Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

[BPSCG]

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

I'm saying that it is being perceived as such.

By whom? You have cites?

 

[BPSCG]

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.

Yeah, well sorting out the truly dangerous from the non-dangerous and the no-longer-dangerous is a little more time-consuming than just sticking everyone in a cattle car and shipping them to the forced-labor camps.

But if you prefer doing it fast to getting it right, I suppose that could be arranged.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

What do you see as the connection between Northern Ireland and the legal issue of Gitmo?

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

Well, I hope you answer my question.

 

[Zep]

As you are well aware, detainees who have been released have undergone a review board process before three military officers and one appointed civilian representative. In the majority of cases the actual reason for their release is not disclosed publicly. They are simply declared of no further strategic use and/or no longer a threat. In about ten percent of the cases the latter, as The Painter has pointed out, turns out to be tragically incorrect. This tells me that detainees have a rather low standard to achieve with regard to proving their "innocence" (note that "innocence" is in quotes. Nobody has been declared innocent)

It's a bit hard to prepare to "gather sufficient evidence of innocence for a legal defence" when you are whisked away by a foreign military to a destination on the other side of the world, bound, possibly tortured, and then kept in close confinement or even isolation, without benefit of access to lawyers, for months. Don't you agee? Others you deride resort to such tactics - must you?

Their innocence or lack thereof is determined at the end of their (yet-to-be-processed) trial, not before it, surely.

The disposition of Hicks, as you are also well aware, is currently in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. You can't reasonably challenge the legality of a military tribunal and then complain that your military trial has been delayed too long while your challenge is being adjudicated now can you?

I'm not challenging the legality of the military tribunals per se. In general, I would actually tend to trust their ultimate judgement more than that of a US civil court, if some recent antics in the latter as reported in the news are any guide. I would expect them to be somewhat less likely to indulge in dramatics, rhetoric, and posing as courtroom weapons. But that aside...

My point is I have been urging that these courts convene and try the Gitmo prisoners ASAP, or give up any pretense that even more time is required. How much time is necessary? Justice delayed is justice denied, yes?

However the Supreme Court challenge has focused attention on the gaping holes in either its initial legitimacy, or its conduct, or both. And the announcement from Bush overnight (that he would like to see Gitmo close) is a tacit agreement that an end to Gitmo perhaps should come sooner rather than later. We shall see.

PS. If that happens, I would have no problem with the prisoners being made legit POWs, and subject to appropriate detention. Or legally tried as war-criminals if needs be.

 

[Zep]

By whom? You have cites?

By ME. Would you like me to cite that for you? It's my opinion.

But then, there's this, from a conservative politician here, in November last year:

Let's get real. The case of David Hicks clearly fails the commonsense test. It fails the commonsense test not only in the educated minds of the legal profession, but in the gut feelings of ordinary Australians who believe in a fair go, and who believe that truth and justice and that old hand-me-down from the Magna Carta that says men are innocent until proven guilty, still deserve some currency in our world.

Just like you, just like me, as an Australian, he is entitled to a fair trial without further delay. And, after four years in Guantanamo Bay, if the Americans cannot deliver this to David Hicks, in all fairness, we must ask that he be sent home.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...1131578231210.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Or some of our top legal profession? 3 June 2006, The Australian:

Former Federal Court judge Ron Merkel and former NSW Liberal attorney-general and Supreme Court judge John Dowd are among the 76 signatories on an open letter to the Prime Minister arguing that Hicks - who remains in indefinite US detention in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - is being held illegally and deserves a fair trial.

"Whether or not David Hicks is in fact guilty or innocent is not the issue. The illegality lies in the process of indefinite detention and unfair trial by military commission," the lawyers say.

They argue that the federal Government is complicit with the US in breaking international law and "undermining international legal order", and urge Mr Howard to act or lose the war against terrorism.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19345934-2702,00.html

Think this is new? Some considered lawyers' opinions, from August 2003

The status of David Hicks and the others detained at Guantanamo Bay is not known. Justice Mark Weinberg wrote: "The Geneva Convention requires that a competent tribunal be convened to determine POW status of the captured during a military conflict. That requirement has not been met."

Under the rules laid down by Bush's Military Order and Rumsfeld's Rules the process of Hicks' trial will not be fair. The US is reverting to processes that have been discredited for over 150 years.

http://www.lra.org.au/media_releases/hicks.htm

And so on.

This, from your strongest ally in this exercise...

 

[Zep]

Yeah, well sorting out the truly dangerous from the non-dangerous and the no-longer-dangerous is a little more time-consuming than just sticking everyone in a cattle car and shipping them to the forced-labor camps.

But if you prefer doing it fast to getting it right, I suppose that could be arranged.

You've had four frikken' years! Perhaps you can tell me how much MORE time is necessary? What excuse to delay can you agree to next? Bad star signs?

 

[Lothian]

One day, the majority of American’s and then their government will understand that the unlawful detention and torture they are currently engaged in fuels the war on terror as opposed to bringing it to a quicker end.

 

[rjh01]

What do you see as the connection between Northern Ireland and the legal issue of Gitmo?

The enemy in Northern Ireland were terrorists (just ask the British Government). Just like the people you are trying to fight now. Of course some of these terrorists were captured. They were not sent to Cuba or some other remote place. They were sent to England or left in Ireland. They had a CIVIL trial and then had a prison sentence.

Now compare that to your 'war on terror'. The people who are captured are sent to a remote place outside of the law. Some were released eg the British not because they are innocent but because they are British or certain other nationalities. The rest are left to rot while the US Government tries to work out a system to bring them to Justice.

One thing is similar in both cases the terrorists are not given POW status. In the British system they were common criminals. And treated as such. If the US said they are common criminals and treated them as such then there would be no problem. They would be brought back to the US to face Justice. No exceptions. Yet none have been. In the US system they have a unique status. Yet I have just given one of many examples of where the enemy were terrorists.

Looks like I have just shown how inferior the US system is compared to the British System.


I have given one of my longest posts here. Hope I have made some sense.

Study history (and reap its rewards) or repeat its mistakes

 

[rjh01]

Yeah, well sorting out the truly dangerous from the non-dangerous and the no-longer-dangerous is a little more time-consuming than just sticking everyone in a cattle car and shipping them to the forced-labor camps.

But if you prefer doing it fast to getting it right, I suppose that could be arranged.

How long is a reasonable time to get it right?

Comments like BPSCG's remind me not to go to politics area. It might damage my keyboard.

Do not take it personally, I could have picked other comments by almost any poster in this thread. Except Zep. At least he is doing a good job.

Edit to remove an ambiguity.

 

[WildCat]

The enemy in Northern Ireland were terrorists (just ask the British Government). Just like the people you are trying to fight now. Of course some of these terrorists were captured. They were not sent to Cuba or some other remote place. They were sent to England or left in Ireland. They had a CIVIL trial and then had a prison sentence.

They were also captured in the UK, not in battle in a war well outside the UK.

How many Japanese or German prisoners captured by the British in WWII were trteated like common criminals?

 

[WildCat]

One day, the majority of American’s and then their government will understand that the unlawful detention and torture they are currently engaged in fuels the war on terror as opposed to bringing it to a quicker end.

Explain why it is unlawful to detain enemy combatants captured on a battlefield during a war, and define torture.

 

[WildCat]

PS. If that happens, I would have no problem with the prisoners being made legit POWs, and subject to appropriate detention. Or legally tried as war-criminals if needs be.

And how can you possibly claim that they are legit POW's? I'm assuming that you mean POW's qualifying for the protections of the GC by "legit POWs".

 

[rjh01]

They were also captured in the UK, not in battle in a war well outside the UK.

How many Japanese or German prisoners captured by the British in WWII were treated like common criminals?

Not relevant. Japanese or German prisoners were give POW status. Another option the US government did not take up.

This is another post that might damage my keyboard.

 

[WildCat]

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.

The trouble ended when the IRA and other participants decided it was more profitable to focus on their core business of protection rackets, drug smuggling, gambling and other criminality. The whole revolutionary sideline just attracted too much police attention and cut into the efficiency of the other criminal activities.

Because last time I checked, the IRA was still alive and doing quite well w/ their criminal ventures.

 

[WildCat]

Not relevant. Japanese or German prisoners were give POW status.

Now, what happened to German spies, saboteurs, etc who did not fight by the rules of warfare? Were they turned over to the British civilian justice system?

 

[Lothian]

Explain why it is unlawful to detain enemy combatants captured on a battlefield during a war, and define torture.

Define enemy,
Define combatant,
Define capture,
Define battlefield and
Define war

The inmates at Guantanamo all have different circumstances I presume your definitions will cover the circumstances of each and every inmate.

If you can also explain which Law you are referring to (in unlawful), and which sections acts and/or amendments to that Law covers enemy, combatant, capture, battlefield and war, as defined by you, and I will then have a go at answering your question.

Torture, I believe, is now defined as extraordinary rendition.

 

[BPSCG]

You've had four frikken' years! Perhaps you can tell me how much MORE time is necessary? What excuse to delay can you agree to next? Bad star signs?

Well, seeing as how some of the guys released ended up shooting at us again, perhaps it's not as easy to determine who's still dangerous, who's not-dangerous-any-more, and who's never-was-dangerous as you think, hmm?

Seeing as how Hicks was training with the Taliban and al Qaeda, and even appears to have been buddy-buddy with bin Laden, I think it would be prudent to err on the side of caution, don't you?

Now if you'd like to volunteer to go to Guantanamo yourself and talk with the gentlement involved, maybe you could help our poor benighted justice system work things out. Warning, though: You could end up like Richard Pryor, who famously described his visit to a penitentiary. He said he was all jazzed up about how he was going to meet with some brothers, yeah!, and find out how they'd been screwed buy the man! and he was going to get down! with his brothers and fight the oppression! Yeah!

Then he went to the penitentiary and talked with some of the guys there. His reaction (Pryor shaky voice): "Thank God there's penitentiaries! Thank God there's penitentiaries! I was talking with one guy: 'Why. Did you kill. Everyone. In. The. HOUSE?'

'They wuz there, man...'"

 

[BPSCG]

Comments like BPSCG's remind me not to go to politics area. It might damage my keyboard.

This is another post that might damage my keyboard.

Sounds like someone with an anger management problem. Remind me not to recommend you for that prison guard job at Guantanamo.

 

[BPSCG]

By ME. Would you like me to cite that for you? It's my opinion.

Oh. Well, pardon me, but big fat deal. We're holding 400-some-odd people who we have excellent reason to believe want to kill us, and I want my government to take its sweet time making sure it knows who it's safe to release. Most of those guys would happily slit my throat if they had a chance. Maybe all of them.

So if you think Stalin's is a model justice system, then I suggest you try implementing it in your country first. Let me know how it works out.

 

[rocketdodger]

Oh. Well, pardon me, but big fat deal. We're holding 400-some-odd people who we have excellent reason to believe want to kill us, and I want my government to take its sweet time making sure it knows who it's safe to release. Most of those guys would happily slit my throat if they had a chance. Maybe all of them.

BPSCG that sentiment of yours is fine, but it does not address the extremely poor containment conditions there nor the pretty grave methods of interrogation used. I don't think anyone on this forum would complain (much, at least) if we held them without trial if we at least let them live in decent conditions in the meantime.