Human rights go viral
March 29, 2007 7:26 PM Subscribe
"Guantanamo Unclassified." Adel Hamad, a 48-year-old Sudanese elementary-school teacher, has been held at Guantanamo for five years without charge or evidence of a crime. His lawyers have been unable to convince a federal court to review his case, so they started started Project Hamad and posted a short movie about him online. This is an example of how human rights activists can use YouTube to bring their cases to the public.
Meanwhile, Australian David Hicks has just pleaded "guilty" after five years in Guantanamo to some kind of spurious, retrospective, extra-jurisdictional kangaroo-court charge.
The right-wingers here are proclaiming it as a victory, "proving" that he was a "terrorist".
In itself, that is a strawman argument, because Hicks' supporters have mostly simply been demanding justice, not proclaiming his innocence. Justice involves at least a semblance of respect for the Rule of Law.
So, after five years without charge and outside of any respectable legal jurisdiction, subject to the extreme interrogation methods of a bunch of arrogant, ignorant paranoid arseholes, Hicks chose to take a plea bargain in order to be repatriated to an Australian gaol, where he will be subjected, at most, to being brutally raped in the showers every day.
I'd plead "guilty", too, if I were in his position.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:38 PM on March 29, 2007
The right-wingers here are proclaiming it as a victory, "proving" that he was a "terrorist".
In itself, that is a strawman argument, because Hicks' supporters have mostly simply been demanding justice, not proclaiming his innocence. Justice involves at least a semblance of respect for the Rule of Law.
So, after five years without charge and outside of any respectable legal jurisdiction, subject to the extreme interrogation methods of a bunch of arrogant, ignorant paranoid arseholes, Hicks chose to take a plea bargain in order to be repatriated to an Australian gaol, where he will be subjected, at most, to being brutally raped in the showers every day.
I'd plead "guilty", too, if I were in his position.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:38 PM on March 29, 2007
I'd plead "guilty", too, if I were in his position.
How do you plead?
Not stupid, your honour.
posted by pompomtom at 8:57 PM on March 29, 2007
How do you plead?
Not stupid, your honour.
posted by pompomtom at 8:57 PM on March 29, 2007
I watched the entire video, and it didn't mention Anna Nicole Smith at all. This isn't a very good FPP.
now I'm going to go think about what this would have meant for my family if I was being detained for several years after being caught up in a broad sweep for Americans while working in New Delhi in 2004.
posted by davejay at 9:18 PM on March 29, 2007
now I'm going to go think about what this would have meant for my family if I was being detained for several years after being caught up in a broad sweep for Americans while working in New Delhi in 2004.
posted by davejay at 9:18 PM on March 29, 2007
In 1943 in Tunisia, our forces captured 275,000 German and Italian soldiers.
In July 1944, 50,000 Germans were captured in the Falaise pocket.
In April 1945, 317,000 Germans were captured near Cologne.
None of them got trials. All of them were legal "Prisoners of War" under the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions don't require trials or access to judges for legal POWs.
Under the Geneva Conventions, unlawful combatants such as the ones being held in Guantanamo have essentially no rights at all. The Geneva Conventions permits us to stand any or all of them up against a wall any time we want to, and we don't have to prove a thing except that they were captured while fighting against us without wearing uniforms or the legal equivalent.
If the prisoners in Guantanamo somehow have a "right" to trial, then surely the legal POWs we captured during WWII would have. But how in hell do you give 640,000 POW's trials?
You don't, and there is no requirement under any operative treaty that requires you to do so.
Most of the 275,000 POWs captured in Tunisia spent the rest of the war in various POW camps in the United States. Even though they were in our territory, they had no right to access to our judges, under our Constitution. So why would illegal combatants (who are not legal POWs) which are not in our territory be entitled to such things?
Adel Hamad, a 48-year-old Sudanese elementary-school teacher, has been held at Guantanamo for five years without charge or evidence of a crime. This has nothing to do with crime. This has to do with war, and you can't win a war by crime rules.
Y'all do want us to win, don't you?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:35 PM on March 29, 2007
In July 1944, 50,000 Germans were captured in the Falaise pocket.
In April 1945, 317,000 Germans were captured near Cologne.
None of them got trials. All of them were legal "Prisoners of War" under the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions don't require trials or access to judges for legal POWs.
Under the Geneva Conventions, unlawful combatants such as the ones being held in Guantanamo have essentially no rights at all. The Geneva Conventions permits us to stand any or all of them up against a wall any time we want to, and we don't have to prove a thing except that they were captured while fighting against us without wearing uniforms or the legal equivalent.
If the prisoners in Guantanamo somehow have a "right" to trial, then surely the legal POWs we captured during WWII would have. But how in hell do you give 640,000 POW's trials?
You don't, and there is no requirement under any operative treaty that requires you to do so.
Most of the 275,000 POWs captured in Tunisia spent the rest of the war in various POW camps in the United States. Even though they were in our territory, they had no right to access to our judges, under our Constitution. So why would illegal combatants (who are not legal POWs) which are not in our territory be entitled to such things?
Adel Hamad, a 48-year-old Sudanese elementary-school teacher, has been held at Guantanamo for five years without charge or evidence of a crime. This has nothing to do with crime. This has to do with war, and you can't win a war by crime rules.
Y'all do want us to win, don't you?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:35 PM on March 29, 2007
All I know is that somehow these grave injustices will play themselves out in some unforeseen way in some other part of the world. At this point, I don't know what can be done directly for Adel Hamad. Ironic that false detention may be serve as a lead-in to American involvement in an attack on Iran. I hate to sound overly pessimistic, but I think our fate is already sealed.
posted by phaedon at 9:37 PM on March 29, 2007
posted by phaedon at 9:37 PM on March 29, 2007
I'm gonna wait for someone more legally qualified to come along and rip what you just posted to shreds, I'd just like to be the first to say "bollocks" to your specious claims.
posted by wilful at 9:38 PM on March 29, 2007
posted by wilful at 9:38 PM on March 29, 2007
Definitely related. Thanks for the reminder.
posted by homunculus at 9:47 PM on March 29, 2007
posted by homunculus at 9:47 PM on March 29, 2007
I don't want to get into the politics of this issue too much, but if it's a shitfest you're looking for, here's an hors d'oeuvre:
Under the Geneva Conventions, unlawful combatants such as the ones being held in Guantanamo have essentially no rights at all.
Actually, the Geneva Convention does not deal with "unlawful combatants" - a phrase that, while it has precedent in other places, is "coined" in this particular situation by Rumsfeld. The Geneva Convention outlines the human treatment of "prisoners of war" during a time of war. So while the statement that the individuals at Gitmo do have no rights at all is essentially correct, it has nothing to do with the Geneva convention, which in turn does not deal with unlawful combatants.
The Geneva Convention requires that an individual meet certain critieria to be considered a "prisoner of war", which, suffice to say, members of organizations like the Taliban, it has been argued, fail to meet.
posted by phaedon at 9:58 PM on March 29, 2007
Under the Geneva Conventions, unlawful combatants such as the ones being held in Guantanamo have essentially no rights at all.
Actually, the Geneva Convention does not deal with "unlawful combatants" - a phrase that, while it has precedent in other places, is "coined" in this particular situation by Rumsfeld. The Geneva Convention outlines the human treatment of "prisoners of war" during a time of war. So while the statement that the individuals at Gitmo do have no rights at all is essentially correct, it has nothing to do with the Geneva convention, which in turn does not deal with unlawful combatants.
The Geneva Convention requires that an individual meet certain critieria to be considered a "prisoner of war", which, suffice to say, members of organizations like the Taliban, it has been argued, fail to meet.
posted by phaedon at 9:58 PM on March 29, 2007
The WW2 prisoners you mention were all captured on battlefields. They were all soldiers of nations we had declared war against. They were all released when the war was over, less than two years after the earliest date you mention.
Many (probably most) of the Guantanamo detainees were not captured on any battlefield. The "war" we're supposedly fighting under which they were captured will never end, so they may never be released.
The point is, the government is calling them "enemy combatants", but it isn't clear that that is what they are. You may be right about the requirements of the Geneva convention regarding enemy combatants (and illegal enemy combatants), but it defies common sense to say that the government can point to any person on Earth (including American citizens), declare them "enemy combatants" and disappear them forever, with no chance of them (or anyone else) ever proving their innocence.
posted by jlub at 10:09 PM on March 29, 2007
Many (probably most) of the Guantanamo detainees were not captured on any battlefield. The "war" we're supposedly fighting under which they were captured will never end, so they may never be released.
The point is, the government is calling them "enemy combatants", but it isn't clear that that is what they are. You may be right about the requirements of the Geneva convention regarding enemy combatants (and illegal enemy combatants), but it defies common sense to say that the government can point to any person on Earth (including American citizens), declare them "enemy combatants" and disappear them forever, with no chance of them (or anyone else) ever proving their innocence.
posted by jlub at 10:09 PM on March 29, 2007
Steve, we also rounded up Japanese people living in America during WWII, and put them into camps. I don't think you'd suggest we do the same to Iraqis living in America. This is an entirely different war than WWII, and you can't just repeat the actions of the past without reexamining them.
posted by notmydesk at 10:18 PM on March 29, 2007
posted by notmydesk at 10:18 PM on March 29, 2007
SCdB: I defer to your impressive & subtle understanding of the Geneva Conventions.
As you so correctly point out, as soon as the US has won the war against the sovereign nation of Terrorstan (this nation being a signatory to the Conventions), the Terrorstani soldiers can be repatriated. Until then, we have no obligation to charge them, and they have no recourse to Habeas Corpus.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:19 PM on March 29, 2007
As you so correctly point out, as soon as the US has won the war against the sovereign nation of Terrorstan (this nation being a signatory to the Conventions), the Terrorstani soldiers can be repatriated. Until then, we have no obligation to charge them, and they have no recourse to Habeas Corpus.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:19 PM on March 29, 2007
That is essentially correct, and is similar to what the suspension of habeas corpus looks like in American courts. Article 4 (or 2?) of (the third?) Geneva Convention states, to be considered a POW, you must satisfy the following criteria:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
(c) that of carrying arms openly
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war
in other words, if you do not fit these criteria and yet are somehow involved - or more importantly, accused of being involved - in an attack against the united states, then you are processed as an "unlawful combatant", and for all intents and purposes, it seems that you are fucked. compound that with the fact that we are in a "war" that seemingly has no end, and you are all of a sudden "perma-fucked". there is essentially no legislative jurisdiction in guantanamo, other than say, military tribunals - such as the Combatant Status Review Tribunal - that make some semblence of an effort to see if the people in Gitmo are "correctly" being held there. An impotent joke, if you ask me.
posted by phaedon at 10:20 PM on March 29, 2007
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
(c) that of carrying arms openly
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war
in other words, if you do not fit these criteria and yet are somehow involved - or more importantly, accused of being involved - in an attack against the united states, then you are processed as an "unlawful combatant", and for all intents and purposes, it seems that you are fucked. compound that with the fact that we are in a "war" that seemingly has no end, and you are all of a sudden "perma-fucked". there is essentially no legislative jurisdiction in guantanamo, other than say, military tribunals - such as the Combatant Status Review Tribunal - that make some semblence of an effort to see if the people in Gitmo are "correctly" being held there. An impotent joke, if you ask me.
posted by phaedon at 10:20 PM on March 29, 2007
That is essentially correct was a response to jlub's comment.
posted by phaedon at 10:21 PM on March 29, 2007
posted by phaedon at 10:21 PM on March 29, 2007
Ah yes, SCDB, chief cheerleader of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, strikes again.
This isn't a fucking war, Stephen. Terrorism is an action, not an entity. You use wars against things; you use police against unlawful tactics. Soldiers kill things and break people; they can't break terrorism, because it's a definition, not a thing.
You have fundamentally confused a verb for a noun.
posted by Malor at 10:24 PM on March 29, 2007 [1 favorite]
This isn't a fucking war, Stephen. Terrorism is an action, not an entity. You use wars against things; you use police against unlawful tactics. Soldiers kill things and break people; they can't break terrorism, because it's a definition, not a thing.
You have fundamentally confused a verb for a noun.
posted by Malor at 10:24 PM on March 29, 2007 [1 favorite]
Stephen C. writes: "This has nothing to do with crime. This has to do with war, and you can't win a war by crime rules".
I write: This has nothing to do with war. This has to do with crime, and you can't stop crime by war rules.
America tripped over itself. Could have solved 9/11 like a crime, but that wouldn't fit the neo-con plan.
BOO Terror Terror BOO!
Lies WMD NIger Yellowcake
Conflate and inflate
War on Tactic instigated by the greedy, supported by the ignorant and defended by the self-righteous.
This whole motherfucker is Guantanamo.
DrunkenonsenseItellya
posted by HyperBlue at 10:40 PM on March 29, 2007
I write: This has nothing to do with war. This has to do with crime, and you can't stop crime by war rules.
America tripped over itself. Could have solved 9/11 like a crime, but that wouldn't fit the neo-con plan.
BOO Terror Terror BOO!
Lies WMD NIger Yellowcake
Conflate and inflate
War on Tactic instigated by the greedy, supported by the ignorant and defended by the self-righteous.
This whole motherfucker is Guantanamo.
DrunkenonsenseItellya
posted by HyperBlue at 10:40 PM on March 29, 2007
SCDB- Take a look at the post-WWII revisions to the Third Geneva Convention (Treatment of Prisoners of War). You'll see that the provisions for trials were added in 1949, and they simply state that no prisoner of war is to be prosecuted for opposing the Detaining Power militarily. It's kind of a no-brainer (well, you'd think) but the point is that soldiers of opposing armies are engaged in the business of killing each other, and it doesn't make much sense to call the other guys murderers. You'd be outraged if our own soldiers were tried, convicted, and executed for doing their jobs, wouldn't you? The standard of punishment, in other words, is the one that the detaining power would apply to its own soldiers, and the provision specifically requires:
"When fixing the penalty, the courts or authorities of the Detaining Power shall take into consideration, to the widest extent possible, the fact that the accused, not being a national of the Detaining Power, is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance, and that he is in its power as the result of circumstances independent of his own will."
There's also a great line about what kinds of courts should be used that I think you should read:
"In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105."
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:02 PM on March 29, 2007
"When fixing the penalty, the courts or authorities of the Detaining Power shall take into consideration, to the widest extent possible, the fact that the accused, not being a national of the Detaining Power, is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance, and that he is in its power as the result of circumstances independent of his own will."
There's also a great line about what kinds of courts should be used that I think you should read:
"In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105."
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:02 PM on March 29, 2007
Under the Geneva Conventions, unlawful combatants such as the ones being held in Guantanamo have essentially no rights at all. The Geneva Conventions permits us to stand any or all of them up against a wall any time we want to, and we don't have to prove a thing except that they were captured while fighting against us without wearing uniforms or the legal equivalent.
If the prisoners in Guantanamo somehow have a "right" to trial, then surely the legal POWs we captured during WWII would have. But how in hell do you give 640,000 POW's trials?
You don't, and there is no requirement under any operative treaty that requires you to do so.
Um, no, you're wrong. Common article 3 applies to the Guantanamo prisoners, according to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. From the majority opinion:
So, proving that they're enemy combatants ("captured while fighting against us without wearing uniforms or the legal equivalent") isn't the last step before you can execute them, it's the first. You're forgetting the whole intermediate requirement of decent trial (separate from the determination of enemy combatant status) to determine if they violated the laws of "the detaining country." I'm not familiar with the various sentences permitted for the kinds of things enemy combatants are, but quick googling indicates that the maximum sentence for the charge of "material support for terrorism", which that Australian David Hicks recently pled guilty to, is life in prison, so it's not the case that simply being proven to be an active participant in terrorism is enough to get you the death penalty.
The Geneva Conventions don't require trials or access to judges for legal POWs.
This statement is so ridiculous as to not deserve a response.
posted by gsteff at 11:23 PM on March 29, 2007
If the prisoners in Guantanamo somehow have a "right" to trial, then surely the legal POWs we captured during WWII would have. But how in hell do you give 640,000 POW's trials?
You don't, and there is no requirement under any operative treaty that requires you to do so.
Um, no, you're wrong. Common article 3 applies to the Guantanamo prisoners, according to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. From the majority opinion:
The conflict with al Qaeda is not, according to the Government, a conflict to which the full protections afforded detainees under the 1949 Geneva Conventions apply because Article 2 of those Conventions (which appears in all four Conventions) renders the full protections applicable only to "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties." 6 U. S. T., at 3318.59 Since Hamdan was captured and detained incident to the conflict with al Qaeda and not the conflict with the Taliban, and since al Qaeda, unlike Afghanistan, is not a "High Contracting Party"--i.e., a signatory of the Conventions, the protections of those Conventions are not, it is argued, applicable to Hamdan.60And, for reference, here's the stuff that Article 3 prohibits:
We need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not one between signatories.61 Article 3, often referred to as Common Article 3 because, like Article 2, it appears in all four Geneva Conventions, provides that in a "conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party62 to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum," certain provisions protecting "[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by ... detention." Id., at 3318. One such provision prohibits "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;You could try to argue that Hamad's case is different than Hamdan's, but the decision pretty clearly applies to all prisoners in U.S. military custody.
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
So, proving that they're enemy combatants ("captured while fighting against us without wearing uniforms or the legal equivalent") isn't the last step before you can execute them, it's the first. You're forgetting the whole intermediate requirement of decent trial (separate from the determination of enemy combatant status) to determine if they violated the laws of "the detaining country." I'm not familiar with the various sentences permitted for the kinds of things enemy combatants are, but quick googling indicates that the maximum sentence for the charge of "material support for terrorism", which that Australian David Hicks recently pled guilty to, is life in prison, so it's not the case that simply being proven to be an active participant in terrorism is enough to get you the death penalty.
The Geneva Conventions don't require trials or access to judges for legal POWs.
This statement is so ridiculous as to not deserve a response.
posted by gsteff at 11:23 PM on March 29, 2007
The docudrama "The Road to Guantanamo" is on Google Video and YouTube, BTW.
posted by homunculus at 11:29 PM on March 29, 2007
posted by homunculus at 11:29 PM on March 29, 2007
Steven, I just saw some tasty children over by your bridge. Go get 'em.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:51 PM on March 29, 2007
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:51 PM on March 29, 2007
I don't know what the situation is like today, but I do know for a fact that at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, our Special Ops soldiers went out of their way to hide their .U.S markings, even going so far as to dress like civilian NGO's.
We continually fund and equip our very own armies of "unlawful combatants" the world over, and I assume that SCDB and his ilk wouldn't mind if some of our boys were ever captured and summarily executed being such.
I assume incorrectly, of course. We're the only country allowed to suspend human rights in a time of war.
How else are we going to win?
posted by Avenger at 11:57 PM on March 29, 2007
We continually fund and equip our very own armies of "unlawful combatants" the world over, and I assume that SCDB and his ilk wouldn't mind if some of our boys were ever captured and summarily executed being such.
I assume incorrectly, of course. We're the only country allowed to suspend human rights in a time of war.
How else are we going to win?
posted by Avenger at 11:57 PM on March 29, 2007
Yes, Steven C. Den Beste, you're obviously right. We couldn't possibly muster the resources to provide trials for the 800 or so Gitmo prisoners. It's totally equivalent, as you so astutely pointed out, to the hunderds of thousands of POWs America captured in WWII. Imagine the backlog! How could America possibly come up with the requisite number of lawyers to handle such an onslaught of "justice"? Really. 800!!!
Let's just kill each of them that have names you can't pronounce and let Gawd sort them out.
On second thought, without getting to involved with precedent and international law: you're an idiot. Case closed. One SCDB has overwhelmed my capacity for reason, compassion, and justice (towards all SCDBs). I don't have time to consider each an every asinine Steven C. Den Beste on a case by case basis.
posted by pgautier at 12:13 AM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]
Let's just kill each of them that have names you can't pronounce and let Gawd sort them out.
On second thought, without getting to involved with precedent and international law: you're an idiot. Case closed. One SCDB has overwhelmed my capacity for reason, compassion, and justice (towards all SCDBs). I don't have time to consider each an every asinine Steven C. Den Beste on a case by case basis.
posted by pgautier at 12:13 AM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]
each AND every, that is. outrage makes me inarticulate.
posted by pgautier at 12:22 AM on March 30, 2007
posted by pgautier at 12:22 AM on March 30, 2007
Rumsfeld on CNN:
Rumsfeld: Well take the one that I'm involved in, the so-called military tribunal. The president has signed a military order designating me as secretary of Defense to be responsible for a military commission or tribunal in the event one is required.
There's been a lot written and said about it on talk shows and so forth. A lot of it's been interesting and thoughtful and constructive. Some of it's been kind of shrill, I've thought, and not terribly well pointed or well aimed. Sometimes, there's an old saying in the Pentagon -- ready, fire, aim. (laughter) Getting it a little mixed up. And I've taken some of the things I've heard and read about this subject to be a little bit of that. Instead of ready, aim, fire, they're ready, fire aim.
emphasis added, full transcript
posted by phaedon at 12:31 AM on March 30, 2007
Rumsfeld: Well take the one that I'm involved in, the so-called military tribunal. The president has signed a military order designating me as secretary of Defense to be responsible for a military commission or tribunal in the event one is required.
There's been a lot written and said about it on talk shows and so forth. A lot of it's been interesting and thoughtful and constructive. Some of it's been kind of shrill, I've thought, and not terribly well pointed or well aimed. Sometimes, there's an old saying in the Pentagon -- ready, fire, aim. (laughter) Getting it a little mixed up. And I've taken some of the things I've heard and read about this subject to be a little bit of that. Instead of ready, aim, fire, they're ready, fire aim.
emphasis added, full transcript
posted by phaedon at 12:31 AM on March 30, 2007
Because everyone is being so respectful and reasonable, I'll offer the counter-point this discussion is lacking.
Mr. Den Beste, I once heard you calling for the death of members of our government, specifically the executive branch.
There.
Have at 'em, boys. See you in Gitmo.
posted by From Bklyn at 12:34 AM on March 30, 2007
Mr. Den Beste, I once heard you calling for the death of members of our government, specifically the executive branch.
There.
Have at 'em, boys. See you in Gitmo.
posted by From Bklyn at 12:34 AM on March 30, 2007
Y'all do want us to win, don't you?
Ooh. Is this the new "why do you hate America"? Neat!
posted by the other side at 1:30 AM on March 30, 2007
Ooh. Is this the new "why do you hate America"? Neat!
posted by the other side at 1:30 AM on March 30, 2007
and we don't have to prove a thing except that they were captured while fighting against us without wearing uniforms or the legal equivalent.
What others have said, but this deserves being mentioned. In most cases for Gitmo detainess, it hasn't been proven that they were captured while fighting against us without wearing uniforms.
Unless by "proven" you mean, his neighbor recieved a few 100-dollar bills to point his finger at him and say "Taliban."
posted by bardic at 1:40 AM on March 30, 2007
What others have said, but this deserves being mentioned. In most cases for Gitmo detainess, it hasn't been proven that they were captured while fighting against us without wearing uniforms.
Unless by "proven" you mean, his neighbor recieved a few 100-dollar bills to point his finger at him and say "Taliban."
posted by bardic at 1:40 AM on March 30, 2007
Y'all do want us to win, don't you?
It's his usual shtick. And he's too much of a coward to actually respond to people who (very quickly) point out his bullshit.
I'm just glad he's signed up for the military and is going off to Iraq or Afghanistan soon to fight in this great big "war-not-police action."
Kudos Steve. I'm just glad you aren't one of those chickenhawks who asks others to die but won't walk the walk himself. That would be both hypocritical and pathetic, wouldn't it?
posted by bardic at 1:43 AM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's his usual shtick. And he's too much of a coward to actually respond to people who (very quickly) point out his bullshit.
I'm just glad he's signed up for the military and is going off to Iraq or Afghanistan soon to fight in this great big "war-not-police action."
Kudos Steve. I'm just glad you aren't one of those chickenhawks who asks others to die but won't walk the walk himself. That would be both hypocritical and pathetic, wouldn't it?
posted by bardic at 1:43 AM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]
Gee, I hope they start using the same tactics on the war against drugs too. Can't wait to see all those high school kids held in prison detention centers without trial as enemy combatants for smoking 'the chronic'.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:07 AM on March 30, 2007
posted by slimepuppy at 2:07 AM on March 30, 2007
Gee, I hope they start using the same tactics on the war against drugs too. Can't wait to see all those high school kids held in prison detention centers without trial as enemy combatants for smoking 'the chronic'.
And the best thing? You wouldn't have to produce any evidence that they were, in fact, using drugs. They wouldn't get a lawyer, a call to their family, an appearance before a judge. The government's accusation would be all the evidence needed to detain them until it felt like letting them go.
You could torture them, too. After all, if they're never going to see a judge, they can't challenge any unlawful treatment of their person, so you can pretty much do whatever you want to them.
This would only last until the War on Drugs is won, of course. You might say that it's not really a war, but come on: it's called the War on Drugs, people. The word "war" is right there in the name.
We live in a country where the word of the president is sufficient to imprison a man for the rest of his life, under any conditions his captor pleases. If this war is about protecting America, we've already lost, Stephen.
posted by EarBucket at 8:50 AM on March 30, 2007
And the best thing? You wouldn't have to produce any evidence that they were, in fact, using drugs. They wouldn't get a lawyer, a call to their family, an appearance before a judge. The government's accusation would be all the evidence needed to detain them until it felt like letting them go.
You could torture them, too. After all, if they're never going to see a judge, they can't challenge any unlawful treatment of their person, so you can pretty much do whatever you want to them.
This would only last until the War on Drugs is won, of course. You might say that it's not really a war, but come on: it's called the War on Drugs, people. The word "war" is right there in the name.
We live in a country where the word of the president is sufficient to imprison a man for the rest of his life, under any conditions his captor pleases. If this war is about protecting America, we've already lost, Stephen.
posted by EarBucket at 8:50 AM on March 30, 2007
“This has nothing to do with crime. This has to do with war, and you can't win a war by crime rules.”
What counterterrorist outfit were you with?
There are a number of very crucial reasons to deal with terrorism from a law enforcement perspective. The least of which is exactly the kinds of problems we’re seeing from our own government in terms of the blurring of the line between military and domestic legal systems. (Note - military officers don’t like it, and neither do civilian LEA, but politicians love it - wonder why?)
Many other countries use military trained troops under federal domestic authority but are vested with powers to deal with terrorism outside their countries - (GSG 9 comes first to mind).
Treating terrorism as an act of war validates the ‘soldier’ mindset of many of these murders. Certainly members of the armed forces worldwide have targeted civilians - but not intentionally. And where intentionally, they’re not supposed to. And we call that genocide (whether we do something about it, different story). But even given the ‘total war’ connotations of the ‘wa on terrr’ and using Hiroshima as an example - that was a declared war. And furthermore we had planned to invade Japan anyway - those lines had already been set. We were fighting with the armed forces of Japan - real soldiers. And, potentially, civilian partisans - also real soldiers. Terrorists are a different story - not merely because they don’t have territory, but because of the scale. They’re not real soldiers, they have no legitimacy as a ‘soldier’ does (which I believe is one of the few correct assertions by the administration).
Treat them as prisoners of ‘war’ however and it philosophically legitimates their struggle by treating with it on equal footing. And that’s foolish, because your real soldiers are limited by a code of conduct and - vastly more important - civilian control. Terrorists aren’t. As soon as you recognize someone willing to blow themselves up to harm innocent civilians as a soldier, you’ve lost.
Unless of course you’re willing to do the same - and that’s even more ridiculous. Not just philosophically, but operationally. Terrorists don’t have much infrastructure or loved ones to hit. Even when they do, nailing those people (and doing it with suicide bombers of your own when you have perfectly good missles would just be silly) tends to perpetuate the “struggle” and military mindset of the opposition (but oh, yeah - Israel is going to settle their problem with military force any time now, just you wait).
Treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem properly places it as a criminal act. Terrorists like to think they are outside society fighting a military cause. Include them in society and you show them for the willful murderers of innocents that they are. Prove it in a court of law with evidence and show the justice and moral rectitude of your society over their nihilistic ethos and you will do more damage to them and their cause than any number of bullets ever could.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:23 PM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]
What counterterrorist outfit were you with?
There are a number of very crucial reasons to deal with terrorism from a law enforcement perspective. The least of which is exactly the kinds of problems we’re seeing from our own government in terms of the blurring of the line between military and domestic legal systems. (Note - military officers don’t like it, and neither do civilian LEA, but politicians love it - wonder why?)
Many other countries use military trained troops under federal domestic authority but are vested with powers to deal with terrorism outside their countries - (GSG 9 comes first to mind).
Treating terrorism as an act of war validates the ‘soldier’ mindset of many of these murders. Certainly members of the armed forces worldwide have targeted civilians - but not intentionally. And where intentionally, they’re not supposed to. And we call that genocide (whether we do something about it, different story). But even given the ‘total war’ connotations of the ‘wa on terrr’ and using Hiroshima as an example - that was a declared war. And furthermore we had planned to invade Japan anyway - those lines had already been set. We were fighting with the armed forces of Japan - real soldiers. And, potentially, civilian partisans - also real soldiers. Terrorists are a different story - not merely because they don’t have territory, but because of the scale. They’re not real soldiers, they have no legitimacy as a ‘soldier’ does (which I believe is one of the few correct assertions by the administration).
Treat them as prisoners of ‘war’ however and it philosophically legitimates their struggle by treating with it on equal footing. And that’s foolish, because your real soldiers are limited by a code of conduct and - vastly more important - civilian control. Terrorists aren’t. As soon as you recognize someone willing to blow themselves up to harm innocent civilians as a soldier, you’ve lost.
Unless of course you’re willing to do the same - and that’s even more ridiculous. Not just philosophically, but operationally. Terrorists don’t have much infrastructure or loved ones to hit. Even when they do, nailing those people (and doing it with suicide bombers of your own when you have perfectly good missles would just be silly) tends to perpetuate the “struggle” and military mindset of the opposition (but oh, yeah - Israel is going to settle their problem with military force any time now, just you wait).
Treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem properly places it as a criminal act. Terrorists like to think they are outside society fighting a military cause. Include them in society and you show them for the willful murderers of innocents that they are. Prove it in a court of law with evidence and show the justice and moral rectitude of your society over their nihilistic ethos and you will do more damage to them and their cause than any number of bullets ever could.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:23 PM on March 30, 2007 [1 favorite]
Also - I think it’s also pretty clear that the Gonzales arm of Bushco suggested denying coverage under the Geneva Conventions to dodge criminal prosecution under the war crimes act. Domestic prosecution anyway (and they rewrote the war crimes act - bit of a givaway there).
I understand though the international criminal court is looking into prosecution, so...
(Although the U.S. isn’t party to the Rome statute)
posted by Smedleyman at 1:22 PM on March 30, 2007
I understand though the international criminal court is looking into prosecution, so...
(Although the U.S. isn’t party to the Rome statute)
posted by Smedleyman at 1:22 PM on March 30, 2007
If local and Federal law enforcement agencies in this country along with our intelligence services (which I'd agree go between paradigms of law-enforcement and the military) had done their respective jobs competently on 9/11, it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
I have thousands of questions for Bush apologists who cry "It's war not law enforcement!," so here's my first (not holding my breath for SCDB to respond) -- Why didn't we immediately bomb and invade Saudi Arabia? 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. They hit us. Game on.
The cognitive and moral dissonance of this administration and its supporters has always been shocking to me. The only thing Bush has left is hoping that "history" vindicates him. I welcome that. I really do. 2000-2007 will be remembered as the nadir of American foreign policy.
posted by bardic at 3:17 PM on March 30, 2007
I have thousands of questions for Bush apologists who cry "It's war not law enforcement!," so here's my first (not holding my breath for SCDB to respond) -- Why didn't we immediately bomb and invade Saudi Arabia? 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. They hit us. Game on.
The cognitive and moral dissonance of this administration and its supporters has always been shocking to me. The only thing Bush has left is hoping that "history" vindicates him. I welcome that. I really do. 2000-2007 will be remembered as the nadir of American foreign policy.
posted by bardic at 3:17 PM on March 30, 2007
Steven D. De Beste:
The difference here is that we're not really at war.
A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet
But calling shit a rose doesn't make it smell any sweeter!
posted by JKevinKing at 7:04 PM on March 30, 2007
The difference here is that we're not really at war.
A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet
But calling shit a rose doesn't make it smell any sweeter!
posted by JKevinKing at 7:04 PM on March 30, 2007
Steven,
The more I think about your argument, the more I am disturbed. It seems to me that you're essentially arguing that these people are things, or rather objects, no better than slaves really.
First of all, this goes deeper than the Geneva Conventions. The very foundation of our law rests on the foundation of the inaliable, natural rights of every individual: in our legal tradition, if you are homo sapiens, you, as an individual, cannot be subjected to will of another person without open, rational procedures being followed to determine whether the public health, safety, or welfare requires it.
Some are entrusted with preserving the public order: these are the members of the legislature, members of the executive branch and the agencies, and the judiciary. In order to preserve the public order, we endow these people, via a monopoly of legitimate violence, with the ability to impose their will on others in certain limited ways; however, they are expected to act rationally and openly. We make some, very limited, exceptions, such as when secrecy is absolutely necessary for military operations, for instance.
Further, there are certain things that no one can do, no matter what title in the government they are entrusted with.
This, to me, is the fundumental basis upon which the Constitution is based, the fundumental basis of a Democratic Republic.
If I am reading your argument right, Steven, you are stating that those entrusted with governmental power can do whatever they want as long as they claim it is for national security. This is also the argument of the President.
In my opinion, by denying the central premise of a democratic republic, the President -- and you -- are arguing that the United States of America is no longer a democratic republic. The President, and everyone who is supporting him, including you, Steve, if you prevail, you are ending the American Republic.
Hyperbole? Perhaps. But consider:
De facto, if not de jure, the President has declared a state of emergency. It colors everything he does. We're at war, damnit! (But are we at war? I'll consider that in a second.) He's furious at the Democrats have dared to challenge him. It's personal to him; he really thinks that he can do whatever he wants in the name of "natrional security." "They want to kill you!" he says.
They certainly act like they can do whatever they want to these people, the people in Guantanamo. It doesn't matter whether they're terrorists, or at war with us. It matters that they are people. Otherwise, if people entrusted with governmental power can do whatever they want with those people, we are not a democratic republic.
What you and the President propose is a tyranny, perhaps a Democratic Limited Tyranny. The only thing that limits the tyranny is politics. If the briefs of Alberto Gonzalez become the law, a Democratic Limited Tyranny is exactly what we are.
Thank you, Mr. President, thank you very much!
And, really, Mr. President, if the law and the culture that surround it really set in to those in the government; if people really start to believe that the President can order those with the power of organized, legitimate violence to do anything in the name of national security, what is to stop a charismatic, competant tyrant to push back the tyranny's limitations? (What an awful sentence, but I love it!!! :)
What if, in the name of national security, the President decides to have the FBI arrest me. The real reason is that I wrote this essay critisizing the President. However, remember that the judges in the courts and the officer in the FBI really believe that the President can do and hide anything in teh name of protecting the public. I plead to the agents, but they have orders to throw me in jail. I petition the court, but the President instructs his lawyers to assure the court that they have secret evidence that proves that I am a security risk.
Under the law you propose, what's to stop a competant, intelligent and talented *real* President from doing that, Mr. Bush. Huh, Steve?
posted by JKevinKing at 8:14 PM on March 30, 2007 [2 favorites]
The more I think about your argument, the more I am disturbed. It seems to me that you're essentially arguing that these people are things, or rather objects, no better than slaves really.
First of all, this goes deeper than the Geneva Conventions. The very foundation of our law rests on the foundation of the inaliable, natural rights of every individual: in our legal tradition, if you are homo sapiens, you, as an individual, cannot be subjected to will of another person without open, rational procedures being followed to determine whether the public health, safety, or welfare requires it.
Some are entrusted with preserving the public order: these are the members of the legislature, members of the executive branch and the agencies, and the judiciary. In order to preserve the public order, we endow these people, via a monopoly of legitimate violence, with the ability to impose their will on others in certain limited ways; however, they are expected to act rationally and openly. We make some, very limited, exceptions, such as when secrecy is absolutely necessary for military operations, for instance.
Further, there are certain things that no one can do, no matter what title in the government they are entrusted with.
This, to me, is the fundumental basis upon which the Constitution is based, the fundumental basis of a Democratic Republic.
If I am reading your argument right, Steven, you are stating that those entrusted with governmental power can do whatever they want as long as they claim it is for national security. This is also the argument of the President.
In my opinion, by denying the central premise of a democratic republic, the President -- and you -- are arguing that the United States of America is no longer a democratic republic. The President, and everyone who is supporting him, including you, Steve, if you prevail, you are ending the American Republic.
Hyperbole? Perhaps. But consider:
De facto, if not de jure, the President has declared a state of emergency. It colors everything he does. We're at war, damnit! (But are we at war? I'll consider that in a second.) He's furious at the Democrats have dared to challenge him. It's personal to him; he really thinks that he can do whatever he wants in the name of "natrional security." "They want to kill you!" he says.
They certainly act like they can do whatever they want to these people, the people in Guantanamo. It doesn't matter whether they're terrorists, or at war with us. It matters that they are people. Otherwise, if people entrusted with governmental power can do whatever they want with those people, we are not a democratic republic.
What you and the President propose is a tyranny, perhaps a Democratic Limited Tyranny. The only thing that limits the tyranny is politics. If the briefs of Alberto Gonzalez become the law, a Democratic Limited Tyranny is exactly what we are.
Thank you, Mr. President, thank you very much!
And, really, Mr. President, if the law and the culture that surround it really set in to those in the government; if people really start to believe that the President can order those with the power of organized, legitimate violence to do anything in the name of national security, what is to stop a charismatic, competant tyrant to push back the tyranny's limitations? (What an awful sentence, but I love it!!! :)
What if, in the name of national security, the President decides to have the FBI arrest me. The real reason is that I wrote this essay critisizing the President. However, remember that the judges in the courts and the officer in the FBI really believe that the President can do and hide anything in teh name of protecting the public. I plead to the agents, but they have orders to throw me in jail. I petition the court, but the President instructs his lawyers to assure the court that they have secret evidence that proves that I am a security risk.
Under the law you propose, what's to stop a competant, intelligent and talented *real* President from doing that, Mr. Bush. Huh, Steve?
posted by JKevinKing at 8:14 PM on March 30, 2007 [2 favorites]
I just re-read that, adn thought, wow, bad grammar ... and the Kevin show. Sorry.
I've written enough already, so I'll just briefly add that I think that the War on terrorism is the wrong nomenclature. we are not at war. Fundumentalist Muslim terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda should have been, and should be, treated as a stateless, organized criminial gangs, similar to pirates or maybe political mafia. Calling this a war simply elevated them, and gave the President an excuse to try to end the Republic.
posted by JKevinKing at 8:23 PM on March 30, 2007
I've written enough already, so I'll just briefly add that I think that the War on terrorism is the wrong nomenclature. we are not at war. Fundumentalist Muslim terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda should have been, and should be, treated as a stateless, organized criminial gangs, similar to pirates or maybe political mafia. Calling this a war simply elevated them, and gave the President an excuse to try to end the Republic.
posted by JKevinKing at 8:23 PM on March 30, 2007
"I just re-read that, adn thought, wow, bad grammar ... and the Kevin show. Sorry."
LOL
posted by JKevinKing at 8:24 PM on March 30, 2007
LOL
posted by JKevinKing at 8:24 PM on March 30, 2007
« Older what makes a great photo ? | Who cares who watches the watchers? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Malor at 8:22 PM on March 29, 2007