No Abuse of Guantanomo Prisoners

>You are in seirous denial over the existence of terrorism and

>its dangers. I would be most grateful for an answer to this

>question: If there are any actual terrorists at

>Guantanomo, can you think of any reasons why the U.S. military

>wouldn't want people who visit there to leave and talk about

>the prison, how its laid out, what the security measures are,

>what techniques they use to interrogate, etc.?

Concerning the prisoners who have already been released, two questions. First, if they were terrorists, why were they released? Second, now that they are no longer in U.S. custody, what is to prevent them from blabbing to anyone who will listen all about the things you think should be kept secret?

>can you think of any reasons why they might be

>concerned about secrecy in a camp like that?

If they had any concern about secrecy, they just blew it by releasing dozens of people, some of whom are probably talking to the media as I write these words.

>I asked this before - I noticed that you, nor any of your

>"there-is-no-war" comrades answered. Prisoners of war are

>kept for much longer than 2 years. Are they given access to

>lawyers? Trials? Definite release dates?

But the Guantanamo prisoners are NOT POW's in the legal sense. Under the Geneva Convention, POW's may NOT be interrogated. In case you were going to say they are "unlawful combatants," under the Geneva Convention, any prisoner taken during war is entitled to a hearing to determine whether he is in fact an unlawful combatant. No such hearings have been held.

>If we captured Osama bin Laden and interrogated him for 2

>years without giving him access to lawyers and putting him on

>trial, do you think there'd be anything wrong with that?

Yes. We would forever lose the right to criticize other nations for practices such as arrest without judicial review, right to counsel, or other due process rights -- assuming we haven't lost it already. During the 90s we complained vociferously about the treatment of American citizens arrested in other countries. I suspect that from now on whenever any American complains about human rights violations in other countries the targets of such complaints will simply laugh derisively. They'd have every right to.

What Doug is advocating is very simple -- the Executive Branch of the government makes a decision that certain people are guilty of terrorism without any process that gives them even the slightest chance to defend themselves, and then treats them as guilty without more ado. That includes American citizens -- two are being treated in that manner right now.

>The International Red Cross - the organization you held out as

>the High Priests of Human Rights a

The IRC is not primarily a human rights organization, although it sometimes acts as an intermediary in such matters as this. For the sake of the ignorant, let me note that the IRC sent representatives to Theresienstad concentration camp during WWII and came away very favorably impressed with how the Germans were treating the inmates.

What

>more do you think the U.S. should do? Turn it into a fucking

>amusement park and sell admission tickets to the public?

I think that after generations of scolding other countries for human rights violations, the U.S. should realize the impression that is created when it throws its own vaunted principles out the window at the first sign of trouble.

Well said, woodie.

Very well said indeed.

allow me to emphasise a few points....

>What I did say is that the IRC did have access, and it

>risked its continuing right of access by publicly complaining

>a month or so ago about the treatment of these prisoners.

YET, the British Bias Corp. article ms. del ponte quotes says that the ICRC (NOT IRC!!!) official "did not criticise any physical conditions at the camp." so what we have here is someone who just doesn't like the fact that people are being held--period. he didn't complain about the treatment or conditions of the prisoners, but rather about the fact that they are being held at all.

the BBC shows its bias and even contradicts itself. the article begins: "A top Red Cross official has broken with tradition by publicly attacking conditions at the US military base on Cuba..." yet later in the article concedes that, IN FACT, mr girod "did not criticise any physical conditions at the camp."

>Can someone explain why the lawyer had to sign a form

>preventing him from talking about what he saw in Guantanamo?

well, it is a sensitive military base in the middle of an unfriendly nation. a non-disclosure agreement is that hard to comprehend?

>Why is the butcher of Baghdad being

>treated so much better than the ordinary grunts of

>Guantanamo?

the very same reason all of you anti-War simps have been chanting for months now... Saddam had nothing to do with 11 September. the "ordinary grunts" may have.

where's the cheerleader pic???

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just handed down its decision in relation to a Guantanamo detainee.

I think doug had better read it carefully, especially pp.45-47. The Court notes that the US Government has asserted an "unprecedented" power to detain prisoners, specifically declining to treat them as POWs under law, nor trying them in military tribunals.

The Court said that the Government's position on the detainees is "...an extraordinary set of principles, a position so extreme that it raises the gravest concerns under both American and international law".

Most of what doug has posted here in relation to the status of these people is just plain wrong, and his own government confirms that he is wrong.

why was the issue raised in the 9th circuit (other than it being the most liberal)? where's the jurisdiction on this one? (i'm not making a point... i am merely wondering. i'm sure someone here knows.)

>Concerning the prisoners who have already been released, two

>questions. First, if they were terrorists, why were they

>released?

The U.S., after thoroughly investigating them, obviously concluded that they weren't terrorists and weren't a threat, and commendably, released them.

Second, now that they are no longer in U.S.

>custody, what is to prevent them from blabbing to anyone who

>will listen all about the things you think should be kept

>secret?

Nothing is preventing them from disclosing what they know. But I doubt they know much about the layout or security measures at Guantanamo; I have the feeling they didn't see much during their stay on that lovely Carribean island.

>>can you think of any reasons why they might be

>>concerned about secrecy in a camp like that?

>

>If they had any concern about secrecy, they just blew it by

>releasing dozens of people, some of whom are probably talking

>to the media as I write these words.

No - I am certain that they frequently change the security schemes at Guantanamo for exactly that reason. And, as I just said, I am quite sure the prisoners know far less and see far less than, say, an IRC member inspecting the prison.

>But the Guantanamo prisoners are NOT POW's in the legal sense.

> Under the Geneva Convention, POW's may NOT be interrogated.

>In case you were going to say they are "unlawful combatants,"

>under the Geneva Convention, any prisoner taken during war is

>entitled to a hearing to determine whether he is in fact an

>unlawful combatant. No such hearings have been held.

Entitled to what kind of hearing? How long after the detention is this hearing required to be held? Are they entitled to lawyers and an open hearing? What provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding illegal combatants has the U.S. violated?

>>If we captured Osama bin Laden and interrogated him for 2

>>years without giving him access to lawyers and putting him

>on

>>trial, do you think there'd be anything wrong with that?

>

>Yes. We would forever lose the right to criticize other

>nations for practices such as arrest without judicial review,

>right to counsel, or other due process rights -- assuming we

>haven't lost it already.

The fact that you see Osama bin Laden and cohorts as nothing more than garden-variety criminal defendants entitled to all the protections of due process accorded common criminals in the U.S. criminal justice system - rather than as warriors waging an incomparably destructive and dangerous war on the United States -- says all one needs to know about why you oppose the Bush Administration's war on terrorism.

No country, in the middle of a deadly war, can afford to refrain from attacking and punishing enemies until they have been given a full-fleged trial, and I am very, very thankful that we are not following your point of view, because I doubt we would have a country for much longer. The Nuremberg trials occured only after the war was concluded and the enemy defeated; they did not occur, nor could they have, in the middle of a war.

Numerous times throughout U.S. history, our Government has restricted the liberties we enjoy in peace, on the ground that doing so is necessary in times of war. Do you dispute that?

>What Doug is advocating is very simple -- the Executive Branch

>of the government makes a decision that certain people are

>guilty of terrorism without any process that gives them even

>the slightest chance to defend themselves, and then treats

>them as guilty without more ado. That includes American

>citizens -- two are being treated in that manner right now.

This is false. I have made clear that I am against the detention of U.S. citizens by the U.S. Government without due process. But the same is not the case for those captured as illegal combatants on a foreign battlefield - and the courts that have spoken to this issue thus far have unequivocally ruled that the Executive has the right to impose these detentions in times of war (at least until today, when the always-out-of-step 9th Circuit issued a decision which I have not yet read).

>I think that after generations of scolding other countries for

>human rights violations, the U.S. should realize the

>impression that is created when it throws its own vaunted

>principles out the window at the first sign of trouble.

Constitutional liberties are different during time of war. That is a basic constitutional principle, and always has been since the founding of our Republic. The only reason we have a Republic to talk about is because of that principle, and I am grateful that those who wish to dispense with this vital principle are in the minority.

>Well said, woodie.

http://www.nestofdeath.com/philadelphia/cheer/ARZ/tirza2.jpg

>where's the cheerleader pic???

http://www.nestofdeath.com/philadelphia/cheer/ARZ/tirza2.jpg

>Most of what doug has posted here in relation to the status of

>these people is just plain wrong, and his own government

>confirms that he is wrong.

Permit me to explain how intellectually dishonest you are.

NUMEROUS courts, including a court of appeals, have again and again held that the Bush Administration has the authority under the U.S. Constitution to hold the detainees in Guantanamo exactly the way they are holding them. Despite that, you have repeatedly contradicted those courts and claimed that this conduct violates the Constitution.

Now, one three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit - by far the most out-of-step court in the country, with the highest reversal rate by far - deviates from this line of authority and you act like the matter has been settled by the "Government."

This is the same Court which gave birth to 3-judge panels that declared the Pledge of Allegience to be unconstitutional, which repugnantly tried to stop the California recall election from proceeding (only to be UNANIMOUSLY reversed by an 11-judge en banc panel), and which is, again and again, admonished by the U.S. Supreme Court for allowing their liberal ideologies to override the law.

I haven't read this decision yet (but I will), so I'm not criticizing it. I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous it is of you to act like this decision is dispositive when court after court has upheld the Bush Administraiton's policies as perfectly constitutional. You should read the ones issued by the numerous other courts - particularly from the Fourth Circuit - on these issues if you want to expose yourself to views other than those identical to yours.

In another thread, you mentioned Abraham Lincoln as a prime example of a wonderful, rights-loving U.S. President. Are you aware that he did not merely restrict, but outright supsended, many core constitutional liberties, including the right of habeus corpus, on the ground that doing so was necessary to the security of the Republic.

The idea that constitutional protections must be narrowly construed and applied in wartime is not new - it's as old as the U.S. Constitution itself, and is the reason why there is still a U.S Constitution to discuss.

And of course the right wing pro war simps have been telling us for months that war against Saddam was justified because he was such a brutal tyrant.

If he was such a brutal tyrant, why give him a full open fair trial and not the people in Guantanamo?

So far no court - including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - has definitively ruled whether or not the detention is lawful. The issue so far has been one of jurisdiction: do US courts have jurisdiction to hear complaints made by detainees?

If you read the latest decision you will see a discussion of the previous decisions. One of the principal earlier decisions had a significant problem of standing. That is, the person bringing the appeal did not have sufficient interest in the outcome to pursue it through the courts. The present decision has no such problem, because the appellant is a brother of a detainee.

There is a much more controversial question of jurisdiction, involving a couple of earlier decisions from the aftermath of WW2. The majority of the Court of Appeals went one way, the dissenting judge went the other, and all of it will be before the US Supreme Court in the new year. Stay tuned.

What the Court of Appeals DID say - which gives the lie to much of what doug has written - is that the US Government frankly stated in its submissions to the Court that these detainees are NOT prisoners of war and are NOT being treated in accordance with international rules about POWs. The Government also said that the detainees are not criminals. None of doug's pathetic justifications for these detentions was embraced by the Government.

And just a final clarification for doug, who obviously finds it difficult to actually read what I have written because he is so emotional about riding roughshod over basic US freedoms: I don't think I've ever said that what is happening in Guantanamo is unconstitutional. Indeed, I would be astonished if it were, becaue otherwise the US courts would have intervened long ago.

What I have said is that the detention is contrary to the principles for which the USA stands, which is a very different thing. The courts might not be able to intervene for reasons of jurisdiction - but that doesn't stop a point of policy being made that the US is going against everything it stands for in the way in which it detains these people for 2 years without trial.

And, doug, perhaps you'd like to address a point I made a while ago in the previous thread. If there is such a vast threat from terrorism that justifies detaining people while the "war" continues, please explain why the Bali bombers have been brought to a public and fair trial? Why is Indonesia able to do what America is not?

>If you read the latest decision you will see a discussion of

>the previous decisions. One of the principal earlier

>decisions had a significant problem of standing. That is, the

>person bringing the appeal did not have sufficient interest in

>the outcome to pursue it through the courts.

You're quite confused. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upheld the Administration's detention of a U.S. citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

>What the Court of Appeals DID say - which gives the lie to

>much of what doug has written - is that the US Government

>frankly stated in its submissions to the Court that these

>detainees are NOT prisoners of war and are NOT being treated

>in accordance with international rules about POWs. The

>Government also said that the detainees are not criminals.

>None of doug's pathetic justifications for these detentions

>was embraced by the Government.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I have said a trillion times - including numerous times TO YOU - that the detainees in Guantanamo are NOT prisoners of war, but instead, are illegal combatants, and therefore not entitled to the protections which the Geneva Convention accords to POWs.

Moreover, the fact that the U.S. Government says something doesn't make it true. Saying: "Doug is saying something different than the U.S. Government" is a meaningless observation. I don't feel compelled to mouth the Government's positions. I don't know if you noticed, but pretty much everything you say is different than what the U.S. Government says - and thank God for that.

>And just a final clarification for doug, who obviously finds

>it difficult to actually read what I have written because he

>is so emotional about riding roughshod over basic US freedoms:

> I don't think I've ever said that what is happening in

>Guantanamo is unconstitutional. Indeed, I would be astonished

>if it were, becaue otherwise the US courts would have

>intervened long ago.

Now you are really confused. You do understand, don't you, that a court can invalidate the acts of the Executive Branch only if those acts are prohibited by the Constitution (with a few exceptions plainly not relevant here). The 9th Circuit decision you are touting, as well as the 2nd Circuit decision today compelling the release from military custody of U.S. Citizen Jose Padilla, is predicated on the conclusion that the U.S. Government's treatment of those plaintiffs is unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit, however, disagrees.

>What I have said is that the detention is contrary to the

>principles for which the USA stands, which is a very different

>thing.

Why do you keep avoiding the fact that the U.S. Government has repeatedly restricted constitutional protections - EVEN FOR ITS OWN CITIZENS - in times of war? Is that because that point totally negates your lectures about how what we are doing now is inconsistent with "the principles for which the USA stands"?

>And, doug, perhaps you'd like to address a point I made a

>while ago in the previous thread. If there is such a vast

>threat from terrorism that justifies detaining people while

>the "war" continues, please explain why the Bali bombers have

>been brought to a public and fair trial? Why is Indonesia

>able to do what America is not?

First, nobody is saying that those detainees won't be given trials eventually. In fact, you yourself have pointed out that they are being held precisely for that purpose.

Second, do you know anything at all about the Indonesian justice system as compared to the U.S. justice system? Take a look at the Moussaoui proceedings - those have been dragging on for more than a year now, with no end in sight, and has turned into a complete fucking circus. By contrast, the Bali bombers were almost immediately put on trial and summarily convicted. If you think that those defendants got "due process" as the U.S. courts understand that term, you're fucking dreaming.

Finally, the multiple examples you gave of countries which have given trials to terrorists - such as Britian and Spain and others - have had lingering terrorism problems forever. We can't afford that with Al Qaeda and brethern. Given the severity of those attacks and the liklihood of serious escalation in the future, nobody outside of far left anti-American circles wants to see some 20 year endless war with Al Qaeda - like Britian had with the IRA, or Spain had with its Basque separatist groups, or the Israelis have with the Palesinians.

We're going to err on the side of security and smash it out of existence, not put it on trial and have nice loudmouth lawyers extend criminal proceedings in open U.S. courts for the next 10 years. You and the French and the leftist Americans who want to sacrifice our foreign policy decisions to the International Red Cross are just going to have to accept that.

if you want an apple, why not eat an orange?

Profound. Just profound.

allow me to construct a diagram to help you understand....

___types of fruit___

-------- | ---------

|apples| | |oranges|

-------- | ---------

Dear me, doug is getting absolutely desperate now.

1. I've never said the Red Cross was denied visits to Guantanamo. Note, too, that the Red Cross has complained about the conditions under which they are detained, because of the high rate of suicide and mental disorder.

2. I've never said the actions in Guantanamo were unconstitutional, because until today's 9th Circuit decision, the courts had not intervened: if they were unconstitutional, one would have expected court intervention long before now. What I'd said was that the basic principles for which the USA stands were not being upheld in Guantanamo. That's not a legal issue, but an issue of government policy.

3. The 9th Circuit has merely asserted a jurisdiction to hear the complaint, it has not ruled on whether the detention is lawful. What is more interesting is the position the Government took before the Court in explaining the justification for the detention.

4. Doug has said - including several times in this thread - that the position of the detainees equates to POWs. "We detain POWs without trial" he has said, which sounds to me as if he sees a direct parallel between the Guantanmo detainees and POWs. Of course, if he doesn't make that equation, let's hear it. And if they're not POWs, what are they?

5. Yes, I'm well aware that in time of war, some constitutional rights are suspended. The same principle applies to the use of the defence power under the Australian Constitution. To invoke it, however, you need a declaration of war, and the suspension needs to be proportionate to the needs of the time. Since no such suspension has occurred in connection with the detention, arrest or trial of terrorist suspects on US soil, the rationale for detention at Guantanamo seems to be lacking, quite apart from the absence of a declaration of war.

6. I have no idea whether the Indonesian trials are actually fair. However, I would have expected somebody to have complained by now if they were not. I also note that at least one suspect has been acquitted in Bali, and another acquitted on appeal in Jakarta. That suggests there is a fair trial going on. Just because it doesn't conform exactly to the exhaustive processes of a US court doesn't mean there is no due process.

7. The US war on terror is not new. The US has been facing terrorist attacks from the Middle East since at least 1970, when US civilian jets were hijacked to Jordan and blown up in the desert live on TV. This "war" has therefore been going on for at least 33 years. Coincidentally, that's as long as the IRA terrorist campaign has been going on in Northern Ireland, and longer than the ETA terrorist campaign in Spain. It's also significantly longer than the terror campaigns in Germany and Italy, two more countries on my list.

>Note, too, that the Red Cross has complained

>about the conditions under which they are detained

it did not. the ICRC complained about the length of detention and lack of a timetable for trial/release, not about the conditions of detention. you posted the article ms del ponte; did you read it first?

Even more profound. In fact, beyond words.

"Although he did not criticise any physical conditions at the camp, he said that it was intolerable that the complex was used as "an investigation centre, not a detention centre".

I read it as referring to the conditions of detention, which don't have to include just physical conditions.

Probably more to the point, let's go back to doug's original post.

He included this sentence:

"Why are people like Pyell and others lying and claiming that these prisoners are being abused and mistreated when even the International Red Cross doesn't say this?"

Clearly the Red Cross did say that the detainees were being mistreated. The somewhat arid debate about the technicalities of that mistreatment misses the point: the Red Cross did complain about the treatment of the detainees. It didn't suggest physical beatings, torture, or things of that kind. But it did talk of mistreatment.

Let me depart from the heat of the debate for a sidetrack. Leaving aside the passion over the fate of the detainees, the legal issue at stake in the court decisions is most intriguing.

The key difference between the 9th Circuit decision today and the contrary DC Circuit decision of Al Odah is the nature of the lease at Guantanamo. Does it give "sovereignty" to the USA?

The 1903 treaty authorising the lease of the base recognises the "ultimate sovereignty" of Cuba over Guantanamo. Viewed strictly, then, sovereignty rests with Cuba. In the light of the earlier Johnson decision in the US Supreme Court after WW2, that means that US courts do not have jurisdiction over aliens who are not within the sovereignty of the USA.

The Johnson decision related to a German prison then being used by the USA to house prisoners found guilty of crimes by military tribunals. The mere fact of US use of the prison did not give US courts jurisdiction because there was no US sovereignty over the prison.

The 9th Circuit by majority attempted to get around that major problem. It said that in fact sovereignty for all practical purposes rests with the USA. It noted, for example, that the USA had been acting inconsistently with the 1903 treaty for some time, but was able to get away with it.

I can see the force of the Johnson decision. Mere use by the USA doesn't amount to sovereignty. I can also see some force in the 9th Circuit's distinction. Words in a century-old treaty may no longer be the governing principle in the US assertion of control over Guantanamo.

The Supreme Court's opinion is going to be very interesting.

2 cheers for democracy?

For you Bush-haters, check them out

>yourself at http://www.nytimes.com and weep as you realize your

>irrelevance:

>

>>**Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is

>>handling his job as President?

>>

>>Approve - 58%

>>Disapprove 33%

>>Don't know - 9%

Doug, I find this one of the oddest, most puzzling of several odd and puzzling notions that seem to be touchstones of yours.

Why should fully a third of the populace "weep" because it holds an opinion different from the majority? Do you really believe, as you told me the other day, that finding oneself disagreeing with the majority must engender "cognitive dissonance"?

The anxiety you express about not being in the majority wasn't shared by the Framers. They feared the tyranny of the mob only slightly less than the tyranny of the despot. Thus the great powers to resist the majority will that the Constitution vests in the Senate. Backstopped by those "unelected judges."