Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

[DaChew]

If they can't assert the legality of their 'court' they should abandon the sham, as your own prosecutors did.

Again, I ask you: Who is this "they" that has the power to assert legality over the U.S. Supreme Court?

 

[a_unique_person]

The Bush administration set up the whole 'trial' system, and cannot even demonstrate it's legality.

 

[WildCat]

The Bush administration set up the whole 'trial' system, and cannot even demonstrate it's legality.

They can't?

eta: A decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld could come as early as this week.

 

[BPSCG]

They can't?

Not to a_u_p's satisfaction, anyway...

 

[DaChew]

The Bush administration set up the whole 'trial' system, and cannot even demonstrate it's legality.

Oh well, then you are in a great deal of luck because they have, in fact, offered a demonstration of the legality of the tribunal in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Exactly where they should have. And, as I have explained to you more than once, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently in the process of deciding the legality of those tribunals. This is how our system of justice works.

Certainly you don't have a problem with this system do you?

 

[LW]

Yep, but it wasn't usually three years plus from arrest to arrival above the Arctic Circle.

Well, if someone presented me a choice of either waiting for over three years to hear my fate or getting sent to do "general work" in some camp above the Arctic Circle, I think that I would choose the former even if the deal included Gitmo-like conditions.

I wouldn't like it, of course, but then again, being worked to death in six months or less wouldn't be nice, either. [Yes, I know that there were many zeks who managed to survive for years or even decades in "general work" (though most of those who survived long terms managed to get into more comfortable jobs) but I also know that I wouldn't be among them.]

 

[Ziggurat]

I stand corrected, then. Still, I believe everyone, POWs and all, should be entitled to fair trial. Otherwise, something's wrong.

Then your complaint isn't really about Guantanamo at all, but about what you consider a fault of the very concept of POW's (including the Geneva conventions). Simply put, no country would agree to providing POW's with such treatment, and that includes not even demanding such treatment of their own soldiers. You are essentially alone in this opinion.

 

[Cylinder]

I'd be grateful if you had a reference for any single moment in history when a combatant was captured from the battlefield and tried for crimes.

Sept. 29, 1780. Major John Andre was General Clinton's chief of intelligence. Andre crossed the rebel's line in civilian clothes, negotiated the surrender of West Point with General Arnold and attempted to cross back to British lines at which point he was captured by the New York militia. Gen Washington, upon his authority and CINC, convened a military tribunal which found to be true the facts surrounding Andre's capture. Washington refused Major Andre's request to be shot as a soldier and instead ordered him summarily hung.

 

[BPSCG]

Sept. 29, 1780. Major John Andre was General Clinton's chief of intelligence. Andre crossed the rebel's line in civilian clothes, negotiated the surrender of West Point with General Arnold and attempted to cross back to British lines at which point he was captured by the New York militia. Gen Washington, upon his authority and CINC, convened a military tribunal which found to be true the facts surrounding Andre's capture. Washington refused Major Andre's request to be shot as a soldier and instead ordered him summarily hung.

Coupla quibbles:

1. Andre was hanged, not "hung." Okay, maybe he was hung, too, but we'll never know for sure until we see his wife's/mistress's diaries. But when you stretch a guy's neck, the past tense is "hanged."
2. He was hanged not as a criminal, but as a spy. And that is routinely what happens to spies captured on the battlefield; they get a military tribunal, and if found guilty, are hanged. Happened to Nathan Hale, too, though we 'Murricans hold a better opinion of him than we do of Andre.

 

[Belz...]

Where is it the norm to try POW's for crimes? Isn't this specifically prohibited by the GC and before that by the generally accepted laws of warfare?

Prohibited, why ?

If there's a good reason, then sure...

 

[Belz...]

Then your complaint isn't really about Guantanamo at all, but about what you consider a fault of the very concept of POW's (including the Geneva conventions). Simply put, no country would agree to providing POW's with such treatment, and that includes not even demanding such treatment of their own soldiers. You are essentially alone in this opinion.

I suppose it WOULD be impractical... but it does provide an interesting loophole, if you can "consider" a prisoner to be a POW...

 

[Mycroft]

If they were combatants then they should be classified as POWs. This gives them certain rights. However they have not been given this status. That is part of the problem and one of the reasons why 'The war on terror' will not be won. It is not the fact that it is a hopeless war, it is the fact that it is not being fought correctly.

I don't see a logical connection between giving militants POW status and winning the war on terror. Could you elaborate?

The only thing that will win the war is if you win the hearts and minds of both sides.

Study history or repeat its mistakes.

Can you cite an example from history that has meaning in this situation?

 

[Mycroft]

O RLY?

The links you posted show that the inmates have either been released for lack of evidence (which invites the question: What shabby evidence put them in there in the first place?), or that their trials are "ongoing". None, as far as I'm aware, have had their trials completed, but I'll gladly accept your evidence that they have.

The mere fact that many have been released should be incontrovertible evidence that these peoples cases are being heard and reviewed. How else would such a determination be made?

Please tell me when David Hicks, an Australian citizen, is going to come to trial? He's not a towel-head, he doesn't ride camels, he's Aryan...

I suggest you read this Wikipedia article on Hicks. You seem to have many misunderstanding on what is going on in his case. For starters, his case has been reviewed in US Federal court and an appeals court, so it’s disingenuous to claim he’s not getting due process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

 

[Mycroft]

If they can't assert the legality of their 'court' they should abandon the sham, as your own prosecutors did.

They are asserting the legality of their "court", the issue is before the SCOTUS now.

 

[Cylinder]

Coupla quibbles:

1. Andre was hanged, not "hung." Okay, maybe he was hung, too, but we'll never know for sure until we see his wife's/mistress's diaries. But when you stretch a guy's neck, the past tense is "hanged."
2. He was hanged not as a criminal, but as a spy. And that is routinely what happens to spies captured on the battlefield; they get a military tribunal, and if found guilty, are hanged. Happened to Nathan Hale, too, though we 'Murricans hold a better opinion of him than we do of Andre.

Andre was hanged (thanks for the correction) for violations of the laws of war. On a second read, DaChew may have been asking for examples of civilian charges of which I have none. Sorry if I misread that post.

 

[Cylinder]

Prohibited, why ?

If there's a good reason, then sure...

Prisoners of war can be tried for offenses that occurred before or after capture provided that the offense specified would have been a crime for a member of the detaining power at the time of the commission. Trials are required to be held by military tribunal unless at the time of commision, these crimes would have been judged by a civilian court for a member of the detaining power.

Art. 84. A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

Art. 87. Prisoners of war may not be sentenced by the military authorities and courts of the Detaining Power to any penalties except those provided for in respect of members of the armed forces of the said Power who have committed the same acts.

 

[rjh01]

Can you cite an example from history that has meaning in this situation?

Try the troubles in Northern Island. It ended? when the people wanted to end it. Not because the British locked up everyone they thought was the enemy.

Not sure how often I will post here. This thread does not appear to be going very far.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh well, then you are in a great deal of luck because they have, in fact, offered a demonstration of the legality of the tribunal in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Exactly where they should have. And, as I have explained to you more than once, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently in the process of deciding the legality of those tribunals. This is how our system of justice works.

Certainly you don't have a problem with this system do you?

Once again, four years, including protracted periods of solitary, demonstrate otherwise. Justice delayed is justice denied. If it take more than four years to demonstrate the legality of a process, (and the judgement still hasn't been given, IIRC), then that is not justice. (With the stacking of the SCOTUS, I am guessing the repeated denials it is just will now change to approval).

So yes, there is a very big problem with this system

As it turns out, all the British prisoners have been released to Britain. David Hicks has a British mother, and has the right to claim British citizenship. All he has to do is swear it to an authorised representative of Britain, and he will be out. Of course, the British consul has been repeatedly denied access to David Hicks to have him perform the process.

 

[Zep]

So you (Zep) are saying that the U.S. justice system at Guantanamo is worse than Stalin, is that it?

Just wanted to check where you were coming from.

I'm saying that it is being perceived as such. And its conduct w.r.t. procedure and disclosure, and the government attitude to its existence so far, have been reinforcing that perception. Prejudice and loathing feeds heavily on lack of facts.

 

[Zep]

Well, if someone presented me a choice of either waiting for over three years to hear my fate or getting sent to do "general work" in some camp above the Arctic Circle, I think that I would choose the former even if the deal included Gitmo-like conditions.

I wouldn't like it, of course, but then again, being worked to death in six months or less wouldn't be nice, either. [Yes, I know that there were many zeks who managed to survive for years or even decades in "general work" (though most of those who survived long terms managed to get into more comfortable jobs) but I also know that I wouldn't be among them.]

True, me neither, but I was only using this as a comparison with Gitmo in terms of relative efficiency. Stalinist USSR was able to process millions into "general labour reassignment" in the same time that Gitmo has failed to process what appear to be now only a few dozen remaining inmates.