that is degrading faster then normal is not in a good state of affairs. If it was a brand new car it would be referred to as a lemon.

If we assume system degradation that is faster than normal degradation (I'm not sure what you're referring to) that equals gulag?

Yes it is, and no the answer isn't.

I see. Those in Guantanamo were primarily captured in a theater of war as illegal combatants. The closest parallel would be POW Camps minus the legal designation as prisoners.

I must be ignorant but that post seems to refer to others (being posters) as being ignorant?

Did other posters write an article on the legal proceedings?

[Pindar]

I can't speak for him, but I'll name the obvious ones:

Article 5....

Hello,

Are you making a legal argument?

[HoreTore]

Hello,

Are you making a legal argument?

You asked which human rights Guantanamo Bay violated, I copied the relevant ones from the human rights charter...

[PanzerJaeger]

Thanks for clearing that up Don.

Pap's a good guy and moderator and definitely no Soly so you are probably right. It just seemed as though in that one instance he may have been blurring the line between his personal opinions and his moderator duties. No big deal, though.

[Papewaio]

Other things I issue warning points for... ignorance would be more of a challenge then so, however it would have to be taken within context of the whole. If it was something out of line it would start with a zero point private PM across the bow so we could sort out if it was a communication mismatch between sender and receiver. The context of this one is more of a challenge to bring more proof to the table, however it wasn't the most eloquent or polite of potential challenges I have seen.

Also I think that gulag is used more often to describe any sort of politcal prison not just Soviet ones... otherwise why describe them as Soviet Gulags as it would be superflous.

They do resemble the Boer War concentration camps... prior to starving all the women and children that is.

WWII Japanese internment camps would be going to lightly, although the Japanese had appalling conditions to say the least and all based purely on racial profiling...

[Xiahou]

When the detainees first showed up in Gitmo, Rumsfeld and Cheney said "Trust us, every single one of them has been personally verified as terrorists, thugs and more dangerous than we know how to deal with". Three years later, under enormous pressure, the Combat Status Review Panel said "well, we can say for certain that 85% of them aren't guilty of anything". Doesn't that make you want to ask Rumsfeld and Cheney why they were so sure in the first place? How did they get it so wrong, when they were utterly convinced that every last one of them was Bin Laden's henchman?

Beyond that, of the 15% remaining,t he Combat Status Review Panel didn't say "yep, these are the bad eggs". They said they didn't have enough information to say anything. And how did the White House respond? Two more years of 'no status'.

I'm not sure where these statistics are coming from. What I've seen said the CSRT found less than 50 out of the (at one time) almost 500 prisoners not to be combatants. That's nothing like 85%. I'm not aware the the CSRT said anything at all about whether the prisoners committed any crimes or not- as it name suggests, I thought that tribunal was only to consider their classification as unlawful combatants. The other, larger portions of the releases, I believe were either because their native countries were allowed to take custody of them or they were deemed to no longer be a threat even if they were one-time Al Qaeda/Taliban fighters.

Thanks for the read Pindar.

Edit:

WWII Japanese internment camps would be going to lightly

Are you serious?

[Pindar]

The article quoted would be the authour you refer to. The others is a blanket statement that may or may not include posters in this thread and may or may not refer to them as ignorant. I am asking for a clarification of the sentence before I pass my own.

Clarifying a sentence. This is the sentence in question:

"I am concerned with uncritical assumptions and judgments, whether it be by ignorant authors of articles on law proceedings or others."

It is divided by a comma. The first clause makes a general statement. That statement is: the subject (me) is concerned (takes note of, worries about) uncritical assumptions and judgments. This is a categorical. What follows the comma then further qualifies the categorical. It says this concern applies to ignorant authors who write on law proceedings and others. The first qualifier is quite specific: ignorant authors writing about a specific topic. The second qualifier is actually redundant as the first clause has already stated a categorical: my concern whenever there are uncritical assumptions and judgments. "Others" therefore applies to all I encounter at anytime and anywhere in the universe who make uncritical assumptions and judgments. It is this phenomenon I am concerned with.

[Pindar]

No. The Backroom is the equivalent of a pub where friends go to discuss ideas. The word "gulag" is a common shorthand (at least where I reside) to denote an internment camp where human rights abuses are common. I could have used "concentration camp" which would have been accurate to the original meaning of the phrase, but that has acquired other popular connotations which may well have been overly hyperbolic.

I see. So where you reside gulag is not hyperbolic, merely noting a place were human rights abuses are common, but concentration camp is hyperbolic.

You didn't answer my earlier question: what human rights are you referring to that are being commonly abused?

For example, I have, in past posts, referred to the United States as a great beacon of liberty that I admire. I do not recall you objecting to my imprecise language that clearly inferred your country was an enormous bonfire upon which sundry freedoms were burning.

Does this mean you used gulag as a metaphor?

I'm not at all sure what else you think it was. I might venture that you defensiveness is also quite telling...The thread title was intended to be a slightly wry attack on the inadequacies of the Bush administration.

Of course there is the rub. I don't consider the use of gulag as slightly wry any more that I would consider the use of holocaust as slightly wry. For myself, when there are episodes is human history where literally millions die because of some evil I try not to dilute those events by using them for some other issue I disagree with unless of course I believe there is in fact a comparable evil.

Even if you dismiss the setback as a mere technicality (and there are many lawyers across the world that disagree, including one member here)...

Which lawyer(s) across the world and here believes the change in the accused status is not a technicality. This would be odd given the very language of the Court (dismiss without prejudice) implies it is a technicality as it has no baring on the case proper.

Since inmates are not being accorded rights under the Geneva Conventions, but on an intepretation of the law that is unique to the United States, they are clearly political prisoners.

I'm not sure I understand the above. It sounds like you believe those who do not meet the standards laid out in the Geneva Conventions are nonetheless to be afforded the standards of the Geneva Conventions. It also sounds like you have issue with the United States following United States law. The final judgment that 'they' are clearly political prisoners means justice is on their side and 'they' should be freed.

I understand your concerns, but there are quite a number of lawyers who disagree with your position, including the Colonel Sullivan quoted in the article. They are not all ignorant.

You cite the Defense Council as an example? Who are the other lawyers who constitute this "quite a number" who argue the judge's ruling "dismiss without prejudice" is not a technicality?

[Pindar]

Here's a different lawyer's view. No doubt his language is imprecise too, uncritically equating the camp to a metaphorical inferno where billions of souls are condemned to eternal agony by a just and loving God, but at least he's had the advantage of actually having been to Guantanamo.

Is this meant to bolster the claim of the earlier article that the judge's ruling to "dismiss without prejudice" is a critical set back of some sort? Is this second article meant as an example of critical thinking? If so, would statements like "Sadly, there is no question that trials in Guantanamo will be unfair." be an example?

[Papewaio]

Did other posters write an article on the legal proceedings?

I am concerned with uncritical assumptions and judgments, whether it be by ignorant authors of articles on law proceedings or others.

The article quoted would be the authour you refer to. The others is a blanket statement that may or may not include posters in this thread and may or may not refer to them as ignorant. I am asking for a clarification of the sentence before I pass my own.

[PanzerJaeger]

Wow - I thought moderators were at least supposed to make an attempt at objectivity.

[Papewaio]

Yes, I only ever give warning points to lawyers, Jesus and the right, apart from when I'm giving warning points to hippies, satanists and the left that is.

So hard being a Kapo in the Gulag, everyone thinks you are against them...

[PanzerJaeger]

It may just be me, but it seems like quite a long stretch to come up with anything objectionable about that statement, and it seems like you're making that stretch(along with the vague threat that accompanied it) due to the position you've taken in this thread.

I dont know if he meant to question anyone's intelligence, but I do know that it is commonplace in the backroom and in all political debates, in far less refined ways. Your rather limited (to one patron) crackdown on the practice is telling.. or, like I said, it may just be me.

[Xiahou]

One thing I'll point out is there is no requirement under the law that trials be held. They are discretionary.

And I, for one, am not sure why some trials are being sought. We don't typically try prisoners of war for crimes (unless they've committed a specfic crime), do we? Some of the charges are puzzling to me. Killing a US soldier- isn't that the combatants "job"? I realize that unlawful combatant is a lesser status than POW, but still I don't understand some of the charges.

But, that's not an argument for release either.

[Don Corleone]

And I, for one, am not sure why some trials are being sought. We don't typically try prisoners of war for crimes (unless they've committed a specfic crime), do we? Some of the charges are puzzling to me. Killing a US soldier- isn't that the combatants "job"? I realize that unlawful combatant is a lesser status than POW, but still I don't understand some of the charges.

But, that's not an argument for release either.

They're not POW's. If they were, they'd have Geneva convention protections.

They're basically in that limbo that happens when you suspend Habeus Corpus. In other words, they're detained at the whim of the president, no viable reason given.

[Xiahou]

They're not POW's. If they were, they'd have Geneva convention protections.

Yes, I know- but it's the closest parallel. They're similar to POWs, except they don't enjoy all the rights and privileges given to those who conduct warfare according to the Conventions.

Again, if we think they committed a warcrime or espionage ect, by all means, try them for it. But charging them for killing a soldier seems pretty stupid to me. You don't need criminal charges to hold a combatant.

[Don Corleone]

There's a fundamental principal in Western law. It dates back over 1000 years. It's called Habeus Corpus, Latin meaning "Show the body". Contrary to proper folklore, it doesn't mean that if you properly dispose of a corpse you cannot be tried for murder. It means that no sovereign, even the king, could detain somebody for 'no reason given'. If somebody was a murderer, you had to say they were, that you were holding them for the murder and who the victim was.

We suspended habeus corpus for those being held in Guantonomo. We claim that we can do this, because we are under no compulsion to recognize their right to Habeus Corpus (the right to be charged with something) because they're not American citizens. I'm not a legal scholar, I can only speak to the Fairness doctrine, and this one fails the smell test. It may be perfectly legal to hold somebody without listing any charges against them, which means that you can effectively hold them until the end of time, but that doesn't make it right.

I see the whole legal justification for holding the detainees as the latest varient on the whole 'can we versus should we' argument. I cannot speak to the 'can'. But I can speak to the should. Unless we have very good reasons for doing it, the credibility hit we suffer seems to make it a poor bargain. What's more, it just seems morally unjustifiable. We were told that in this particular case, we had to be allowed to make this Faustian bargain, because these men were all, every last one, proven to be so absolutely dangerous.

Now, it's come to light that once again, the White House may not have given us the whole story on that last assessment either. They released a large batch of these prisoners without a word to explain why they were detained in the first place. Of the ones they've continued to hold, they simply say "it's too dangerous to the country to tell you why we're holding them. We can't even tell a judge at a tribunal sworn to secrecy, even if it were run by the JAG corps".

So whether they're unlawful alien enemy combatants or they're enemy unlawful alien combatants, or they're blue and green mice from Mars, we should either charge them as criminals for whatever crimes we suspect them of or we should release them. How the very act of charging them, when the court documents could in fact be sealed, violates our security in an unacceptable fashion, 5 years after their original detention, is beyond me. I will say, it doesn't speak very well of the Bush administration's regard for the American citizens who have taken oaths to the court that they cannot trust them to respect sealed indictments.

In other words: If Al Capone and Herman Goerring weren't too dangerous to arraign, how can these guys be?

[HoreTore]

They're still subject to the human rights, as those rights can never, ever be removed, under any circumstances whatsoever.

[Xiahou]

So Don, f they were held as POWs, would you expect Habeas Corpus to apply? I'm not aware of it applying to POWs anywhere in the Geneva Conventions. Yet, you seem to think it should apply to those who have chosen not to fight by the rules of war. You don't charge POWs to be able to hold them, but you say that should be the requirement of unlawful combatants...

Invariable some of those captured are not going to be combatants, but unlike you, I was actually pleased to hear that dozens were released after review by Combat Status Review Tribunal. Comparatively few of those were also not released, but that was because their native country wouldn't take them, or they would be tortured/killed if returned and they were transferred to a separate portion with many more freedoms and recreation available until we figured out where to send them.

The real downside to Gitmo has been the bad politics of it. The politically expedient thing to do would probably be just to send them off to their native countries where they'll never be heard from again. I'm not sure that's the moral thing to do though.

[KafirChobee]

Argueing the finer points of whether Gitmo's concentration camp facilities qualify as a gulag is a mute point. The fact that it is an illegal detention facility is a reality, a clever circumvention of our laws and a justification for our fears. Argueing it is the size that matters (heard that one before in a different context) on how one defines a facility, as opposed to the actions being conducted within it - is bogus at best. Criminal justification at worst.

That even Amnesty International has raised questions about Gitmo, and has joined forces with other humanitarian organizations to expose it for what it is and shut it down, demonstrates how far we (the USofA) have fallen away from our principles of "do no evil". Now we (some of us) are in the belief of "see no evil", ergo it doesnot exist; and if someone in our government says there is smoke - there must be fire (even when the only smoke is coming from the smoke screen for their justifications for maintaining and sponsoring such an evil place).

Personally, Don Corleon's summation on page one was well thought out and presented in a noncompassionate, thorough manner. As he put it (loosely), it is a more a matter of the Bushys saving face on the matter, than anything else. We all know how much they hate admitting to making an error in judgement - or ineptness.