Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

[rjh01]

Are there any parallels between this and how the British treated the IRA people it captured? I thought they were all put on trial.
Any thoughts?

 

[a_unique_person]

Sure, some people contend that. Some people contend that they are NOT common criminals, but instead are enemy combatants not covered by the Geneva conventions, which would mean that they should have fewer rights than POW's, not more. And POW's can be held indefinitely without charges - ergo, we should not expect or demand any such treatment for Guantanamo prisoners.

The US's own prosecutors had no faith in the system or what was happening. Refer link.

 

[Zep]

Of course the US is excused from applying Geneva conventions to Al Qaeda. The Geneva convention is a treaty. It is, by its own declarations, ONLY binding for conflicts between parties to the treaty. By its own words, the treaty can not and does not apply.

Because the US says so? Because it has invented a purely ideologically and politically motivated category of "enemy" not covered by that treaty, specifically to avoid its perceived restrictions? Here's a question: Are there likely to be any other laws and treaties they might like to ignore that we should know about now? Before we run to join your side of the fight?

Wrong again, and doubly so. Not only do the Geneva conventions not apply, but even if they did, this requirement simply does not exist. The Geneva conventions allow for indefinite detentions of POW's without trial. In fact, that's the general procedure: POW's are not, as a rule, charged with anything, and they are, in fact, held indefinitely. You have invented a right for POW's which simply never existed.

Please. These "POWs" HAVE been charged, and with serious crimes what's more. That's why they were captured in the first place and are in Gitmo now, and not in a standard POW detention facility on the mainland USA like all the previous POWs have been. There is a whole battallion of army lawyers slogging away in that place, supposedly preparing prosecution and defense cases for each and every one of them.

So don't you think it is high time their trials took place, and we saw the depth of their infamy and convictions? Hmmm?

Quite simply wrong, for the reasons stated above. You're wrong about the applicability and, more dramatically, the actual contents of the Geneva conventions.

I've been reading the applicable thread on it here, before I posted. OK, so it's not a comprehensive instruction in international law nor this convention in particular, but I think I get the point it is trying to make.

 

[Elind]

I have no problem with detaining illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers so they can be properly processed or returned. But not in what are effectively concentration camps, not foisted on other countries, and not for years on end.

I would agree in the case when they are not terrorists or POWs, but perhaps the problem is that some people want to let anyone come anytime, and others don't, resulting in the inability to "process" and return?

Why are they not simply returned? How long can that take? In the US hundreds of thousands per year are returned.

 

[Zep]

You make a good point, but there is a sense that what we know is always incomplete. We still need to decide how to act rightly. We cannot avoid making ethical or moral choices because we don't know everything there is to know. So it is valid for me to say "of far more value to terrorists than us" with the evidence at hand. Sure, when we say we 'know' it is always more or less tentative.

We have already learned that many generals and military leaders keep silent until retirement. They seem supportive of the US war strategy until they feel it is safe to freely speak their minds.

The evidence supports that it is far more likely everyone involved would just like Gitmo to go away but can't do it because of the political cost of looking like they made a big mistake. (The mistake transcends political parties).

It is hard to just let them go somewhere, they could indeed be quite dangerous by now if they were not before. If nothing else they know lots of the latest interrogation techniques.

Meanwhile they serve as an inspiration to terrorist recruiters, by martyrdom if not by the symbol of their suffering.

The strongest reason for Gitmo's existance that would have given it world-wide support would have been the public trial, conviction by incontrovertible evidence, and subsequent punishment of the captive inmates. However even that seems to be going backwards at an alarming rate...

 

[Elind]

So don't you think it is high time their trials took place, and we saw the depth of their infamy and convictions? Hmmm?

There's a practical aspect to this, which is why military trials are used, have been used, and will no doubt continue to be. That is simply that civilian criminal justice can't deal with such issues. We saw the Moussawi (however you spell it) issue take years and cost millions to try, and this is for someone who pled guilty!

If they can't call everyone from Rummy and above to testify and have access to every confidental file in the country the defense will call for a mistrial or acquital. The Germans let someone go free who even they believed was guilty, because the CIA refused to allow his defense access to all their data and prisoners in Gitmo.

I do believe BTW that close to half the Gitmo prisoners have been released, (and some subsequently killed in action), so when you claim that nothing is happening you may not be correct.

THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SITUATION!

 

[a_unique_person]

Caps!

How did you do that?

 

[Elind]

Trying to get your attention, as usual.

 

[Zep]

There's a practical aspect to this, which is why military trials are used, have been used, and will no doubt continue to be. That is simply that civilian criminal justice can't deal with such issues. We saw the Moussawi (however you spell it) issue take years and cost millions to try, and this is for someone who pled guilty!

If they can't call everyone from Rummy and above to testify and have access to every confidental file in the country the defense will call for a mistrial or acquital. The Germans let someone go free who even they believed was guilty, because the CIA refused to allow his defense access to all their data and prisoners in Gitmo.

I do believe BTW that close to half the Gitmo prisoners have been released, (and some subsequently killed in action), so when you claim that nothing is happening you may not be correct.

THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SITUATION!

I never said it was a crimial justice situation. But that makes it a military one - they are military legal teams involved, aren't they? So when are they going to pull their fingers out? Ooops - some of them already have - they have resigned rather than pursue trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat in a dodgy process. Not encouraging, is it...

 

[rjh01]

The BBC has a better article on the subject. Covers both sides. BBC

 

[Elind]

I never said it was a crimial justice situation. But that makes it a military one - they are military legal teams involved, aren't they? So when are they going to pull their fingers out? Ooops - some of them already have - they have resigned rather than pursue trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat in a dodgy process. Not encouraging, is it...

You fooled me there. In what way do you distinguish what you want from a simple criminal issue and what you claim to want?

"trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat"

How do you know that and what does "taken in combat" mean to you? Association with a criminal enterprise is good enough for conviction in a civil criminal court, but not applicable in a military situation? Sounds to me more like a matter of which side you choose to give the benefit of doubt to. I'll give it to my own first.

I know you don't support or condone terrorism, or call it fanatical extremism if you want, but you do seem more inclined to believe in the mistreatment of "trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat" by those on your side, as if they are all a bunch of moronic goons with nothing better to do than amuse themselves with poor little people they were lucky enough to get their hands on.

Next thing I would expect to hear from you is a questioning of how the bombing of AZ was carried out without a trial first, after all, at least one civilian under the age of 16 seems to have been killed in that. So far I haven't seen your tears.

 

[Aepervius]

This is maddening

Sorry Zep, but the military is not a democracy, nor is the prosecution of war democratic. The US has decided to hold these illegal combatants alive, rather than putting them before a firing squad as was the norm in the past. They are not being held for trial, as if they were common criminals.

Ever heard of geneva convention ? Well if they were uniformed they have to be prisoner of war. With certain right and treatment. if they were not they have to be tried as civil. I am sorry but the US govt is a disgrace as they are rying to find new and inventive way to interpret and name those prisonner as "illegal enemy combatant" to bypass their own signature of the convention. It does not matter that al quaeda or what not did not sign the geneva convention. What matters is that the US did sign it.

Additionally I do not think the geneva convention allowed you to execute with a firing squad a surrendering enemy combatant. But you could certainly under marshall law and war execute spion and saboteur (usually with a token military trial).

But you know what I find maddening ? That people having 5000+ post here, which I would assume are more or less akin to be critical thinker or interrested into critical thinking, buy into this f(rule8)ing rethoric from the US govt about illegal US combatant, a term invented for the special purpose of justifying something explicitly forbidden by the geneva convention..

Next time US is in a war with another country, even a signator of the geneva convenion, and that country decide to hold any eople (militar or not) as illegal enemy combatant forever or do them treatment contrary to the geneva convention, do not come whining or mouth foaming. You will only get what you seeded.

 

[Aepervius]

No they were not "tried" even military

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Gitmo detainees were seen by a military tribunal, which constitutes a trial.

They did not have any sort of trial, and that is the problem. The military only flagged them as enemy "illegal" combatant (see my previous post on how shameful is this definition). Furthermore military can only try other military enemy combatant involved in a running war. There are other case (like humanity and war crime) but those have special commision. The problem is that in gitmo there isn't only enemy combatant there are also civil caught in a non-military field.

Finally fhere are among all those prisonner, only a few which are (told from your own military) fit for a military tribunal/trial.

AS for the "assymetrical warfare", don't get me started on that. For crying loud those guys are prisonner without term and trial. Like the british told in cnn in an interview in 2004 "you are getting told everyday that you will never get out of there". Frankly this is reason enough for suicide.
What hope do they have ? Do you know how people react when there is no hope anymore ? That's right. Suicide. look at the number of attempt for the nmber of prisonner. What is surprising is that none succeeded until now...


Bottom line if those guy were prisonner of war (afghan/Iraq war), since the war is finished then release them. if those guy are ****tard terrorist then try them , and send them to execution or life prison afterward. Using indefinite prison and breaking treaty makes you only look like facist fools from a banana republic.

 

[a_unique_person]

You fooled me there. In what way do you distinguish what you want from a simple criminal issue and what you claim to want?

"trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat"

How do you know that and what does "taken in combat" mean to you? Association with a criminal enterprise is good enough for conviction in a civil criminal court, but not applicable in a military situation? Sounds to me more like a matter of which side you choose to give the benefit of doubt to. I'll give it to my own first.

I know you don't support or condone terrorism, or call it fanatical extremism if you want, but you do seem more inclined to believe in the mistreatment of "trumped-up charges against civilians not taken in combat" by those on your side, as if they are all a bunch of moronic goons with nothing better to do than amuse themselves with poor little people they were lucky enough to get their hands on.

Next thing I would expect to hear from you is a questioning of how the bombing of AZ was carried out without a trial first, after all, at least one civilian under the age of 16 seems to have been killed in that. So far I haven't seen your tears.

Your own military prosecutors who quit called it exactly that.

 

[rjh01]

From the BBC

One of the three men who committed suicide at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay was due to be released - but did not know it, says a US lawyer.
...
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said procedures at Guantanamo Bay violated the rule of law and undermined the fight against terrorism.Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said procedures at Guantanamo Bay violated the rule of law and undermined the fight against terrorism.

This base needs to be closed now.

 

[Mycroft]

From the BBC


This base needs to be closed now.

I believe that reaction was the goal of these suicides.

 

[armageddonman]

Nothing?
We know that they were sincere believers in the "religion of peace". We know that they were picked up on the battlefield and despite there being no trial I believe that our military had good reason to suspect that they had no peaceful intentions towards us, the infidels. We know that they placed little or no value on even their own lives. We have good reason to believe that they subscribed to all that crap about a heavenly reward of virgins for their "sacrifice"

To say that we know nothing about them is just plain silly.

Yo

We now also know that at least one of the men who committed suicide was due to be released. That makes him an innocent who was jailed without trial for several years and who subsequently killed himself.

So, you were wrong with your assumptions. There are still innocent people held in Gitmo.

 

[Mycroft]

We now also know that at least one of the men who committed suicide was due to be released. That makes him an innocent who was jailed without trial for several years and who subsequently killed himself.

How does that follow? Many of those released so far were not innocent. Some even turned up fighting against coalition forces later on.

So, you were wrong with your assumptions. There are still innocent people held in Gitmo.

Evidence?

 

[armageddonman]

How does that follow? Many of those released so far were not innocent. Some even turned up fighting against coalition forces later on.

So the US releases known terrorists? Why?

Evidence?

I stand corrected: since a lot of people have been releases without being tried and convicted of anything and have thus to be assumed innocent (which they have to be anyway as long as they are not tried and convicted), it's logical to assume that not all detainees are actually guitly.

Isn't it one of the foremost principles of US law that a suspect is assumed innocent until proven guilty? Why should that not apply to the Gitmo prsinoers?

 

[rjh01]

How about this.
The USA captures some innocent men, send them to the base. After a few years the USA works out they have done nothing wrong and release the men. However in the meantime they have been converted into terrorists. So they go and fight the USA.

Either that or this.
The USA captures some guilty men, send them to the base.After a few years the USA are so incompetent they cannot find any evidence to say they are terrorists so they are released. They then go back to fight the USA.

Take your pick. The USA is incompetent or the base is a recruitment camp for terrorists. Unless someone can give me a third option?