Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

[BPSCG]

It appears The Washington Post has been reading my contributions here. While I can't say I agree with their conclusions - they seem to have greater concern for the rights of the prisoners than for the security of the country - they at least understand the "They're criminals! No! They're POWs!" argument leads nowhere. Interesting reading; I suggest anyone who wants to contribute further to this thread read it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, ideally a neutral party would be better suited for that. Revenge and all.

In criminal cases, neutrality isn't what we ask for from a judge, but rather disinterest. The difference matters: a disinterested judge can take a side and remain disinterested, but a neutral judge cannot. We do not WANT neutrality, per se, in our judges.

But there's another critical aspect you're missing: the judge (and jury) has to be endowed with both the authority to make a judgment and the power to enforce a judgment. There simply is no equivalent institution in international affairs, so we must make do without. Furthermore, while we invest judges with the sole power to punish, there's neither a requirement nor a reason for an injured party to withhold judgment themselves. In fact, that's rather precisely what the civil court system is for: it gives you an opportunity to try to have your judgment accepted.

In other words, your response is irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

In other words, your response is irrelevant.

Well, you're right. However, what I said did not relate to judges, specifically. All I meant, is that the principle that "if someone wrongs you, you're the one to judge the offender" isn't quite correct. Otherwise people could take the law into their own hands and avenge themselves. Obviously, a court is the way to go. I was just speaking of those cases, because the original statement seemed a little sweeping to me.

 

[Zep]

It appears The Washington Post has been reading my contributions here. While I can't say I agree with their conclusions - they seem to have greater concern for the rights of the prisoners than for the security of the country - they at least understand the "They're criminals! No! They're POWs!" argument leads nowhere. Interesting reading; I suggest anyone who wants to contribute further to this thread read it.

A good article. And here's the point it makes clearly:

Properly crafted, an administrative detention law for foreign detainees captured abroad would provide for a substantial military hearing to establish that an inmate is actively engaged in terrorist activity. The hearing would take place promptly, with military counsel available to the detainee and able to attack the government's evidence. A finding that an individual may be detained would entitle the military to hold and interrogate him, but it would be subject to appeal to the federal court system and regular review. Critically, it would have the imprimatur of Congress, and it would apply to all detainees who are neither under indictment nor held under the Geneva Conventions.

No real argument from me on any of that article, nor that recommendation in general.

And you are still trying to (re)write my scripts to your liking, aren't you! Perhaps you might care to show us where I have objected to the Gitmo prisoners being properly, legally detained, charged and sentenced? As per this recommendation, even?

Anyway, trying to forge on...

Let me ask: Is an "administrative detention law" as described in the article an acceptable solution for you? If so, do you think your government should have had something similar enacted prior to implementing Gitmo? Or perhaps soon thereafter? Or at least sometime in the last four years?

 

[Zep]

Pardon me; I appear to have misunderstood. Elucidate me; your point in comparing Bush to bin Laden was...

...that they share more attributes in common than many would like to admit to themselves. A point noted by a number of US commentators, not just me.

 

[Zep]

After all this, you're still not getting it, are you?

There is no justice system in the world that is equipped to handle this new kind of warfare. When the standard criminal justice systems have attempted to deal with it, at best, the result has been trials that lasted for years and cost untold millions of dollars, and that's for Zacaraias Moussauoui, who pleaded guilty. At worst, it results in terrorists walking free, as in Indonesia and Germany.

The big problem in dealing with them through the military justice system is that these people don't follow the commonly-accepted rules of warfare, and our laws and treaties aren't (yet) designed to deal with that. There aren't (AFAIK) any specific rules, either in the U.S. laws, or in international treaty obligations, that set out exactly what you do with someone captured on a battlefield who isn't a member of a GC signatory. The GC's provide for what to do with POWs and how to treat them, but they say nothing about how to treat combatants not covered by the GC.

So you end up running into issues of consistency whether you treat them as civil criminals or military POWs. If you examine a platypus and base your examinations on your assumption that it is some kind of duck, you run into problems. And if you base your examinations on the assumption that it is some kind of beaver, you run into different problems. And if you base your examinations on the assumption that it is some kind of hoax, you run into entirely different problems. Eventually, you acknowledge that what you are examining is something altogether new, and you need to apply new rules.

That's what you have here - a new kind of beast for which the old rules of engagement are inadequate. Eventually, we'll figure out a way of dealing with them that balances fairly the requirements of justice for them and the requirements of security for the rest of us. But until then, the requirements of security will have to trump the requirements of justice - because you can't even begin to have justice if you can't protect the justice system from physical destruction.

Meanwhile, so-called friends will compare Guantanamo to the gulags, Bush to bin Laden, and the U.S. justice system to Stalin's and Idi Amin's. If you want to really be our friends, why don't you tell us a way to deal with the guys in Guatanamo that frees the innocents and only the innocents, locks up the guilty and only the guilty, and does all of the above expeditiously and without bankrupting the treasury?

I'm all ears.

Like there was no justice system in the world to deal with the perpetrators of the Holocaust? Unimagineable war-crimes, done by both military and civilians, well outside the norms of civil and military law?

Well, there was then, actually. And there is now. International Military Tribunals. But let's read some history first...

Charter of the International Military Tribunal
August 8, 1945
(Selected Articles)
ARTICLE 1

In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereafter called "the Tribunal") for the just and prompt trial and punishment of major war criminals of the European Axis.

...

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution
of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

Don't you think, with a bit of rewording, that this process might equally be applied today to Al-Quaeda??

 

[hammegk]

Don't you think, with a bit of rewording, that this process might equally be applied today to Al-Quaeda??

That is being done in US courts.

You just want people siezed and held as illegal combatants free pending trail; others closer to harms-way disagree.

 

[Ziggurat]

Like there was no justice system in the world to deal with the perpetrators of the Holocaust? Unimagineable war-crimes, done by both military and civilians, well outside the norms of civil and military law?

Well, there was then, actually. And there is now. International Military Tribunals.

Note the date: 1945. The tribunal you refer to was set up after the fact, because there was no justice system to deal with the crimes of the holocaust when they occured. So having to come up with new methods to deal with new crimes after they occur isn't a new challenge. Nor is the holocaust equivalent to modern terrorism from a legal perspective: the former, though an unspeakable crime, was also performed by state actors. Terrorists are not state actors. We should not expect an institution designed for the former to be well-equiped to handle the latter, particularly when it is geared rather specifically to a select few criminals (most enemy German soldiers falling under existing laws and practices), whereas we face the problem of how to deal with ALL terrorists, including the foot soldiers.

 

[Elind]

And you can.

Thank you.

No further discussion necessary, I feel.

I read that some Aussies are wanting to change your laws to allow terrorism cases to be heard in a manner that is different from your current legal system, for very rational reasons, like those I've mentioned earlier and which you have ignored.

I can of course imagine what you and your friends think of this.

 

[Elind]

After all this, you're still not getting it, are you?

There is no justice system in the world that is equipped to handle this new kind of warfare. When the standard criminal justice systems have attempted to deal with it, at best, the result has been trials that lasted for years and cost untold millions of dollars, and that's for Zacaraias Moussauoui, who pleaded guilty. At worst, it results in terrorists walking free, as in Indonesia and Germany.

Hasn't this already been said, by me, and ignored?

 

[Dcdrac]

have any of the gitmo priosners been found guilty of anything yet?

I have read that enemy Comabtant book by Mozaam Begg and if the intterogations were anything like as eportrd in there the prhase Keystone cops comes to mind.

 

[Cylinder]

have any of the gitmo priosners been found guilty of anything yet?

No. Those being have been found to be enemy combatants - which is not a crime but does meet the threshold for detention.

I have read that enemy Comabtant book by Mozaam Begg and if the intterogations were anything like as eportrd in there the prhase Keystone cops comes to mind.

Of course, Rule Number One for interrogators is to control the flow of information during the interrogation process, so subjects may not be the best judge of competence.

 

[Dcdrac]

i used to interview people under caution when workling in law enforcement and IF those reports he gives of those interrogatiosn are evenhalf true, their techniques are laughable

 

[The Fool]

I read that some Aussies are wanting to change your laws to allow terrorism cases to be heard in a manner that is different from your current legal system, for very rational reasons, like those I've mentioned earlier and which you have ignored.

I can of course imagine what you and your friends think of this.

yep, if we want to hear cases in a manner that is different to what we do now we change the law....is that surprising?
We were thinking of putting all this legal stuff in the too hard basket and just finding an island somewhere to dump people indefinitely so that our judiciary could not get thier meddling hands on them and crap on about presumption of innocense and due process and all those other expensive time-consuming quaint principles.... but ......we just couldn't find a suitable offshore facility. Can we borrow american Samoa?

 

[Zep]

That is being done in US courts.

You just want people siezed and held as illegal combatants free pending trail; others closer to harms-way disagree.

You're worse than BPSCG for inventing stuff out of your head. Have you tried writing fiction for a living? You'd be good at it...

 

[Zep]

Note the date: 1945. The tribunal you refer to was set up after the fact, because there was no justice system to deal with the crimes of the holocaust when they occured. So having to come up with new methods to deal with new crimes after they occur isn't a new challenge. Nor is the holocaust equivalent to modern terrorism from a legal perspective: the former, though an unspeakable crime, was also performed by state actors. Terrorists are not state actors. We should not expect an institution designed for the former to be well-equiped to handle the latter, particularly when it is geared rather specifically to a select few criminals (most enemy German soldiers falling under existing laws and practices), whereas we face the problem of how to deal with ALL terrorists, including the foot soldiers.

Well duh!

Notice I said

"with a bit of rewording, that this process might equally be applied today to Al-Quaeda??"

Did you read the list of crimes from Nuremberg? Crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Can you tell me which ones do NOT apply to Al-Quaeda?

The Nuremberg trials were not only directed specifically at military people. Although they were the majority mainly because the Nazis had given military rank, and thus power, to the prepetrators. And that does not limit any rewording of a modern version to include non-military combatants (or whatever they are called today).

And why can you NOT get a multinational tribunal of this style going right away to deal with these people? It's not like you are standing alone against Al-Quaeda.

And is there any reason why they need to wait for the war to finish to start such a tribunal? Why delay for years? I can't think of a reason...

The point remains - there is a precedent, a very similar precedent. It's an example worth studying and emulating, surely.

 

[hammegk]

We were thinking of putting all this legal stuff in the too hard basket and just finding an island somewhere to dump people indefinitely so that our judiciary could not get thier meddling hands on them and crap on about presumption of innocense and due process and all those other expensive time-consuming quaint principles.... but ......we just couldn't find a suitable offshore facility. Can we borrow american Samoa?

Y'all are free to treat the illegal combatants you apprehend any way you wish. If you deem them subject only to your civil courts, go for it.

And, as a sovereign nation, you can borrow all the territory your politicians can grab and hold using your armed forces.

You're worse than BPSCG for inventing stuff out of your head. Have you tried writing fiction for a living? You'd be good at it...

What actually bothers you is that some of us can actually sort out fact from fiction.

Re your response, I believe I have it now ... we are doing what you what do, just not fast enough to suit your sensibilities of good-fellowship and fair-play.

 

[Elind]

Well duh!
And why can you NOT get a multinational tribunal of this style going right away to deal with these people? It's not like you are standing alone against Al-Quaeda.

Finally you come up with an "actual" suggestion of something concrete you think can "deal" with Al Qaeda and the like instead of just bitching.

That's something I suppose, but then you decide that what we really need more than anything is a what amounts to an international committee of the willing.

Great

What's the criteria for participating? Does one have to have troops fighting Al Qaeda worldwide, or just pay lip service to that, or just pick and choose depending on the politics of the day?

What are the ground rules? Full access to everyones intelligence data, especially by the defense? The right to try any other committee member's troops as well if they were too rough with the alleged Al Qaeda defendants? Full TV coverage?

Who pays for the dog and pony show? Who runs the detention center? A revolving committee? Who locks up the convicted? All half dozen perhaps?

What are the crimes to be called? Suppose they say they they are an enemy of the US, but not Australia? Or how about, an enemy of the bad guys, not Australia?

This is what we need friends for? Committee wanabees?

 

[Zep]

I read that some Aussies are wanting to change your laws to allow terrorism cases to be heard in a manner that is different from your current legal system, for very rational reasons, like those I've mentioned earlier and which you have ignored.

Would you be able to supply any references?

I can of course imagine what you and your friends think of this.

*snort* No you can't!

 

[Zep]

Finally you come up with an "actual" suggestion of something concrete you think can "deal" with Al Qaeda and the like instead of just bitching.

The bitching is about why you haven't proposed anything like this yet, or even anything at all, yourself. You have merely been waiting for someone else to propose something, anything, so you can criticise it, rubbish it, and knock it down. You have provided no answers, no solutions, yourself, even though you have been urged by all and sundry to do so. It's not like we think you are stupid - far from it.

That's something I suppose, but then you decide that what we really need more than anything is a what amounts to an international committee of the willing.

Great

What's the criteria for participating? Does one have to have troops fighting Al Qaeda worldwide, or just pay lip service to that, or just pick and choose depending on the politics of the day?

What are the ground rules? Full access to everyones intelligence data, especially by the defense? The right to try any other committee member's troops as well if they were too rough with the alleged Al Qaeda defendants? Full TV coverage?

Who pays for the dog and pony show? Who runs the detention center? A revolving committee? Who locks up the convicted? All half dozen perhaps?

What are the crimes to be called? Suppose they say they they are an enemy of the US, but not Australia? Or how about, an enemy of the bad guys, not Australia?

This is what we need friends for? Committee wanabees?

See? I was right, wasn't I!

If you allow that such a process might be feasible, what are YOUR thoughts on how it might be implemented?