1115.org

Comments

1. JimC wrote:

   I know this post is more about how Tony answered or didn’t answer the questions, but my question for those asking the questions (WH Press corp or anyone else who questions GITMO and its validity) is what are we supposed to do with these people?

   Is there anyone who has a better plan for how to deal with these people other than what we are currently doing? If so, what is that plan and will it make the USA safer?

   Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 11:14 am ¶

2. sarabeth wrote:

   Forgive me, but: You’re kidding, right?

   Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 12:41 pm ¶

3. sac wrote:

   Treat them under the guidelines of the Geneva Convention, for starters.

   Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 12:48 pm ¶

4. matt wrote:

   what are we supposed to do with these people?

   this country is supposed to have the best justice system in the world. i don’t believe this, at least not anymore, but the people who are always saying it are the same ones who want to pretend that it’s somehow not up to the job of dealing with the problem.

   my guess: not enough torture for you, your buddy torm, and the rest of the very christianist set.

   Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 2:09 pm ¶

5. JimC wrote:

   my guess: not enough torture for you, your buddy torm, and the rest of the very christianist set.

   First of all, who is “torm” and why is he my buddy? Secondly, I don’t want anyone to be tortured but whatever interrogation is legal, let it be done up to but not to exceed the law. And if anyone believes that torture is happening at GITMO let them petition their lawmakers in Washington to stop it. Third, “very christianist set”???

   Now, I also don’t believe our legal system is the best, however, why or under what reason should unlawful enemy combatants have access to our civilian courts?

   From the American Bar Association website…

   The general rule of U.S. law has long been that civilian courts have jurisdiction over citizens detained by the military. See Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866) (a citizen arrested during Civil War for “holding communication with the enemy,” “conspiring to seize munitions . . . [and] liberate prisoners of war,” and inciting rebellion could not be tried by military courts, so long as civilian courts were open. This principle was reiterated in Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946), which involved two trials of ordinary offenses in military courts in Hawaii during World War II, while civilian courts were open. The government sought to distinguish Milligan because Hawaii was near the active theater of war and under threat of invasion, but the Court reversed both convictions.
   The possibility of an exception to Milligan for “unlawful combatants” derives from Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), and the interstices of international law. Quirin dealt with a military commission trial of Nazi saboteurs, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court held that certain enemy belligerents—specifically those who “without uniform come secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war”—may be detained without constitutional protections even if they are U.S. citizens:
   [T]he law of war draws a distinction between . . . lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
   This distinction may also be found within the structures of international law, particularly the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions state that members of armed forces (such as Al Qaeda) qualify for prisoner of war status if they meet four criteria: (1) being commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; (2) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (3) carrying arms openly; and (4) conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Although it seems likely that Al Qaeda fighters would fail the last three criteria, the question—potentially relevant to Hamdi—whether Taliban fighters should qualify as lawful combatants is a closer one (ed: anyone know what the Taliban Army Uniform looks like?. It should be noted, in any case, that Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention requires that a tribunal determine whether a person is entitled to POW or even civilian status. Thus, every captured individual should be presumed a prisoner of war until determined otherwise by a competent tribunal.
   Any person can theoretically be tried for war crimes, but those given POW status cannot be criminally tried for violent acts committed in battle. Some “unlawful combatants” could face trial by military tribunals

   […]

   So, it appears that legally, the tribunal needs to set the status of these prisoners correctly. They are not lawful enemy combatants but unlawful because they fail the Geneva Conventions definition for Lawful Combatants. Given this, it is up to a tribunal to decide how they are treated. They can, being unlawful combatants, be executed, held indefinitely, and are not protected by the status given to POW’s. They are to be treated humanely until their status is set, by default like that of a POW.

   Whatever happens I don’t care as long as these people do not get rotated back to the terror camps for another chance to engage our military or worse, plan attacks against civilian targets here or abroad.

   Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 9:49 pm ¶

6. matt wrote:

   I don’t want anyone to be tortured but whatever interrogation is legal, let it be done up to but not to exceed the law.

   vs

   Whatever happens I don’t care as long as these people do not get rotated back to the terror camps for another chance to engage our military or worse, plan attacks against civilian targets here or abroad.

   Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 10:04 pm ¶

7. JimC wrote:

   Wow, you’re in rare form tonight. Shall I further explain the last part of this comment? Yes, I better, I meant soley that if they are *tried in civilian courts or military tribunals* I don’t care as long as they do not get rotated back into the field….I hope that clears that up, so that the rest of my comment above can be taken into consideration.

   Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 10:10 pm ¶

8. sarabeth wrote:

   1) You don’t want anyone tortured but “enhanced interrogation techniques” are perfectly fine, are they?

   2) “Why or under what reason should unlawful enemy combatants have access to our civilian courts?”
   How about the excellent reason that everyone whom Bush calls an unlawful enemy combatant isn’t necessarily one? How about strange notions like “proper judicial review “and “due process” and “habeas corpus” just to make sure the system isn’t being abused?

   You didn’t by any chance happen to catch Colin Powell’s recent comments on Gitmo did you?

   “Guantanamo has become a major, major problem … in the way the world perceives America and if it were up to me I would close Guantanamo not tomorrow but this afternoon … and I would not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system,” Powell told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

   “Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don’t need it and it is causing us far more damage than any good we get for it,” he added.

   Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 6:45 am ¶

9. matt wrote:

   I hope that clears that up, so that the rest of my comment above can be taken into consideration.

   the part where you selectively quoted and bolded the ABA text? and while we’re at it, is the ABA now a trusted source? i remember last year when they weren’t because of the ratings bush’s nominees got…

   Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 7:01 am ¶

10. sac wrote:

    It’s fairly up in the air as to the strict legality of Gitmo, but it’s fucking obvious that Gitmo is making us look very bad and, as Powell says, eroding whatever moral standing we had in the world. Is treating these people as POWs, and therefore under the guidelines of the Geneva Convention, really all that difficult? Would it in any way make us less safe? Conversely, do you really believe that Gitmo is making us more safe?

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 7:58 am ¶

11. matt wrote:

    Is treating these people as POWs, and therefore under the guidelines of the Geneva Convention, really all that difficult?

    this is a key question. and the obvious answer is that it isn’t. the reason for this treatment is half political and half sadistic revenge fantasy.

    there have been many cases of innocent, and i mean totally innocent, men being released from gitmo after what, 3-4 years. hard to argue that there aren’t others waiting to be cleared as well. the irony is that they will have to be released after 5+ years of “enhancements,” are we to believe they will say “all in the game” and return to a life of peace?

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 8:26 am ¶

12. sarabeth wrote:

    Well, that’s what Jesus would do…

    Too bad these so called innocents are guilty of rejecting Christianity to believe in that which is not even a religion.

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 8:32 am ¶

13. JimC wrote:

    but it’s fucking obvious that Gitmo is making us look very bad and, as Powell says, eroding whatever moral standing we had in the world. Is treating these people as POWs, and therefore under the guidelines of the Geneva Convention, really all that difficult? Would it in any way make us less safe? Conversely, do you really believe that Gitmo is making us more safe?

    Then we should follow the Geneva convention, using the provisions it gives to use a military tribunal to classify these people and thus treat them accordingly. If there are people who are there who should not be then let’s fix it. If GITMO is too much of a symbol of mistrust, then let us move the prisoners somewhere else, I don’t know, say Beverly Hills.

    My only concern is that through whatever jurisdiction or law that is applied to these people, that the dangerous ones are kept locked up and the ones who should not be there (like some of those who I believe are in our civilian jails are jailed wrongly). I don’t want GITMO to stay open because it is shadowy or whatever, I want those people who are dangerous, unlawful enemy of the US who do not follow the rules of war, to be treated as such and not like honorable uniformed soldiers.

    I don’t know what the perfect solution is and I would gladly listen to someone who has it. All that I ask is that no one gets released who will simply rearm and rengage our military on the battlefield. The Geneva convention explicitly deals with length of custody by the length of the conflict, since these gentlement chose to engage in a long global conflict, it is only fair that their detention lasts until the end of that conflict, even in Afghanistan, the armed conflict is not over, so by Geneva Convention, these people are legally being detained, even as POW’s.

    The torture claims have to be dealt with via Congress. They need to make it stop if the claims are true.

    Well, that’s what Jesus would do…

    Too bad these so called innocents are guilty of rejecting Christianity to believe in that which is not even a religion.

    What, may I ask, is the point of this comment?

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 1:41 pm ¶

14. matt wrote:

    I want those people who are dangerous, unlawful enemy of the US who do not follow the rules of war, to be treated as such and not like honorable uniformed soldiers.

    oh bullshit. the taliban was essentially the army of afghanistan. they didn’t wear uniforms. were they honorable or not. the iraqi army soldiers who were warned by president squinty before the invasion not to fight…they fought. honorable? the us military has units that do not wear uniforms. should they be protected? what about blackwater mercs?

    the geneva conventions should be a minimum. i don’t care if they technically don’t apply to someone, waterboarding and testicle electrification is simply wrong.

    your concern about not having to face the same evildoers again is fair enough, but that has fuck all to do with mistreating them while in custody. again, the only use for mistreatment is politics and revenge/sadism.

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 2:34 pm ¶

15. sarabeth wrote:

    All that I ask is that no one gets released who will simply rearm and rengage our military on the battlefield.

    and who do you think is advocating that we should switch from Gitmo to a system where such people get released?

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 2:58 pm ¶

16. sarabeth wrote:

    What, may I ask, is the point of this comment?

    So that isn’t what Jesus would do? I could have sworn…

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 3:03 pm ¶

17. JimC wrote:

    the us military has units that do not wear uniforms. should they be protected? what about blackwater mercs?

    Historically, these men, mercs, have sometimes been executed after an established court tried them, spies (aka saboteurs) were executed on site. But regardless, if we don’t follow the Geneva convention, we must make real sure we’re working under our own laws to keep the dangerous ones from returning to the battlefield. The issue of their treatment is a separate issue that needs to be addressed. And you’re correct that we should not mistreat them for revenge or sadistic purposes and if this be the case then it needs to be corrected by Congress and oversight committees.

    and who do you think is advocating that we should switch from Gitmo to a system where such people get released?

    I don’t know but before we do it, we should make real sure it won’t happen. It is my concern that we drop these guys into the civilian courts, and by some slick lawyerin’, they are ordered released by a judge because of some technicality. I want to make sure that won’t happen before we make any changes to how they are detained now, at a minimum.

    So that isn’t what Jesus would do? I could have sworn…

    What is “that” that you are referring to?

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 3:26 pm ¶

18. sarabeth wrote:

    What is “that” that you are referring to?

    the end of the previous comment, #11

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 3:36 pm ¶

19. sarabeth wrote:

    I don’t know

    Wouldn’t a more honest response have been:
    “I’ve never heard anyone say this. I just made it up to shoot down.”

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 3:38 pm ¶

20. JimC wrote:

    “I’ve never heard anyone say this. I just made it up to shoot down.”

    No, it is a real concern. I was watching commentary on how Scott Peterson has a real chance to have his conviction reversed based on a technicality. And there are many cases of obviously guilty people who by some gaff were able to walk free. This is the concern I have with bringing them to civilian courts and so before we do *anything* I would like someone to come up with a plan to make sure the dangerous ones do not walk free…that’s all. If that can happen, then I’m good to go.

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 3:44 pm ¶

21. matt wrote:

    No, it is a real concern.

    your concern is clearly nothing more than a barrier to justice. right now, we have people at gitmo who are innocent. wrong place/wrong time. we’re in what will probably be an infinite war. do the math.

    and how do you propose to remove “technicalities” from any justice system?

    “of laws, not of men.”

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 4:23 pm ¶

22. sarabeth wrote:

    should we then take the scott petersons of this world and put them all in gitmo so there’s no chance for them to walk free on technicalities?

    if you don’t support that, how can you logically support keeping alleged terrorists in gitmo for this reason?

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 4:29 pm ¶

23. JimC wrote:

    your concern is clearly nothing more than a barrier to justice

    I have to disagree, other than the treatment issue, the GITMO detainees are legally detained under the Geneva Convention, whether their status is a POW or unlawful combatant. The only reason I would find no fault for moving their detention is that a proper jurisdiction were established and a proper set of rules for a court to try them under.

    The barrier to justice is the lack of consensus on their status. If we accept their status under the Geneva Convention then there is no barrier to justice except lack of execution (of law not people).

    wrong place/wrong time. we’re in what will probably be an infinite war. do the math.

    and how do you propose to remove “technicalities” from any justice system?

    By establishing a legal system under which they can be processed if not under the Geneva Convention. One reasoon the process is taking so long is apparently we just don’t know what to do and no one wants to work together towards a solution.

    should we then take the scott petersons of this world and put them all in gitmo so there’s no chance for them to walk free on technicalities?

    if you don’t support that, how can you logically support keeping alleged terrorists in gitmo for this reason?

    Because, they are already being held under the Geneva Convention which is a fair set of rules for handling of such people. The fact is unlike Scottie, these people, aside from some US citizens who were also detained on the battlefield, have no Constituional right to any other court other than the one provided under the Geneva Convention.

    Aside from the negative image of GITMO, there is no legal reason to move them. I do think though we need to process each person and try each one as soon as possible to clear up any ambiguity and to allow oversight by Congressional Committee.

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 6:00 pm ¶

24. sarabeth wrote:

    the GITMO detainees are legally detained under the Geneva Convention

    pray dislodge your head from where it is firmly stuck.

    we are emphatically not detaining them under the geneva conventions. our firm legal position is that the geneva conventions do not apply to them. do not apply to us apparently either, in the sense that we are not bound by them.

    Q: how do you propose to remove “technicalities” from any justice system?
    A: By establishing a legal system under which they can be processed if not under the Geneva Convention.

    I call bullshit! (do you really not understand the Q?)

    no one wants to work together towards a solution

    do pardon me for asking, but when was the last time bush was willing to work together with anyone on anything?

    aside from some US citizens who were also detained on the battlefield

    you mean, like the battlefields of peoria?

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 6:38 pm ¶

25. matt wrote:

    other than the treatment issue, the GITMO detainees are legally detained under the Geneva Convention

    “other than the assassination, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln.”

    One reasoon the process is taking so long is apparently we just don’t know what to do and no one wants to work together towards a solution.

    no. the one and only reason is that the people in charge and their constituents like the idea of throwing away the key.

    Because, they are already being held under the Geneva Convention which is a fair set of rules for handling of such people

    stop saying Geneva Convention. just stop. the administration who considers them “quaint” aren’t abiding by them. they can classify detainees using the words laid out in geneva, but their treatment certainly doesn’t live up to it.

    Aside from the negative image of GITMO, there is no legal reason to move them.

    other than the fact that guns kill little kids, there’s no reason for trigger locks. come on. at least make sense.

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 6:54 pm ¶

Post a Comment