Gems from Gitmo

[BlackShanglan]

If the situation weren't so dire, it would be amusing to watch our elected (and appointed) officials and military spokespeople tie themselves in knots trying to justify Gitmo. For example, here are some snips from a CNN article:

Michael Wiggins, deputy associate attorney general, told the committee that each Guantanamo detainee was given a formal hearing in front of a review panel to ensure they were all properly classified as enemy combatants.

(...)

"Detainees enjoy some constitutional rights," he said. But he suggested it was hard to specify just which ones.

That last sentence shows great potential for comedy writing on the part of the author.

And then there is Donald Rumsfeld ...

President Bush last week appeared to leave open the possibility that the prison would be closed, but Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he thought the prison would be needed for years to come. Rumsfeld said the military has no other facility that could accommodate that many prisoners.

Mr. Rumsfeld also offered, in another source, the claim that the United States lacks the "infrastructure" to deal with such detainees. And yet there, too, he reminded us that this was need likely to persist for many years.

So ... we've got detainees for whom we have no viable facilities and no infrastructure, and we know that we're going to have them for many years. Yet, amazingly, Mr. Rumsfeld feels that the best practical solution is not to create a facility or infrastructure to deal with the situation, but to continue using a facility thrown together on the spur of the moment and located in another country.

One might almost think that there were ulterior motives at work.

On a last related note - I was watching Fox News, I think, at the health club the other day, and there was a man on camera with a plate of food allegedly showing what Gitmo detainees were being fed. I glanced at the plate, but didn't thoroughly register it. Then I saw a scroll at the bottom stating that the plate contained bread and vegetables. Did anyone happen to notice if there was any meat on it? Enquiring minds would like to know.

Shanglan

 

[hmmnmm]

On a last related note - I was watching Fox News, I think, at the health club the other day, and there was a man on camera with a plate of food allegedly showing what Gitmo detainees were being fed. I glanced at the plate, but didn't thoroughly register it. Then I saw a scroll at the bottom stating that the plate contained bread and vegetables. Did anyone happen to notice if there was any meat on it? Enquiring minds would like to know.

Shanglan

Sorry, I don't watch television.
Don't have television.
Don't want television.
But I've heard that the way cults brainwash their new inductees is to deny them protein.
Were they raw or cooked vegetables? That might explain a few things.

 

[cantdog]

Rummy claimed in just those words that the diet of the Gitmo detainees was more expensive than that of the troops we deploy abroad.

The backpedaling and obfuscation is strenuous. They really do love to torture people, I guess, to judge from the lengths they are going to justify it. We are seeing the new America, and it definitely includes torture. Swell.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Rummy claimed in just those words that the diet of the Gitmo detainees was more expensive than that of the troops we deploy abroad.

The backpedaling and obfuscation is strenuous. They really do love to torture people, I guess, to judge from the lengths they are going to justify it. We are seeing the new America, and it definitely includes torture. Swell.

To be fair, what do you suggest doing?

I, and I suspect a fairly large portion of the population would strenuously object to bringing suspected terorists into this country and giving them the full benefit of our mjustice system when they are trying to destroy our country, system of governemtn and freedoms.

If you don't like gitmo, then you should consider the alternatives, because they really aren't pretty. Trial by military tribunal and summary carrying out of sentence is the option if you classify them as POWs. Trial by our civilan apparatus is the option if you bring them into the states proper.

I'm not saying Gitmo is the answer, but I am saying suspected terrorists and insurgants present a real catch-22. Those curently there especially, as the government has already denied them status as POW's and as common criminals. They have painted themselves into a real corner with these prisoners, imho.

 

[hmmnmm]

But surely the torture is born of hearts that love humanity.
Are these detainees allowed to read erotic literature?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

To be fair, what do you suggest doing?



If you don't like gitmo, then you should consider the alternatives, because they really aren't pretty. Trial by military tribunal and summary carrying out of sentence is the option if you classify them as POWs. Trial by our civilan apparatus is the option if you bring them into the states proper.

I don't understand. What's wrong with trying them?

What would we want done if our boys were captured by their forces? Isn't that the basis of the POW statutes?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

The prisoners will never be brought onto US soil, because that opens a huge can of legal worms. There are rights that kick in if they are brought onto American soil. That's why they were taken to Cuba.

I saw the piece on the food. It was actually pretty good stuff. The choices for the day were Oven fried chicken, or grilled fish to go along with the bread and vegetables.

In an interesting side note to all of this: The topic of "abuse" at Gitmo came up during the show. One of the forms of abuse mentioned was what the prisoners are fed, that's why the menu was presented. Did you know that it's considered "abuse" to feed the prisoners MRE's? The same food that our soldiers eat in the field is considered abuse to prisoners. Am I the only one that thinks something is wrong with that?

 

[Op_Cit]

To be fair, what do you suggest doing?

I, and I suspect a fairly large portion of the population would strenuously object to bringing suspected terorists into this country and giving them the full benefit of our mjustice system when they are trying to destroy our country, system of governemtn and freedoms.

I'll offer something:

How about we leave these people alone and not take them anywhere?

How about understanding that the Bill of Rights uses the word 'people' and not 'citizen'? (and 'people' has-- up until the last twenty years-- been reaffirmed as individuals and not collective agencies.)

(BTW: Was it here or in another forum that I heard that the new Iraqi constitution uses the word 'citizen' and not 'people' when it refers to rights?)

How about getting out of other people's business?

How about not fueling the corruption of other governments with money taken by force from people here in the U.S.?

Terrorism is an effect from a cause. It is a last resort of a group that has no other recourse. It doesn't just spring into existense out of nowhere.

Or on the other hand, how about everyone stop pretending that we live in a free--goodytwoshoes-- country and call it like it is?

Seems to me I recall that a fairly large portion of the German populace strenuously objected to what was reported to have gone on in the Sudetenland...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't understand. What's wrong with trying them?

What would we want done if our boys were captured by their forces? Isn't that the basis of the POW statutes?

It would seem, no matter what I want, should our boys be captured they will be beheaded, or killed and mutilated. Rough justice would say we do the same to theirs. Luckily for us all, we don't operate in that manner.

I personally perfer trial by military tribunal. If they claim they are freedom fighters, let em face military justice. I suspect they will have the devil's own time convincing a jury of militray men blowing up civilians and enemy combatants alike isn't a crime worthy of the noose. Unfortuneatly, we don't hang folks anymore.

What I don't favor Doc, is extending to them the protection of our legal system. I don't favor extending to them rights that only come with citizenship here. I don't believe ay international code of rules could be used, even if an international court would take the cases. And since our bretheren in europe are dead set against the death penalty, I don't think we would turn them over even if there was a court. I am assuming the Hague conventions and war crimes apparatus would only apply to POWs?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I'll offer something:

How about we leave these people alone and not take them anywhere?


How about getting out of other people's business?


Terrorism is an effect from a cause. It is a last resort of a group that has no other recourse. It doesn't just spring into existense out of nowhere.
.

Leave them alone? Leaving many of them "alone" means that they get to kill others unmolested. Did you know that there have been many prisoners that were released from Gitmo, then later re arrested on the battlefield in Iraq?

Terrorism is as simple as an effect from a cause. That makes it sound so tidy and simple. For a lot of them, their only cause is to Kill americans. Is it our fault that we were attacked?

Yeah, we'll just stay out of everyones business. We'll just act like those pesky planes didn't fly into the WTC. We'll forget all about the WTC bombing in 93. Let's just write off Mogadishu. The bombing of the embassies never really happened. It was an accident that someone parked a boat full of explosives right next to the USS Cole.

Can you see the pattern? There is no staying out other peoples business. The true hard core Islamic terrorists only purpose in life is to Kill Americans. It's what they live and die for. Ignoring them won't make it go away. We ignored them for 8 years beginning in 1993 and look where that got us.

I'm not saying that everything is being done right. Obviously, it isn't. I am very glad that something is being done though. We ignored them when they kept attacking, and it got us September 11.

You can't be merciful, nice or understanding to these types. They are a breed of human that we can't comprehend. The only solution is to hunt them down.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I saw the piece on the food. It was actually pretty good stuff. The choices for the day were Oven fried chicken, or grilled fish to go along with the bread and vegetables.

Thanks very much, Wildcard. Just the information I was hoping for.

But I've heard that the way cults brainwash their new inductees is to deny them protein.

Precisely why I asked.

 

[cantdog]

Yeah, weel. The food is not the issue. That, my dear friend, is exactly why they are discussing it. Strictly to duck the issue.

I wouldn't mind so much if they, like Colleen, opened a discussion on the actual problem. But they hid the Presidential order which classified them outside the Geneva constraints. They denied it at first. Then they promoted to attorney general the man who devised the legal argument for it. So they finally acknowledged it, once every twelve year old knew about it. But they still never discuss it, or the legal problem it left in its wake. They talk about anything else.

The reclassification meant to most people that it was okay to torture. The present attorney general's argument was a re-definition of torture as well as a logical structure placing them outside the POW class. Behold, there is torture!

Are they surprised? They said they were, but the Red Cross and Americas Watch had been reporting torture already for a couple of years, and they were the fellows in charge at Gitmo. Surprise is not credible.

Are they responsible? well, no. Rummy said he "took full responsibility" when the photos from Abu Ghraib came out, but he suffered nothing aside from some tough radio interviews. Where he talked about the food and the hearings, as Shang reported. Some "responsibility." The ones they actually made to bear responsibility were mostly non-coms.

No, I see Colly's point, and I find it in fact quite ironic. But they do not want to discuss the real issue or the real legal problem. They want to wriggle, dodge, and misdirect; they want to blame the non-coms. They want, above all, to keep on doing it with impunity. They don't get a suggestion they like from ACLU or Amnesty, because those answers stop the torture and the renditions. Amnesty's answer prosecutes those responsible, too, which they really don't want to hear.

I refer you to Amnesty International's position on the matter, Colleen. The only corner they are painted into is with their own paint, years dry. They redefined their status once. They can do it again. Didn't hurt the first time until they were caught.

Amnesty and ACLU both suggest, very sensibly, that if you have a suspected car thief, you try the case; if you have a suspected terrorist, you do the same. The legal system we use now does not put people on trial so often as all that. People plea bargain. Information is gained for concessions. Happens every day, hundreds of times. The information is investigated and many times found useful. What the hell? Isn't information the point? Why does it help any to ratchet up the general hatred by extracting it through inhuman treatment?

Amnesty says, in every case, Myanmar and Congo, Washington and Haiti alike: if those who do the torture and those who order it have impunity, it does little to stop it. I'm with them. If you have a suspected torturer or one who orders it to be done, try him, too.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It would seem, no matter what I want, should our boys be captured they will be beheaded, or killed and mutilated. Rough justice would say we do the same to theirs. Luckily for us all, we don't operate in that manner.

I personally perfer trial by military tribunal. If they claim they are freedom fighters, let em face military justice. I suspect they will have the devil's own time convincing a jury of militray men blowing up civilians and enemy combatants alike isn't a crime worthy of the noose. Unfortuneatly, we don't hang folks anymore.

What I don't favor Doc, is extending to them the protection of our legal system. I don't favor extending to them rights that only come with citizenship here. I don't believe ay international code of rules could be used, even if an international court would take the cases. And since our bretheren in europe are dead set against the death penalty, I don't think we would turn them over even if there was a court. I am assuming the Hague conventions and war crimes apparatus would only apply to POWs?

I feel that I must be reading poorly here. It seems to me that you're saying tribunals would work? Wouldn't that obviate the need for extended holding in places like Gitmo? (Or rather, obviate the useful excuse for it; I acknowledge that it will always be tempting to keep a facility where one can interrogate people without charge or time limit. I just happen to think it wrong.)

Can persons intended to be tried by military tribunal be brought onto US soil? Do they instantly gain full US citizen rights when they enter our territories?

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

Yes they do, Shang. If they're in our hands, we have only our laws to guide us. We do not insist that a car thief be a citizen before we apply the law, either. An Australian car thief gets tried as a car thief under US law, if the man is apprehended under US jurisdiction. He may also be deported as part of the deal.

About eight Dominicanos a week are flown to Santo Domingo under custody, as their sentence expires, and turned loose there rather than in New york, for instance. It has meant a growing, nay, a balooning rate of violent crime in Santo Domingo. Common as houses.

And we haven't the convenience of saying we're at war with these fellows, either. Hell, we placed the current Iraqi government and the current Afghani one in power ourselves. We never declared a war to do that, in either case. Al Qaeda may be many things, but it is not a nation-state upon which we can declare war. Some other legal framework will have to be found.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I agree that they shouldn't be covered under the Geneva convention. The GC was intended to protect soldiers that met a certain set of criteria. Among others, the criteria includes:

A uniformed soldier fighting for the armed forces of a country (fighting under a flag). That's why all of our military equipment and people are marked in some way as being the US.

Soldiers that follow the Geneva convention. Bombings in the middle of a crowd of civilians pretty much disqualifies them from following the GC.

They chose not to follow the Geneva convention, so why should they benefit from it? They werent' uniformed, fighting under a flag or following the GC. They never agreed to it, nor signed on to it. They are terrorists. They haven't followed the requirements of the GC, so why should they be afforded the rights of it?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Hmmm. Interesting problems, I have to admit, if we have to give full legal/criminal rights to person brought into the States and try them as criminal. I wouldn't want to see our military trying to deal with the need to prove a chain of possession for evidence or probable cause for search.

Is that what would happen? Or could they have legal rights like seeing lawyers and habeus corpus while still being dealt with by a military tribunal?

 

[BlackShanglan]

I agree that they shouldn't be covered under the Geneva convention. The GC was intended to protect soldiers that met a certain set of criteria. Among others, the criteria includes:

A uniformed soldier fighting for the armed forces of a country (fighting under a flag). That's why all of our military equipment and people are marked in some way as being the US.

Soldiers that follow the Geneva convention. Bombings in the middle of a crowd of civilians pretty much disqualifies them from following the GC.

They chose not to follow the Geneva convention, so why should they benefit from it? They werent' uniformed, fighting under a flag or following the GC. They never agreed to it, nor signed on to it. They are terrorists. They haven't followed the requirements of the GC, so why should they be afforded the rights of it?

But is the "in a uniform" provision really fair? It means that only people with a bankroll and a government will be treated as soldiers. Are those the only people who ever have the right to defend themselves or resist oppression?

 

[cantdog]

There are a couple of different kinds of military tribunal. None of them uses the conventions of ordinary criminal law.

People in uniform, soldiers, get to kill and to steal, but only under orders. They are liable to be ordered to die. In common law, this means that joining an army loses you several key rights. You are signing up to be a slave. You are referred to as government property, and in law, that is no joke. To get an incapacitating sunburn is to damage government property-- Article 15-- meaning the soldier himself. Tribunals have no juries, but a panel of judges who both decide guilt and apply sanctions to the guilty. In general, there is no presumption of innocence. It's really very different.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It would seem, no matter what I want, should our boys be captured they will be beheaded, or killed and mutilated. Rough justice would say we do the same to theirs. Luckily for us all, we don't operate in that manner.

I personally perfer trial by military tribunal. If they claim they are freedom fighters, let em face military justice. I suspect they will have the devil's own time convincing a jury of militray men blowing up civilians and enemy combatants alike isn't a crime worthy of the noose. Unfortuneatly, we don't hang folks anymore.

What I don't favor Doc, is extending to them the protection of our legal system. I don't favor extending to them rights that only come with citizenship here. I don't believe ay international code of rules could be used, even if an international court would take the cases. And since our bretheren in europe are dead set against the death penalty, I don't think we would turn them over even if there was a court. I am assuming the Hague conventions and war crimes apparatus would only apply to POWs?

Maybe there's something I don't understand here. I thought the majority of prisoners at Guantanamo were captured during the invasion of Afghanistan. We may call them terrorists, but they consider themselves freedom fighters.

The same is true for combatants arrested in Iraq. We call them terrorists because they're fighting against our troops. They consider themselves freedom fighters fighting against an invader and occupier. Why is it so horrible when they kill unarmed civilians but okay when the USAF does it? (And so far we make them look like pikers in the number of innocents killed.)

If they're guilty of something, why not try them? If they're innocent, then it seems like we should let them go. To do anything else, no matter how you dance around it, is a violation of our principles of human rights. It makes us no better than them.

What am I missing?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I feel that I must be reading poorly here. It seems to me that you're saying tribunals would work? Wouldn't that obviate the need for extended holding in places like Gitmo? (Or rather, obviate the useful excuse for it; I acknowledge that it will always be tempting to keep a facility where one can interrogate people without charge or time limit. I just happen to think it wrong.)

Can persons intended to be tried by military tribunal be brought onto US soil? Do they instantly gain full US citizen rights when they enter our territories?

Shanglan

That's one of the big problems Shang. They don't know. No one knows.

A criminal, can be tried in the U.S., but it's under U.S. law.

A POW can be detained, but must be repaitriated at the end of hostilities. While incarcerated, he may be tried for crimes he commits while incarcerated under the UCMJ. But you can't try him for crimes commited before his capture. For that, you have to remand him over to the War Crimes Tibunal at the Hague I think.

With these detainees, who knows? With no clear cut distincintion of what kind of prisoners they are, there rights are likely to be nebulous. That, of Course, would lead to them filing in the US courts to have it cleared up.

And that could lead to years of political wrangling, as well as the possibility of them being granted rights similar to those enjoyed by citizens.

there is no clear cut way to go about it when you don't give the prisoners any recognized staus, you are in uncharted waters.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I feel that I must be reading poorly here. It seems to me that you're saying tribunals would work? Wouldn't that obviate the need for extended holding in places like Gitmo? (Or rather, obviate the useful excuse for it; I acknowledge that it will always be tempting to keep a facility where one can interrogate people without charge or time limit. I just happen to think it wrong.)

Can persons intended to be tried by military tribunal be brought onto US soil? Do they instantly gain full US citizen rights when they enter our territories?

Shanglan

I don't see any other option, but to try them by tribunal. i don't think it's a very good option, but I see no better one, so that's the one I feel most comfortable with. I think, if you bring them into the US, the automatically aquire some rights under our judicial system.

I could be wrong there. I'm out of my depth when it comes to international law.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The same is true for combatants arrested in Iraq. We call them terrorists because they're fighting against our troops. They consider themselves freedom fighters fighting against an invader and occupier. Why is it so horrible when they kill unarmed civilians but okay when the USAF does it? (And so far we make them look like pikers in the number of innocents killed.)

(...)

What am I missing?

Intent.

The difference between missing a target or getting bad intelligence and deliberately walking into a crowded market and detonating a nail bomb is intent.

"Doesn't make any difference to the dead." Indeed it may not. They are inarguably still dead, and if a war results in high numbers of unintended casualites, one is well justified in asking whether it is worth it. However, the question of intent is enshrined at every level in our legal system and in every major religion or moral system I can think of. It's the difference between ignorance and malice, between incapacity and willfullness, between tragic accident and murder.

I have deeply divided feelings about guerilla warfare. There are times when impoverished and desperate people are oppressed by forces with much greater financial and military power, and I believe that it can be right for them to fight enemy militaries using the materials and methods most available to them. I do not, however, believe that it is ever right to deliberately target unarmed civilians going peacefully about their daily lives. There is a world of difference morally speaking.

I might point out, as well, that it's very peculiar behavior for "freedom fighters" to be concentrating largely on killing their own people, especially those attempting to form Iraqi police or armed forces. That doesn't look like freedom fighting to me. That looks like people with something to gain from an Iraqi government unable to control them.

(I know that there are other questions in that post, by the way - this is just the one to which I see an answer.)

Shanglan

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I thought the Supremes had decided that detainees on American soil are protected by and subject to the rule of American law, of which Habeus Corpus is one of the central tenets. Gitmo is US territory, so US law applies.

I believe that the US Government is intentionally keeping these people as prisoners without legal status solely to deny them any rights, which is tantamount to denying them rights in the first place. We are circumventing our own rule of law.

In other words, their status is not a legal issue. It's a political one. We know damned well what we're doing.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Maybe there's something I don't understand here. I thought the majority of prisoners at Guantanamo were captured during the invasion of Afghanistan. We may call them terrorists, but they consider themselves freedom fighters.

The same is true for combatants arrested in Iraq. We call them terrorists because they're fighting against our troops. They consider themselves freedom fighters fighting against an invader and occupier. Why is it so horrible when they kill unarmed civilians but okay when the USAF does it? (And so far we make them look like pikers in the number of innocents killed.)

If they're guilty of something, why not try them? If they're innocent, then it seems like we should let them go. To do anything else, no matter how you dance around it, is a violation of our principles of human rights. It makes us no better than them.

What am I missing?

I don't favor extending the rights and protections of our judical system to people who were actively bearing arms against it. Nor to people who ar sworn to destroy it. Especially not to anyone who was supporting AQ in their vile campagin of murder.

I just don't. I don't want them with a battery of lawyers, searching for any technicality they can fiond to get them off. Especially since most of the laws here that protect citizens were anathema to them when they were applying the law.

I commend you for favoring it. I prefer tribunal, where they are afforded a defense, but not the endless rounds of appeals and reviews they would get here, should they be convicted.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I thought the Supremes had decided that detainees on American soil are protected by and subject to the rule of American law, of which Habeus Corpus is one of the central tenets. Gitmo is US territory, so US law applies.

I believe that the US Government is intentionally keeping these people as prisoners without legal status solely to deny them any rights, which is tantamount to denying them rights in the first place. We are circumventing our own rule of law.

In other words, their status is not a legal issue. It's a political one. We know damned well what we're doing.

Gitmo is a strange situation Doc. My history here is rusty, so anyone who knows feel free to correct me.

Gitmo was originally ceeded to us as a naval base and coaling station by one government. The Castro government has never recognized that treaty to my knowledge. If memory serves, it was leased, for some extended period. Theoretically then, it isn't US territory, not in the same wy an embassy is. No civilain constulabary force has jurisdiction there. I think anything that hapens crime wise on base is a matter for the Military police and the crimes are subject to the UCMJ, even if the suspect is a civilian.

Unless I am incorrect, the smae applies to civilain persons on, say a U.S. navy ship. they are subject to the USMJ, their civilain status notwithstanding.