Guantánamo Bay

[Space05us]

You mean by "children" the younger *******s carrying weapons and fighting in an unlawful combatant organization?

The ones that wouldn't think twice about pulling the trigger on their Kalashnikovs and sending your infidel asses to meet your Maker? These weren't exactly your average schoolkids.

sorry oedo, but as soon as a kid picks up a gun and points it at a soldier they become combatants, and I agree with MtG on that.

[Space05us]

everyone has to be considered as an innocent as long his guilt hasn´t been proven. I thought you know that, MtG. these children (and all the other inmates as well) haven´t been even accused, yet.

in war no one is innocent, and those 'children' are considered dangerous just like the rest of the people there.

[oedo]

please provide any link, before you make any statemants like these. and at least the children should be treated as POWs. who says that they haven´t been tortured or set under drugs before they were forced to join the taliban? just like the children soldiers in Africa.

[Space05us]

a brainwashed person is still responsible for his/her actions, especially when it comes to life or death decisions. If they pull out a gun, then they have the right to recieve a bullet in the head, the fact that they are being detained instead should be looked upon as us being nice.

and what do you want a link to?

[oedo]

Originally posted by Space05us
a brainwashed person is still responsible for his/her actions, especially when it comes to life or death decisions.

an innocent person as well?
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-190803-action-eng

and what do you want a link to?

since you state all these evil things the children are said to have done, I´d like to know where you got all this knowledge from.
from what I´ve heard the US gov keeps silence about the inmates. if you know more, feel free to share your top secret stuff.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by oedo



everyone has to be considered as an innocent as long his guilt hasn´t been proven. I thought you know that, MtG. these children (and all the other inmates as well) haven´t been even accused, yet.

These "children" were captured in combat operations, vetted extensively in Afghanistan like all other prisoners, and of about 30,000 prisoners taken and examined, we've grabbed about 600 to ship to Gitmo, including a very few "children." About 98% of the prisoners we handled were classed as POWs, and about 2% as unlawful combatants. So sorry if I don't shead any tears over these "innocent" "children."

[Space05us]

since you state all these evil things the children are said to have done, I´d like to know where you got all this knowledge from.
from what I´ve heard the US gov keeps silence about the inmates. if you know more, feel free to share your top secret stuff.

yeah they're just picking up teenagers off the street just for the hell of it right?

an innocent person as well?

sorry, Im missing the part where it proves he is innocent. If the military is detaining these people I highly doubt its "just because".

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by oedo

an innocent person as well?
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-190803-action-eng


since you state all these evil things the children are said to have done, I´d like to know where you got all this knowledge from.
from what I´ve heard the US gov keeps silence about the inmates. if you know more, feel free to share your top secret stuff.

Funny that in a country as impoverished as Afghanistan, where the Taleban outlawed cameras and film, that they'd have a color photograph of someone arrested only shortly after the US invasion, before things like film, film processing, and cameras were available to the locals. So the question would be, who is that guy really in the photo, or how was a "random taxi driver" significant enough to warrant anyone bothering to take a photo of him before his arrest, presumably someplace other than Afghanistan, or with some form of Taleban approval.

Taxi drivers have been a common cover for couriers in the intel business for decades. They go all over the place, and pick up and drop off all sorts of people, without raising any particular notice.

Since we did extensive interrogations of these people in country before deciding what to do with them, it is kind of odd that we'd waste the time and effort on some clueless innocent schlump. We've spit out a very small number of those, and most were detained because of similarities in name and description to other wanted characters.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Space05us

sorry, Im missing the part where it proves he is innocent. If the military is detaining these people I highly doubt its "just because".

Well try this on for size.

One former inmate recently interviewed by Australian TV in Afghanistan after his release was a taxi driver who was turned in by unscrupulous people seeking bounty payments.

He also was anti Taliban, pro U.S. and kept a TV and a stock of Hollywood films - his favorite being Titanic - throughout the Taliban period. This could have earned him a death sentence. He was flogged by the Taliban for playing music in his taxi.

It took him about a year to convince the GITMO investigators he was not a terrorist

So much for MTG's "careful vetting"

In spite of all of this, he's STILL pro U.S

[MichaeltheGreat]

If you don't like the treatment they're getting, next time, get off your arses and you Ozzies can get your own prisoners to coddle.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Well try this on for size.

One former inmate recently interviewed by Australian TV in Afghanistan after his release was a taxi driver who was turned in by unscrupulous people seeking bounty payments.

He also was anti Taliban, pro U.S. and kept a TV and a stock of Hollywood films - his favorite being Titanic - throughout the Taliban period. This could have earned him a death sentence. He was flogged by the Taliban for playing music in his taxi.

It took him about a year to convince the GITMO investigators he was not a terrorist

So much for MTG's "careful vetting"

In spite of all of this, he's STILL pro U.S

Did I ever tell you about my affair with Bill Clinton? It's true, all of it. Pay me for the rights and I tell you.

Oh, and I just got an email from a poor widow from Zimbabwe who wants me to help her get 63 million out of that country.



Just because someone claims it, don't make it true.

[Alexander's Horse]

So presumably you are now claiming they let a terrorist go?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Maybe the guy had his cover story so wired tight they couldn't get anything out of him. Maybe they did get hosed and get the wrong guy. Maybe the guy in the story was shacking up with his girlfriend on the side or got too drunk at the pub and really got lost, and he's using being detained at Gitmo as an excuse to cover for coming home a year late.

Who knows? Am I going to use that story, with no idea as to the agenda of the interviewers or interviewee, to suddenly assume that everyone of those poor souls in Gitmo is a sweet, innocent little lamb who is wrongly detained. Not bloody likely.

[Alexander's Horse]

a. don't change the subject

b. you can't have it both ways

c. when hoisted on your own petard, don't forget to wave.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Did I tell you about my affair with Bill Clinton?

a) I'm not changing the subject. I have no way to judge the reliability of the guy's claims, nor do you or most other people, maybe even those who interviewed him.
And yeah, if some countries that whine about these poor people put that energy into knocking over ******* dictatorial terrorist supporting regimes instead, they could have their own prisoners to deal with, and stop whining about ours.

b) I'm sure there's more than even two ways to have it.

c) If that ever happens, I won't.

[oedo]

Originally posted by Space05us
yeah they're just picking up teenagers off the street just for the hell of it right?

right, I belive they just grabbed some weird looking people and brought them to Guantanamo and other torture camps.
it is also possible that they were handed over by some taleban, who had nothing else in mind than saving their own skin, so they handed out some innocents.

sorry, Im missing the part where it proves he is innocent.

can you prove, that you didn´t murder anyone last month?
and btw, what do you think are they guilty about? they haven´t even been accused yet. do they even know, why they have been brought there?

If the military is detaining these people I highly doubt its "just because".

and if the US admin refuses any accusation, let away trial, I also highly doubt it´s "just because".
I tell you what I believe. I think I know the reason why there was no trial yet after almost two years (!). all evidences they have found now are some confessions forced by torture. some of the inmates may be what you call terrorists, most of them possibly aren´t.

Funny that in a country as impoverished as Afghanistan, where the Taleban outlawed cameras and film, that they'd have a color photograph of someone ...(blablabla)

yes and because he had a camera, he was caught by the taleban first, later they handed him out to the US force ... (blablabla).
I don´t know what really happened, you don´t know as well. my point is, that you´ll never find out as long as you don´t even give the inmates a voice. as long we don´t allow themm to defend themselves, we will never find out. and as long we haven´t found out anything, they have to be considered innocent. I can´t see how this would be so hard to understand for an American (lawyer?).

[Whaleboy]

The us govt, and the majority of US citizens, see the acts of 9/11 as acts of war. We are now engaged in a war with al qaeeda and its affiliates, one that by its nature have information and secrecy as key aspects. This necessitates different treatment for these people.

The problem of course is that the US government and the majority of US citizens are in error . It was not an act of war, we are not dealing with a nation state here, we are dealing with a small group of misguided people. Indeed, even in the most extreme interpretation that it is a war between the West and Islam, 9/11 and Al Qaeda do not constitute an act of war, either conceptually or legally. 9/11, terrible as it was, was a crime, a mass murder.

MtG: We all know that Guantanamo Bay is a legal operation, that is not in dispute. Indeed it would seem that by its very location, the US govt has taken great pains to ensure that it is legal. What is up for discussion here is the question of human rights, and acceptable behaviour towards prisoners. Not legal behaviour. You're arguments are not unlike someone in the Spanish Inquisition saying, "well its all perfectly legal", to another who finds the treatment of heretics unacceptable .

In a way, it is not unlike a form of vigilante justice. I am sure that many of those people detained were terrorists, as I am equally sure that there are some there that were not. I have yet to see a reason why they are not entitled, speaking on the human terms, not legally, as in that latter case they seem to be in a black hole, to a fair trial and the opportunity to defend themselves, while throughout being entitled to fair and humane treatment. "Well we captured them in combat operations, they must be the bad guys", well I'm sorry but thats not enough. I for one need proof that they were not simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I need proof that they are a threat, and I need proof that the conditions in which they have being constrained are either necessary or acceptable. Thus far, proofs are lacking. I suspect that the US admin won't be able to prove them guilty in a fair trial, so an unfair military tribunal is being used to save face, nor politically can they do a U-turn. I value the humane treatment of prisoners far more than the political careers of a few oilmen.

[Uncle Sparky]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat



Just because someone claims it, don't make it true.

This applies to Dubbya's bunch, too. How much of what they've said so far about either the war on terror or the Iraqi invasion & occupation has been true ? My guess is "very little." I hope I'm alive in thirty years to find out the truth, unless they shred & erase it !

[MichaeltheGreat]

I think they're lying out their ass in regards to ignored intelligence, etc. I'm not really relying on this set of political leadership for much of anything, but there are more parties involved, and the politicians aren't the ones out in the field.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
The problem of course is that the US government and the majority of US citizens are in error . It was not an act of war, we are not dealing with a nation state here, we are dealing with a small group of misguided people. Indeed, even in the most extreme interpretation that it is a war between the West and Islam, 9/11 and Al Qaeda do not constitute an act of war, either conceptually or legally. 9/11, terrible as it was, was a crime, a mass murder.

An attack on a civilian target in an act of war is both a crime and a war. These *******s (AQ) have declared themselves at war with the United States, and US law, which is controlling in the US, does not require (remember our Indian days) that an entity be a recognized national government for it to make war against us. So yes, for our purposes, it's a war. It might not be for yours, but then, that's ok too. We don't really care.

MtG: We all know that Guantanamo Bay is a legal operation, that is not in dispute. Indeed it would seem that by its very location, the US govt has taken great pains to ensure that it is legal. What is up for discussion here is the question of human rights, and acceptable behaviour towards prisoners. Not legal behaviour. You're arguments are not unlike someone in the Spanish Inquisition saying, "well its all perfectly legal", to another who finds the treatment of heretics unacceptable .

Unlawful combatants have no rights. There's a reason for that, it's to discourage people from conducting acts of war outside the constraints, relatively few that there are, of the laws and customs of war. The fact that these people were even taken prisoner, or that they weren't subject to a summary tribunal to determine their status, then prompt execution, is a bonus.

In a way, it is not unlike a form of vigilante justice. I am sure that many of those people detained were terrorists, as I am equally sure that there are some there that were not. I have yet to see a reason why they are not entitled, speaking on the human terms, not legally, as in that latter case they seem to be in a black hole, to a fair trial and the opportunity to defend themselves, while throughout being entitled to fair and humane treatment. "Well we captured them in combat operations, they must be the bad guys", well I'm sorry but thats not enough.

Wel, when we have to submit our actions to your approval, we'll be sure and inform you. I don't think we should indefinitely hold them either. Try 'em and fry 'em, if convicted, and not in some Lima Delta international court - they have no right to that.

I for one need proof that they were not simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I need proof that they are a threat, and I need proof that the conditions in which they have being constrained are either necessary or acceptable. Thus far, proofs are lacking.

And I suppose every criminal trial in the UK and throughout the world passes your scrutiny. Or do you just have a special fetish about Gitmo for ideological reasons, but in fact you've never yet seen a piece of proof that anyone, anywhere in the world, accused of anything, is actually guilty. So let's have a general amnesty of all convicts worldwide, because Whaleboy hasn't seen the proof, and by God, he needs to. Believe it or not, there's not one single need to prove anything to you. Don't like it, go complain down at 10 Downing St.

I suspect that the US admin won't be able to prove them guilty in a fair trial, so an unfair military tribunal is being used to save face, nor politically can they do a U-turn. I value the humane treatment of prisoners far more than the political careers of a few oilmen.

There's no military tribunal yet, and if it's constituted properly, military tribunals are completely fair and generally more competent to assess wartime acts and issues than civilian courts. However, no unlawful combatant prisoner, or POW, is obligated to be tried in civilian or international courts. The US has jurisdiction over these people, and that's the way it is.

[Uncle Sparky]

So... If Amnesty Int. and others have their suspicions verified about the treatment of "prisoners", will you accept "we were just following orders" from those military folks who are currently knowingly engaged in questionable behavior ?

... and what ever happened to the two Muslim chaplains that were arrested at Guantanamo ? Disappeared ?

[laurentius]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


We have no obligation to turn over unlawful combatants taken prisoner in combat operations to any international authority. .

A quick tribunal under provisions of the UCMJ and MCM, and a quick trip to Allah will solve the whole thing.

Sounds like nazi talk to me.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Bite me.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
So... If Amnesty Int. and others have their suspicions verified about the treatment of "prisoners", will you accept "we were just following orders" from those military folks who are currently knowingly engaged in questionable behavior ?

Why would I? The UCMJ general article doesn't recognize such a defense. Then again, "suspicions" aren't facts, so we're not quite there yet, despite the wishes of some people who are ideologically inclined to get off on such things.

... and what ever happened to the two Muslim chaplains that were arrested at Guantanamo ? Disappeared ?

Actually, one chaplain, one enlisted interpreter, and one one other individual. Two charged in what's the MCM equivalent of an indictment, so there will be a hearing to determine if the evidence is adequate for trial, and one held pending investigation of what charges in addition to unauthorized possession of classified material.

All three are detained at military brigs in the US, which is standard military judicial procedure, at this point, in view of the nature of the charges.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

An attack on a civilian target in an act of war is both a crime and a war. These *******s (AQ) have declared themselves at war with the United States, and US law, which is controlling in the US, does not require (remember our Indian days) that an entity be a recognized national government for it to make war against us. So yes, for our purposes, it's a war. It might not be for yours, but then, that's ok too. We don't really care.

Apart from caring, you can still act illegally under international law.

The issue of who can wage war, whether non-states can wage war, and what the consequences of such acts are, is a lot more complex. Old international law had categories like barbarian nations etc, which no longer exist (in law only, unfortunately). In modern international law, such acts tend to be considered as terrorism, not acts of war.

The war on terror is a war in rhetoric only, as the war on drugs or the war on smoking.

"Unlawful combatants have no rights."

Apart from the right of having their status determinated by a tribunal, that may have been the standard of international law 60 years ago, but a lot has changed. So that proclamation is highly questionable, to put it mildly.

"Try 'em and fry 'em, if convicted, and not in some Lima Delta international court - they have no right to that."

An international court in Peru?
Anyway, the US has jurisdiction over them, so it shoud exercise that jurisdiction. Those that are not POWs should be tried. Those that are POWs from Afghanistan should be released as the war is over.

"However, no unlawful combatant prisoner, or POW, is obligated to be tried in civilian or international courts. The US has jurisdiction over these people, and that's the way it is."

So it's time to get in with the trials and let those go against whom there is no evidence.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Non nations have no legal RIGHT to wage war, but they have the power do so (unlawfully) and war bbetween States and non states is common, perhaps ,over history, more common than war between states. Pyracy is warfare, rebellion is warfare, freebooting/philibustering is warfare, all involving a non state party. Private war even used to lawful, you can find some decent articles on the law of private warfare in England, as the crown clamp down on it with regulation and then prohibition. The last surviving bit of legal private warfare was likely 'privateers' private warships licensed to fight the enemies maritime commerce, finnaly banned sometime around 1900.

[Oerdin]

The Geneva convention specifically states that unlawful combatants are not afforded any protections. There is no requirement that these people be treated any differently then they currently are being treated and in many cases the US is far exceeding what is required.

That said I do believe this is bad public relations and we should be demonstraiting our superiority visa vi the Islamists by giving these people trials. That would show how we make decisions based upon provable facts while they just mindlessly attack civilians.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Non nations have no legal ROGHT to wage war,

Lefty, please. The right to war ended in 1945, even for states. Total non-issue. The rest of your post is also interesting historically, but international law has changed. Which was my point before, which you have just confirmed.

[Oerdin]

Hershy: Sure... War is now illegal. This totally reminds me of the 1920's treaties in which all the major nations of the word declared that war was outlawed and would never be used again. Not that they stopped WW2. It really is a leftist pipe dream to ever think that war would be illegal.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Geneva convention specifically states that unlawful combatants are not afforded any protections.

Not entirely correct, they do not get many of the rights afforded to lawful combatant/POWs, but there are still some rules regarding humance conditions/treatment.


RE: UN charter of 1945. It does not outlaw war, but restricts the the purposes and condtitions for which it may be waged, with vague holes hole big enough to drive almost any army through.