What Is The US Military Afraid Of?

For the last 2 years, hundreds of people have been detained in cages in Guantanamo Bay at a US military base. They have yet to be charged with a crime. They have been denied access to legal advice. Almost all have been denied access to their families.

When, in due course, they are tried, they will be tried by a closed military tribunal. They will have limited access to legal counsel, and no access to the courts for appeals.

If this were to happen in any other country, there would be outrage from the US government about denial of human rights. Why is it being tolerated in, of all places, the land of the free?

And before you all shout "terrorists" and "exigencies of war", let me tell you of some other trials going on. These are also trials of accused terrorists. These are terrorists who, if guilty, were responsible for the deaths of several hundred people in a bombing outrage that shocked the world.

The trials are being conducted in open court with full access to legal counsel. There is every appearance of a fair trial from what one can see. Many have been convicted. One of the accused was recently found guilty, but today the Appellate Court overturned his conviction. This strongly suggests a fair trial process is under way.

Where is this country that is upholding the best traditions of human rights and access to justice for all - even for accused terrorists who challenge their government with bombs and violence?

Indonesia.

Yes, you read that right. Indonesia. That country is holding open trials for all the Bali bombing suspects. The trials have been extensively reported in the media, and there seems little doubt amongst the journalists that the trials are being conducted fairly and properly.

If Indonesia can do this, why can't the USA? What is the US military afraid of, that it avoids a fair and open trial at all costs?

Many commentators have made the obvious comparison between the Bali trials and the Guantanamo Bay detainees. The US is looking increasingly hypocritical as the detention of its prisoners drags on past its second year with no trials yet started.

And one day the US will look back on this period with shame, just as it acknowledges that it treated Japanese Americans shamefully during World War Two.

Sure sets a good example for the Cuban population down there!

You're quite confused. The people being held in Guantanomo aren't criminal defendants charged with a crime. They are combatants captured waging war in a war zone. What country holds criminal trials in the middle of a war for combatants captured in war?

War? What war? Bush declared major combat operations over. He even had a banner:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2003/10/29/image580655x.jpg

The war on terror continues. In any war, the captured enemies are held until the war is over. If you release the captured enemies, they will rejoin the war. During World War II, we held thousand of captured German soldiers in camps throughout the US, and of course, Germany held many allied soldiers. There are no trials because no one claims they commited a crime.

>War? What war?

This seems to be a perfect expression of liberals' view of 9/11 and terrorism - which is precisely why most the thought of handing responsibility for terrorrism to such individuals sickens most Americans.

>Bush declared major combat operations over.

Yes - that was for the war in Iraq. I know you and your liberal brethern are unaware of this, but there's another, ongoing war being fought against Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. The most heious thing about liberals is their refusal or inability to understand that this is a war and to treat it as such.

Believe me, we're well aware of the fact that there are two separate and distinct wars that have nothing to do with each other. Just nice to hear the other side finally admit it.

There was a war on terror. It was abandoned by Shrub to pursue a war in Iraq for the benefit of the Halliburton and Bechtel Corporations, the Carlyle Group (of which Poppy Bush and the bin Ladens belong to), and of course, the Bush 2004 reelection campaign.

Some of the responses to this thread display a breathtaking ignorance of what is going on at Guantanamo.

First, there was no war. Against whom did we declare war? Which country was the enemy? How were these prisoners identified as being enemy combatants?

Second, prisoners of war are supposed to be kept in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The US Military has not applied Geneva Convention principles to them.

Third, contrary to the comments of at least one post, these detainees ARE being held in preparation for trials. The trials are to be conducted by the US military, with charges yet to be determined.

Fourth, there are two Australian detainees. The US has now agreed that when these two come to trial, if they are found guilty they can serve their sentences in Australia. Read the media reports of the agreement between the US and Australian governments if you don't believe me. Similar agreements are being negotiated between the US and British governments at the moment.

Fifth, the conditions in Guantanamo are worse than in a prison, with prisoners being kept in small cages. There are allegations of torture. The International Red Cross was so appalled by one of its few permitted visits that it broke decades of silence on prisoner visits (it usually doesn't comment in order to safeguard future visits) and condemned the US publicly for the way the prisoners are being held. In doing so it jeopardised future visits, but believed it was more important to speak out.

I think some of you guys had better get your blinkers off and start finding out what your government is doing. This is a blot on America's great record of freedom and liberty.

>Some of the responses to this thread display a breathtaking

>ignorance of what is going on at Guantanamo.

Oh, well we haven't all been there like you, so with your first-hand knowledge, it's hard to compete with your insight into what's going on in Guantanamo.

>First, there was no war.

Look what we have here - yet more liberals chiming in to deny that we are at war with Islamic Fundamentalists. "There is no war" - "There is no war" - How do you think that 200 of your fellow countrymen died in Bali? Do you think they got struck by lightning?

Maybe if you close your eyes tightly enough and hold hands with your fellow peaceniks and repeat enough times: "There is no war" - all of those bad mean people who keep blowing things up will just disappear. That seems to be your war strategy.

>Against whom did we declare war?

>Which country was the enemy?

Fucking amazing. There aren't enough bombs or dead bodies which could convince you that there's a war going on. You're like a 3 year-old - refusing to believe things that you wish didn't exist. Fortunately, the leaders of our respective countries are adults, not children, and don't "think" the way you do.

>Second, prisoners of war are supposed to be kept in accordance

>with the Geneva Convention. The US Military has not applied

>Geneva Convention principles to them.

Boo hoo. I love how liberals come here every day and express concern and sympathy for those who deserve it - Saddam and Al Qaeda.

There is, and always has been, a difference between prisoners of war and illegal combatants. It's touching how you want to make sure that the terrorists in Guantanamo have softer pillows and nicer cells, but there's no basis in international law for your demands. So keep whining.

>Third, contrary to the comments of at least one post, these

>detainees ARE being held in preparation for trials. The

>trials are to be conducted by the US military, with charges

>yet to be determined.

None of them is guaranteed a trial. And I notice when referring to "at least one post," you didn't answer the question posed by that post: What country holds trials in the middle of a war for people catpured in war zones?

>Fourth, there are two Australian detainees. The US has now

>agreed that when these two come to trial, if they are found

>guilty they can serve their sentences in Australia. Read the

>media reports of the agreement between the US and Australian

>governments if you don't believe me. Similar agreements are

>being negotiated between the US and British governments at

>the moment.

So what?

>Fifth, the conditions in Guantanamo are worse than in a

>prison, with prisoners being kept in small cages. There are

>allegations of torture.

What "allegations of torture"? Allegations made by whom?

The International Red Cross was so

>appalled by one of its few permitted visits that it broke

>decades of silence on prisoner visits (it usually doesn't

>comment in order to safeguard future visits) and condemned the

>US publicly for the way the prisoners are being held. In

>doing so it jeopardised future visits, but believed it was

>more important to speak out.

We all know that international organizations are totally objective and have no political agenda at all, so whenever they say anything, we fall over prostrate and genuflect.

>I think some of you guys had better get your blinkers off and

>start finding out what your government is doing. This is a

>blot on America's great record of freedom and liberty.

Oh, look - another anti-American lecture from the Austrialian imbecile whose leftist politics have been rejected resoundingly in his own country. I knew you couldn't get through a post without some condescending lecture about how you know best about what the U.S. should do and how the rest of the world (read: the leftsist like you) think badly about us, so we better stop it so you'll like us again.

In case you haven't noticed, Americans after 9/11 really don't give a flying fuck what leftists Europeans and people like you think, and the last thing we're going to do is coddle terrorists and soften our security in order to please the likes of you.

Bush's approval ratings are back up over 60%. John Howard is headed to smashing victory over the anti-war whiners like you in your country. You are a faint, distant, irrelevant voice in the wilderness - dying out slowly, painfully, and deservingly with each passing day.

And as you fade, you can't stick your tongue far enough into the asshole of terrorists. You have adopted the Rimming Stragegy against terrorists - but if you hold your breath waiting for the U.S. or even your country to join you, that will kill you before an Islamic bomb does.

>... and the last thing we're going to do is coddle

>terrorists and soften our security in order to please the

>likes of you.

If you had bothered to read the complaint in the Massaoui case, you would see very clearly that the poor chap is clearly innocent of the crime for which he was charged. So the answer to what Ashcroft is afraid of is simple, aquittal. The poor guy ain't the 20th hijacker and that can only be "proven" by denying him the right to call his own witnesses. It is pretty clear too that the recent scrambling around of the Justice Department shows that they they fear that the same Supreme Court that selected W as President, might very well redeem itself when the Guantanomo cases reach their docket. Did you see today that now their going to let the American citizen, Hamdi, have access to an attorney? And it must really piss you off, huh that some of the "enemy combatants" are going home where they are free to describe the torture they suffered in Cuba. Luckilly for the rest of us, the Constitution has stood up to domestic tyrants before and always emerged victorious!

>If you had bothered to read the complaint in the Massaoui

>case, you would see very clearly that the poor chap is clearly

>innocent of the crime for which he was charged. So the answer

>to what Ashcroft is afraid of is simple, aquittal.

So what? He's an admitted member of Al-Qaeda and a loyalist of Osama bin Laden and expressly dedicated to the desturction of the United states. He should never have been placed into the civilian judicial system, but instead, tried in a military tribunal and then shot.

> The poor guy . . .

THIS - about an admitted member of Al-Qaeda and follower of bin Laden. At least you more honestly state what the other members of the There-Is-No-War brigade feel, too.

>Did you

>see today that now their going to let the American citizen,

>Hamdi, have access to an attorney?

I agree that American citizens shoudl be given due process and the right to an attorney. That's the one area where I disagree with what the DOJ has done and, as it looks, most courts are heading to that conclusion, too.

And it must really piss

>you off, huh that some of the "enemy combatants" are going

>home where they are free to describe the torture they suffered

>in Cuba.

No, it doesn't piss me off at all. If there are people in Guantanomo would can be safely released, they should be. The fact that the U.S. Government is releasing many of them, when they don't have to, proves pretty clearly that they have nothing to hide, and that they aren't interested in detaining poeple who don't belong there.

>Luckilly for the rest of us, the Constitution has

>stood up to domestic tyrants before and always emerged

>victorious!

The courts have almost unanimously affirmed the right of the Government to hold those terrorists in Guantanomo - the Government has had one victory after the next in the courts with regard to their post-9/11 law enforcement. The line seems to be drawn at U.S. citizens, where it should be, but your proclamations of victory, in light of this judicial record, are just ramblings of a madman.

Poor poor Moussaoui. Don't worry - he'll be dead soon and you won't have to worry about him. Maybe you'll take his place in his jail cell, you cute little Al-Qadea symapthizer, you.

>He should never have been placed into

>the civilian judicial system, but instead, tried in a military

>tribunal and then shot.

Perhaps, but are you saying that in a miliatary tribunal it would not or should not matter if the accused was not guilty of the charged offense? Charge Massaoui with anything you want, but it is pretty clear that he was not part of the conspiacy on September 11th and was not a 20th hijacker under any legal theory that I am aware of, or the facts as alleged in the Complaint itself.

>I agree that American citizens shoudl be given due process and

>the right to an attorney. That's the one area where I

>disagree with what the DOJ has done and, as it looks, most

>courts are heading to that conclusion, too.

My, my aren't you feeling generous today!

>No, it doesn't piss me off at all. If there are people in

>Guantanomo would can be safely released, they should be.

... especially if they committed no crime? Would you pay them compensation for their false and malicious deprivation of liberty?

>The

>fact that the U.S. Government is releasing many of them, when

>they don't have to, ....

How do you figure that the U.S. does nothave to release prisoners against whom the U.S. has no evidence of criminal conduct?

>The courts have almost unanimously affirmed the right of the

>Government to hold those terrorists in Guantanomo - the

>Government has had one victory after the next in the courts

>with regard to their post-9/11 law enforcement.

I'll quote you on that when the Supreme Court speaks as it will soon enough, but ever since they agreed to hear a Guantanomo appeal your friend Mr. Ashcroft appears to be running scared.

>Poor poor Moussaoui. Don't worry - he'll be dead soon and you

>won't have to worry about him. Maybe you'll take his place in

>his jail cell, you cute little Al-Qadea symapthizer, you.

If standing up for the Constitution makes one a cute little Al-Quaeda sympathizer than that's a badge a proudly wear rather than the Brown Shirt with Hitler youth insignia so fashionable among you and your ilk!

Nice to have you back, axe. or should we just call you Laverne now? (You'll always be Auntie S to me tho)

I thought The War in Iraq was only PART of the War in Iraq... shouldn't we just put all of them in Gitmo? or would that be hard on Haliburton and their ability to construct Death Chambers of executions?

SUCH A TIRED WORN OUT PHRASE TROTTED OUT CONTINUTALLY!

Oh, well we haven't all been there like you, so with your first-hand knowledge, it's hard to compete with your insight into what's going on in Guantanamo.

You haven't ventured up John ASSkrofts sphincter either as far as I know so how do you know what methane is being stored up there to use as a WMD.

Give it a rest Doug69 (69... why? is your dick too small that anyone would want you to top?)

oops

I meant part of the "War On Terror".... am I missing the "edit" key on here?

Please assist me Doug, when your done ranting like a fascist

>Perhaps, but are you saying that in a miliatary tribunal it

>would not or should not matter if the accused was not guilty

>of the charged offense?

I think anyone who joins Al-Qaeda and identifies themselves as a member of that terrorist organization and a loyalist of Osama bin Laden is guilty and should be shot.

Charge Massaoui with anything you

>want, but it is pretty clear that he was not part of the

>conspiacy on September 11th and was not a 20th hijacker under

>any legal theory that I am aware of, or the facts as alleged

>in the Complaint itself.

I think the Government itself has, at least implicitly, abandoned its prior belief that he was to be the 20th hijacker. But there are other crimes identified in the complaint filed against him.

We are in a war. Al Qaeda has declared war on the United States. In war it's permissible to kill one's enemy. Moussaoui is an Al Qaeda member. Therefore, we should kill him.

>>No, it doesn't piss me off at all. If there are people in

>>Guantanomo would can be safely released, they should be.

>

>... especially if they committed no crime? Would you pay them

>compensation for their false and malicious deprivation of

>liberty?

You are confused between war detentions and criminal trials. Literally millions of human beings, including Americans, have been detained during war time despite having committed no crime. That's the nature of war, and they aren't compensated afterwards.

The individuals at Guantanomo were rounded up on the Afghan battlefield and/or were acting in concert with Al Qaeda.

>>The

>>fact that the U.S. Government is releasing many of them,

>when

>>they don't have to, ....

>

>How do you figure that the U.S. does nothave to release

>prisoners against whom the U.S. has no evidence of criminal

>conduct?

Asshole, why can't you understand that individuals associated with the enemgy are detained during times of war without trials? Every country does that - even including France. Do you know how many Germans they detained FOR YEARS in the 20th Century without a trial and without compensating them afterwards.

And I think it's so hilarious to watch you claim to be against detentions without due process even though all of your favorite Middle Eastern countries wouldn't know what due process was if you shoved it up their asshole.

>If standing up for the Constitution makes one a cute little

>Al-Quaeda sympathizer than that's a badge a proudly wear

>rather than the Brown Shirt with Hitler youth insignia so

>fashionable among you and your ilk!

Standing up for the Constitution doesn't make one an Al-Qaeda sympathizer. Talking about that "poor guy" Mossoaui, admitted Al Qaeda member, does, by definition, make one an Al Qaeda sympathizer.

>SUCH A TIRED WORN OUT PHRASE TROTTED OUT CONTINUTALLY!

>

>Oh, well we haven't all been there like you, so with your

>first-hand knowledge, it's hard to compete with your insight

>into what's going on in Guantanamo.

>

How, then, do you know what is going on at Guantanamo? If, as all of you Al Qaeda lovers claim, the U.S. Goverment isn't letting anyone see the poor baby prisoners, then how do you know what bad, mean things they are doing there?

>We are in a war. Al Qaeda has declared war on the United

>States. In war it's permissible to kill one's enemy.

>Moussaoui is an Al Qaeda member. Therefore, we should kill

>him.

So you're good with terrorists killing our soldiers because we're at war?

>And I think it's so hilarious to watch you claim to be against

>detentions without due process even though all of your

>favorite Middle Eastern countries wouldn't know what due

>process was if you shoved it up their asshole.

I see. So if in the course of this war on terror(not to be confused with the separate war on Iraq), we start emulating the Middle Eastern countries you mention, you're good with that too? Seems to me that we should be better than that.

It's going to be a LONG wait.

>I thought The War in Iraq was only PART of the War in Iraq...

It is.

>shouldn't we just put all of them in Gitmo?

No.

> or would that be

>hard on Haliburton and their ability to construct Death

>Chambers of executions?

Even top-level Clinton officials have recently made clear that all of the babbling about Hailliburton is based upon a complete lack of understanding about the process for awarding government contracts, and that of all the criticisms being levied against Bush, this is one of the dumbest. I know that won't stop you or BoN or any of the other rabid, crazed automotans, but I thought I'd nonetheless point it out for the benefit of those still on the healthy side of the sanity line.

>>We are in a war. Al Qaeda has declared war on the United

>>States. In war it's permissible to kill one's enemy.

>>Moussaoui is an Al Qaeda member. Therefore, we should kill

>>him.

>

>So you're good with terrorists killing our soldiers because

>we're at war?

When they do that, it is not a gross violation of basic norms of civilization as when they fly planes into our office buildings or blow up places of worship or nightclubs with the sole intention of killing as many civilians as possible.

>I see. So if in the course of this war on terror(not to be

>confused with the separate war on Iraq), we start emulating

>the Middle Eastern countries you mention, you're good with

>that too? Seems to me that we should be better than that.

You missed the point - what a shock - which was that there's no basis for criticizing these policies while, at the same time, defending governments which do far worse.

Moreoever, comparing the Bush Administraiton to the oppressive policies of Middle Eastern countries requires a degree of self-delusion that ought not to have survived in the gene pool. Middle Eastern countries imprison and kill their citizens for criticizing their leaders, and the concept of due process does not exist. If you want to compare that to the United States, it will just marginalize you ever further.

Bush's popularity rating just went back over 60% - an extraordinary number for a President in the third year of his first term - and matched by very few Presidents, if any, since such numbers have been recorded. I believe quite firmly that this is due to people like you - what comes out of the mouth of Bush critics is such smelly stupid garbage that it creats huge symapthy for him and makes people support him even though they are unsatisifed with his performance.

I really think that you must be on Karl Rove's payroll.

>Even top-level Clinton officials have recently made clear that

>all of the babbling about Hailliburton is based upon a

>complete lack of understanding about the process for awarding

>government contracts, and that of all the criticisms being

>levied against Bush, this is one of the dumbest.

Amazing how you members of the Collective will even quote a Democrat to try and prove your points. Of course, how a Democrat would be privy to the inner workings of the Rovaltm[/font size] Office is beyond me. Even if he believed what he said, it still doesn't change the fact that the contract awarded to Halliburton was not done properly and it was all about Dick Cheney's relationship with them. See the separate post for details.

>I think the Government itself has, at least implicitly,

>abandoned its prior belief that he was to be the 20th

>hijacker. But there are other crimes identified in the

>complaint filed against him.

Hmmh, I guessed I missed that since the whole government case on appeal is whether he can be eligible for the death penalty for taking part in the Sept. 11th conspiracy, and whether the trial judge was right that he cannot unless he can call the witneses in US custody to prove otherwise. As for the rest, I suppose you know more about the complaint than the trial judge?

There's some scary thoughts going on here.

1. There's a war, so anything is OK, including killing people you suspect of being the enemy.

First, there is no war. A war requires an enemy state. There is no state against whom we are at war. The so-called war against terrorism is a police action against dangerous thugs.

Second, even in war, you are not allowed to torture, interrogate or kill your prisoners of war. You might recall that we got pretty upset with the Japanese for doing this kind of thing during WW2, not to mention the outrage when US pilots who were shot down over North Vietnam were held in small cages. Guantanamo Bay is in the same class, equally outrageous, and equally illegal.

So if you're going to call this a war, you should be prepared to apply the rules of war to it. And Guantanamo Bay falls well outside those rules.

2. We don't know what's going on at Guantanamo.

We don't know for certain because the US military won't allow most of us to go there. The media, for example, is generally excluded. I wonder what they're trying to hide.

But the International Red Cross has been there. They were so horrified they went public.

Of course, the International Red Cross is a well known bastion of dangerous left wing activity, isn't it. My goodness, they even believe in helping people. Heaven forfend!

Those who have been there have reported what they have seen. If they got it so terribly wrong, why won't the US military let other media in to show them the error? As I said, what are they trying to hide?

3. Bush has an approval rating of 60% so that makes it OK.

Adolf Hitler was very popular too. So was Saddam Hussein. So is Osama bin-Laden in some places. Does this make all of them right too?

This is not about popularity contests but about what is right. There is a difference.

4. No other country tries its military prisoners during war.

True, because they don't accuse the POWs of crimes. They are detained to keep them from taking part in the war, not because they are supposed to have done something wrong. But they are not shot, nor tortured, nor interrogated, nor kept in small metal cages barely big enough to lie down in.

In any event, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are not being held as POWs. They are being held as criminal suspects. We know this from what the US military itself has said, let alone from the agreement reached with the Australian government over the two Australians detained there. The US has made it clear to Australia - and to Britain in its negotiations with them - that all of the detainees are going to be tried, that they potentially face the death penalty, that there will be limited access to legal representation. That's why I mentioned the Australian agreement, because it is confirmation for you dummies that the US is not detaining these people as POWs but as criminals on remand.

5. I'm a dangerous loony irrelevant lefty liberal.

Compared to at least one person who's posted, that's a genuine compliment. I'd rather have principles and be able to tell the difference between right and wrong.