Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

[BPSCG]

The trouble with that idea is that "The War on Terror" is as all-encompassing, ill-defined and un-winnable as a "war on drugs" a "war on crime" or a "war on poverty." When will the "war on terror" be won? When there isn't a single person left standing who wishes to bring harm to the US or the West? You may as well just admit that the current detainees should remain in detention for the rest of their lives....

As you wish. Please note that it was al Qaeda that lauched the initial attacks against the U.S., not vice-versa, and, as such, its fighters are not in much of a position to complain about their treatment, being members of a group that is not a signatory to the Geneva Accords.

There's a story about Union General Benjamin Butler during the American Civil War. A slave had escaped from a Virginia plantation and made his way into the Union lines. His owner went to General Butler and demanded that his property be returned.

Butler responded that he had no authority to deal with the slaveowner's claim; it was his misfortune, Butler remarked, to be taken at his word when he claimed to be the citizen of a foreign country. Now, if the slaveowner wanted to acknowledge that he was a citizen of the United States, not the Confederate States...

The POWs at Guantanamo are in a similar situation. By not being a signatory to the Geneva Accords, they are proclaiming, "The rules of war do not apply to us." It is their misfortune that the United States government is taking them at their word.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

As you wish. Please note that it was al Qaeda that lauched the initial attacks against the U.S., not vice-versa, and, as such, its fighters are not in much of a position to complain about their treatment, being members of a group that is not a signatory to the Geneva Accords.

It is up to the U.S. military to show a link between the prisoners and al Qaeda. While legally subject to military justice, you can certainly understand that many people object to the possibility that there are inmates at gitmo who not even charged with a crime.

 

[Elind]

The American lawyer for Australian inmate David Hicks, who has been held at Guantanamo for four-and-a-half years and is in isolation, said solitary confinement may have been a factor in the men's deaths.
The lawyer, Major Michael Mori, said Hicks had spent long periods in solitary and was in poor health.
The Defence Department said one of the men who committed suicide had ties to al-Qaeda, another fought for the Taliban and a third was cleared to be transferred, the Defence Department alleges.

What we believe depends on what we read, or how much we read, I suppose.

As I understand it the only ones in real solitary are the same as those in US prisons, who try to harm themselves or anyone who comes near them.

The others can communicate regularly, obviously, they have written communications with their homes and visits from the Red Cross and their own country from time to time.

The third as you misrepresent above was not "cleared" according the news I read. He was to be transfered to his country with no guarantee of freedom there, and he would most probably have known that this was pending before trying to make his last piece of propaganda.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the captured men are al-qaeda terrorists, and there is evidence to support the claim, then they should be prosecuted under American law. US law is capable of prosecuting those who plan to harm the nation - and so it should be used

That standard has never been applied to war before. Why does it need to be applied now?

Japanese and German soldiers who were captured during WWII were not, as a rule, charged with any crimes. About the only ones where were tried were those who committed war crimes, and who were tried in order to execute them rather than just hold them prisoner. I see no reason why any prosecution is necessary for detainment of enemy soldiers, because that's never been a requirement in the past.

 

[FreeChile]

lol no, I am sure it is pretty rough.

But my point is that I don't see why anyone, even the idiots that make up the military, would keep someone for 3 years if they didn't get any evidence from them the entire time that they were guilty.

Actually, I take that back, because I can easily see the jerks in the military keeping people they know are innocent in order to avoid having to admit they made a mistake.... oh man now I don't know what to think...

Isn't it also possible that someone who has been wrongfully detained for months would become embittered and seek revenge against the US afterwards? Or seek millions in restitution? Or seek that those who detained him pay for their crimes? And imagine all that in the midst of what is percieved to be a war.

 

[Elind]

My official stance is that this gitmo situation is something that we definitely need more information on, and in that respect the military is very wrong in denying us access.

And what access would you want? Full access to all interrogations, cross referenced of course, statements from the soldiers in the field at time of capture, from guards during incarceration? Run your own trial in your own time at everyones expense.

Or perhaps you would be happy with the bleeding heart approach?

Just interview all the prisoners. Take anything they say at face value, and get Amnesty to put it in an international report?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That standard has never been applied to war before. Why does it need to be applied now?

Japanese and German soldiers who were captured during WWII were not, as a rule, charged with any crimes. About the only ones where were tried were those who committed war crimes, and who were tried in order to execute them rather than just hold them prisoner. I see no reason why any prosecution is necessary for detainment of enemy soldiers, because that's never been a requirement in the past.

Japanese and German soldiers, taken prisoner in uniform, were unambiguously part of the Japanese and German miltiary. As the current forces facing the United States frequently hide amoung the general population, and the military proactively takes prisoner suspected terrorists, it behooves the military to ensure that those people taken prisoner do in fact, have links to the forces fighting us.

 

[andyandy]

That standard has never been applied to war before. Why does it need to be applied now?

Japanese and German soldiers who were captured during WWII were not, as a rule, charged with any crimes. About the only ones where were tried were those who committed war crimes, and who were tried in order to execute them rather than just hold them prisoner. I see no reason why any prosecution is necessary for detainment of enemy soldiers, because that's never been a requirement in the past.

you know your argument's in trouble when you have to give examples from the Nazis and the Japanese treatment of prisoners in WWII.......

 

[Elind]

Isn't it also possible that someone who has been wrongfully detained for months would become embittered and seek revenge against the US afterwards? Or seek millions in restitution? Or seek that those who detained him pay for their crimes? And imagine all that in the midst of what is percieved to be a war.

Do you think that there is anyone who doesn't claim wrongful detention? Well maybe a few mach diehards admit it all, including being tortured of course. I understand that the majority of common criminals in jail also claim to be innocent.

 

[daredelvis]

You (and others) talk about them like they should be treated as common criminals, with all the due process rights accorded to common criminals.

That is not what they are. They are being treated as POWs. Once you've been captured as a POW, you stay a POW until the war is over. They should be happy with that status, because as "unlawful combatants," and as part of an organization that does not subscribe to the Geneva Conventions, their fates could justifiably have been far worse.

Congress has passed a formal declaration of war? I must have missed that.

Not the issue. The whole Gitmo affair flies in the face of what many think the U.S. stands for, me included. I believe (and “believe” is all one can do with the information released by the government about these prisoners) that many of these people should be locked up. I am also concerned that many of these prisoners were handed over for very large cash rewards.

If the government has evidence of guilt it is time to come out with it and hold trials. The terrorist set out to destroy America, and in a way they are succeeding.

Daredelvis


Also, much is said about “unlawful combatants”. Again, I am not defending the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, but what uniform would you put on if a foreign country invaded?

 

[BPSCG]

you know your argument's in trouble when you have to give examples from the Nazis and the Japanese treatment of prisoners in WWII.......

andyandy, I think you need to go back and re-read the post you were replying to, then try to figure out if your reply makes any sense.

 

[FreeChile]

Maybe not. Maybe it'll end when the structures that prop it up collapse, and maybe confronting it aggressively will hasten that day.

Maybe, maybe, maybe ... Why so much uncertainty on your part?

 

[andyandy]

andyandy, I think you need to go back and re-read the post you were replying to, then try to figure out if your reply makes any sense.

ooops....

no it doesn't.....

guess i should read posts a little slower

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

We don't even know if they were guilty of anything, as there has been no trial.

well they were certainly guilty of being extremely stupid.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

lol no, I am sure it is pretty rough.

But my point is that I don't see why anyone, even the idiots that make up the military, would keep someone for 3 years if they didn't get any evidence from them the entire time that they were guilty.

probably to exploit idiots like you.

Actually, I take that back, because I can easily see the jerks in the military keeping people they know are innocent in order to avoid having to admit they made a mistake.... oh man now I don't know what to think...

Probably because the jerks who think the military are inept have a hard time thinking, period.

My official stance is that this gitmo situation is something that we definitely need more information on, and in that respect the military is very wrong in denying us access.

Why do you need access? How much access do you have to your local state and federal penitentiaries? how many have you visited?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I thought innocent til proven guilty was a major tennant of the western democratic system.....

not be pedantic (being myself a maestro of the typo) the word is tenet, not tennant.

If they weren't innocent why were they released?

Ther were deemed to not be a threat. Far from the word "innocent".

If the US had any evidence against them, then why weren't they tried?

Are you serious or merely misguided? People taken under arms or on battlefields without uniforms should be tried like they were robbing a bank or something?

That they didn't just get shot out of hand - which would not be a violation of the Geneva accords - says volumes (of good) about the US and its military. that they have been fed and quartered and even allowed outside verification of their conditions says even more.

This is not a civilian/police environment. Its a war.

What evidence do you have for "Many of those released were not innocent"?

probably about as much as you have evidence they were.

There seems to have been a very small number who have been released incorrectly. Does this mean it is acceptable to operate a drag net policy under which innocent people are incorrectly detained?

Its not a "dragnet" policy. When wars happen and people get rounded up its called "stopping them shooting at you". Now granted it is possible that one of the people rounded up on the battlefield was, in fact, just popping down to the local store for a bottle of camel's milk from the Afghan equivalent of a 7-11.

The ones that hanged themselves were from Saudi Arabia - captured in Afghanistan. Hmm. Guess they must have taken the wrong turn for Disney World and distraught at missing Mickey and Minnie have now hanged themselves.

 

[Ziggurat]

Japanese and German soldiers, taken prisoner in uniform, were unambiguously part of the Japanese and German miltiary. As the current forces facing the United States frequently hide amoung the general population, and the military proactively takes prisoner suspected terrorists, it behooves the military to ensure that those people taken prisoner do in fact, have links to the forces fighting us.

You point to a genuine and substantive issue. There's a balancing act that has to take place: on the one hand, it's not good to hold innocent people, but on the other hand, not only is it bad to let the guilty go, but it's ALSO bad to spend a lot of resources processing the guilty. And the terrorists know that: they know that they do us harm even by tying up cases in courts, they know it costs us a whole lot of money, and they try to do that as much as possible. Opponents of Guantanamo have been focused almost solely on the problem of holding innocents. But what about the latter problems? What happens when you willingly provide the enemy with a reward for creating exactly this sort of confusion? The enemy will create more of this sort of confusion. Encourage bad behavior, and you get more of it. And that behavior endangers innocent civilians just as much as overzealous prosecutions, if not moreso, since hiding among civilians gets those civilians killed. Even on the basis of concern for innocents abroad (and not the risk or cost to ourselves), it isn't clear that maximum possible diligence to the rights of prisoners actually provides the most protection.

So, how exactly should we balance this? That's a legitimate question, and there simply are no easy answers. But pretending like only one of those problems exists is a pretty sure-fire way to arrive at the wrong answer.

 

[FreeChile]

Do you think that there is anyone who doesn't claim wrongful detention? Well maybe a few mach diehards admit it all, including being tortured of course. I understand that the majority of common criminals in jail also claim to be innocent.

I don’t see how this is connected to the statements I made. Can you please clarify?

In any case, let’s reverse your comments to see if you make any sense. Do you think that any military personnel would admit to torturing detainees or mistreating them?

 

[Ziggurat]

In any case, let’s reverse your comments to see if you make any sense. Do you think that any military personnel would admit to torturing detainees or mistreating them?

Not the relevant comparison. Rather, do you think that any military personnel would file complaints if other personnel were torturing or mistreating detainees?

I don't know what you think, but military personnel would complain when other personnel engage in such activity. How do I know? Because it's already happened.

 

[Belz...]

What a convenient non-argument. It's wonderful how you can just dismiss something by calling it a "technicality", as if that label alone makes something irrelevant. I should try that myself. Get caught speeding by the police? But officer, being 30 mph over the limit is just a technicality. Shoplift something? Oh, it's just a technicality that I didn't pay for it before leaving the store. Didn't make my rent payment on time? I'm sure my landlord will understand that's just a technicality.

If you have an argument to make, make it. Otherwise, spare us the useless commentary.

Hit a nerve ?

You're claiming that those prisoners exist in some form of legal limbo that would allow the US to do whatever the hell they wanted with them. I'm not sure such a limbo exists. If they're POWs are some suggest, then they should be protected by the geneva convention, which, I hope, include the right to a fair trial or something. If they aren't, then they should be tried by a conventional court. Either way, they should have rights.

If I'm wrong, and the middle ground exists, then someone should make sure it CEASES to exist. Everyone has rights. I do believe that's one of the basic principles of western civilisation.