Your ESP.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a Squad Leader?
6 Likes
Of course it hasn’t. Under what circumstances will it end?
The only case I am making is that, regardless of legal status, holding a prisoner indefinitely without charges is inherently authoritarian, illiberal, and immoral.
The rest of your post is basically saying that since the prisoners who have spoken have not sufficiently supported U.S. and British foreign policy, then it makes sense that they should have been and should continue to be held indefinitely and without charges.
At this point, we really can only agree to disagree.
4 Likes
Yes, a full trial is required before we can execute them. It’s not needed to hold them. A tribunal is sufficient. (I know you don’t like it, but keep reading.)
For insurgencies, it sounds like you mean Protocol I and II of the Geneva Conventions. Yes, it was added later to cover insurgencies. But it requires certain standards that neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda are willing to follow. And that’s beside the fact that the U.S. has never ratified Protocol I and II, nor will we ever do so. There was a bipartisan agreement that it was a horrible idea. Even the NY Times editorial board agreed.
Right now, Common Article 3 is what covers insurgencies. It doesn’t have POW status unless the two sides come to an agreement on it. But I’ve already said that.
Those tribunals and federal judges don’t agree with you.
Yes, but the Constitution and Due Process apply right now. What they have now is due process. It’s the process that they are due under the law.
I’ve got bad news for you. Read on…
I’ve got bad news for you, too.
I see that you all got stuck on this idea that it can be either the Geneva Conventions or a criminal trial. I don’t know what you think it was like before the Conventions. Perhaps you should read the fifth and sixth amendments in the Bill of Rights more closely. It specifically says it’s talking about crimes. They didn’t add those words in there just to let the calligrapher make a few extra pennies. (I recommend you avoid reading the eighth amendment lest you get the vapors.)
But the worst news for you is that you’ve been misled. All that stuff about Guantanamo being “outer space” went out the window when the Supreme Court said Guantanamo wasn’t far enough away. They have all the rights now in Guantanamo that they’d have if they went to the U.S.
Politicians have been feeding you crap about the Geneva Conventions to get you to feel morally superior when you vote for them. They have you believing that as soon as the detainees are on U.S. soil, they’ll finally have the due process rights they’ve been denied all this time by the evil Bush administration.
Well, it doesn’t work that way. But you don’t need to listen to me. Search for Senators Dianne Feinstein’s and Dick Durbin’s August 14, 2013 op‑ed at the Los Angeles Times website.
You’ll like most of it, especially the part where they want to “close” Guantanamo. They want to give federal and military trials to a number of detainees who can get trials. Okay, that part you probably understood, although you might start to wonder why I said a number of detainees instead of all of 'em.
Then find in that op-ed where they said some detainees would get “detention under international law until the end of hostilities.” Note the quote marks. They really said it.
(You don’t even need to read the entire op-ed. Just search for that quote.)
What does that mean? It means exactly what it says. Under the Democrats’ plan, as under President Obama’s plan, some would be detained “until the end of hostilities.” And it would be legal “under international law.”
So, it’s not just me, the Bush and Obama administrations, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and history. It’s also the very Democrats who say they want to “close” Guantanamo.
It was this way under Obama’s original plan, too. It’s worse than you think (from your perspective) but I don’t think you can handle too much of it.
I understand that. But I am also considering the alternative. Making the war more difficult doesn’t just hurt the troops, and make the war last longer. It mostly hurts the war’s civilian victims. Of the detainees who’ve returned to the war, only a few are attacking Americans. We’re mostly free from the worst effects.
Offhand, I can only think of one American woman who’d been enslaved by ISIS.
It’s not just U.S. and British foreign policy. A lot of Afghans fear the Taliban. If they didn’t, their elected government would reject the status-of-forces agreements.
Yes, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Your posts can be summed up as: "If it’s good enough for the Taliban, Al Qaeda or any tin-pot dictatorship torture state, it’s good enough for America. It they don’t support the Geneva Conventions, neither should we. If kangaroo courts that don’t follow even their own country’s laws are good enough for them, it’s good enough for us.
I for one hold my country to a higher standard.
5 Likes
No, I’m telling you how it is, and was intentionally designed to be, under the Geneva Conventions. The Bush and Obama administrations, and the bipartisan Congress, all agree with this.
Democrat Senators who claim to want to “close” Guantanamo agree with me.
If you don’t like it, fine.
Bullshit.
The Bush administration’s position was that it followed the Geneva Conventions. “America Does Not Torture!” This only changed - once America was caught torturing over and over and over again - to the sort of pathetic bullshit one gets from criminals when caught:
-
“But waterboarding isn’t torture! (despite our executing Japanese soldiers for doing it, and our own military manuals declaring it to be torture, etc., etc.)”
-
“If the President OK’s it, it’s legal!” (Really - This was the position in the “Torture Memos.”)
-
“But you can’t prove it, because all you’ve seen is just the heavily redacted version of just the executive summary of just what got into the Torture Report!” (Ignoring that things like slicing into a prisoner’s genitals with a razor blade - the prisoner later let go with an “er, never mind” - has shown up in count, not as a claims by the victims, but by government officials who were present at the time.)
And it’s the same bloody thing with the indefinite detention without charges, many finally let go (or shipped to Uruguay for further detention) after a decade+. The Obama administration has fought to end it from day one. Congress has blocked it from day one, with tricks like preventing funding for moving or releasing prisoners.
- “But we have yearly tribunals and reviews!” (Then what changed between the first yearly tribunal and the thirteenth? If there was no evidence to take him to trial in year 13, what happened in year, 2, 3 and 4?)
These claims have no credibility than a criminal explaining that the bag of cocaine found in his rectum isn’t really his and that he has no idea how it got there.
9 Likes
+1.
It takes a special kind of vileness to defend the Bush administration’s awful innovations. And there’s a special place in hell for any cunt who’ll fill half a thread defending that shit.
4 Likes
I started skimming pretty early, so that it wasn’t me, in hell.
5 Likes
I guess we’ve reached the “Norman, coordinate!” part of the discussion.
Just remember this:
“under international law”
They said it, not me.
Oh, yes. I was right about that part. Better get Norman to bring you some saurian brandy. Mudd really should have listened to Stella.
No, we’ve just reached the “Ion is just repeating the same undefendable claims” part of the discussion.
First, in any reasonable version of your op-ed claim, “some detainees” could mean combatants, legal or otherwise. It does not apply to people picked up on mere suspicions of being illegal combatants, not without a military or civilian trial. Especially those kidnapped on another continent, nowhere near any combat. You think they’re doing something illegal, you need to hold a trial.
Second, define “the end of hostilities.” The War on Terror is a war on a concept. It’ll never end. (Especially not when the US itself feels a God-given right to engage in it.) The war in Afghanistan has been going on for decades before America joined in 2001.
Third, international law does not allow for indefinite detention without trial, let alone torture. Your op-ed can contradict that all you want, but it won’t make it true. I can show you an op-ed from John Yoo, who wrote the Torture Memos, shaking his pom-poms for torture. He’s wrong, and he should have been twitching on the end of a rope as a war criminal a long time ago.
5 Likes
Sheesh! I’ve covered all this.
No one is being held “on mere suspicion.” You’ve been lied to.
We’re not at war “on a concept.” The “War on Terror” is just a name. Legally, we’re not at war against “terrorism,” and we’re not at war against all terrorists. Just like in World War II, we were not at war in the entire world. These are just names. You’ve been lied to.
On international law, you can argue with President Obama, and Senators Feinstein and Durbin. They think that moving Guantanamo is the same thing as closing it. You’ve been lied to.
Nonsense. All the people who have been released after years in detention, having never gotten a trial, demonstrate otherwise.
The guy who is the subject of this topic, has never been found guilty of anything. suspicions only. He’s still being held.
The same goes for those cleared to be released… no trial… yet are still being held years later
C’mon. At least pretend to be honest.
We’re not at war “on a concept.” The “War on Terror” is just a name. Legally, we’re not at war against “terrorism,” and we’re not at war against all terrorists. Just like in World War II, we were not at war in the entire world.
And yet you still can’t define your “the end of hostilities.” While demanding that people be held without trial - for decades - until you can.
Yeah, we’re being lied to. By YOU.
They think that moving Guantanamo is the same thing as closing it.
The whole point of Guantanamo - and even the people who set it up say this - is that it’s a fantasy legal null zone where the Constitution does not apply.
Moving the detainees to US soil changes this. If you claim otherwise, give us a citation.
I won’t hold my breath.
5 Likes
He’s a member of Al Qaeda. We are at war with Al Qaeda (according the the AUMF), but it wasn’t a crime to be a member of Al Qaeda.
We don’t put enemies on trial unless they’ve also committed a crime. It would actually be illegal to do so.
The hostilities end when Al Qaeda is defeated, or when we give up. That’s pretty much normal for wars.
The Constitution has always applied. It is habeas corpus that doesn’t apply everywhere.
But what you’re missing is that the Supreme Court said in 2008 that habeas applies in Guantanamo. That’s why the federal judges had to review each case. So that “fantasy legal null zone” became irrelevant in 2008.
In other words, they already have whatever you think they’ll get in the U.S. That’s why the Democrats think they can move the detainees there without too much trouble.
Note, however, that the Court only extended habeas to Guantanamo. Prisoners detained elsewhere in the world don’t get habeas. That’s why President Obama held 3,000 detainees in Afghanistan instead of shipping them to Guantanamo.
But I’m sure you think Bernie would be different.
Then why keep Guantanamo open at all? Do these prisoners have Magneto-like superpowers that necessitate a ridiculously expensive custom-built prison?
3 Likes
For practical and political reasons.
Moving Guantanamo won’t be as cheap as advertised. The DoD estimates for building a new facility are higher than expected. There would be some savings, but not as much as hoped.
Guantanamo is actually pretty comfortable for the detainees. It can’t be as secure in a U.S. location while still being as comfortable. Had the full Geneva Conventions applied, it would have been illegal to keep actual POWs in a supermax. At least one detainee has filed a suit to prevent a move.
Whatever city they’d move it to would be a target for protesters and terrorists. Nobody wants that in their state.
Just as Democrats love to score points letting you think they want to close Guantanamo, Republicans love to score points letting you think the detainees would be released here.
Why do they need a new facility at all?? Like I said before, it’s not like these people have super-powers that require custom accommodations. The U.S. has had over two centuries of dealing with both POWs and international terrorists, yet we managed to get by just fine without a special detainment facility in Guantanamo Bay. Are you seriously claiming our Federal government couldn’t make room for these 80 people in our existing Federal prisons and military detention centers?
That facility wasn’t built because we didn’t have anywhere else to keep them. It was built so the Bush administration (and their congressional supporters who prevented the Obama administration from shutting it down) would have a special no-man’s-land where ordinary rule of law didn’t apply.
4 Likes
No.
You don’t lock someone up for bank robbery without a trial. Saying “he’s a bank robber, so we don’t need to give him a trial” doesn’t cut it. It doesn’t work that way.
Since this guy was actually from Afghanistan, it’s very unlikely that he was Al Qaeda. (Who were mostly Arabs brought in from other countries by bin Laden. The locals called them “tourists.”) He could be Taliban, in which case he’d be a POW and the Geneva Conventions apply. And he should have been returned by now.
Otherwise, you give him a trial. Well over a decade ago.
We don’t put enemies on trial unless they’ve also committed a crime. It would actually be illegal to do so.
If he’s a POW, he gets rights as a POW. And he’d be returned by now.
And no, it wouldn’t be illegal to give them a trial. It just wouldn’t go well for you. Holding them without trial is what’s illegal.
The hostilities end when Al Qaeda is defeated, or when we give up. That’s pretty much normal for wars.
In other words, NEVER. At this point Al Qaeda is a concept. A generic name used to rally people against a perceived enemy, without being part of the same organization. “Al Qaeda in Iraq” for example. Because it briefly had a big success. The 2001-era leaders are long dead. The 2001-era organization is long dead. The name lives on, resistance lives on, and always will.
So again, define “the end of hostilities.” I shouldn’t have to add “…in a realistic manner.”
The Constitution has always applied.
The whole point of Guantanamo and the other torture centers is that it didn’t. The very people who set them up made this claim.
the Supreme Court said in 2008
The Supreme Court merely complicated the bullshit the government had to spread about Guantanamo. Regardless of what the court ruled in 2008 here we are, eight years later, people still being held without trial, scheduled for release, er, “release”, because there was never evidence to take them to trial.
In other words, they already have whatever you think they’ll get in the U.S.
No. In the US they would have gotten due process. A real trial, under real deadlines, or release.
You’re just repeating the same lies.
Note, however, that the Court only extended habeas to Guantanamo.
Only because those detained and tortured elsewhere haven’t had any legal representation.
Again, we get it, If it’s good enough for kangaroo court torture state tin-pot dictatorships, it’s good enougn for you. Most people disagree with you.
That’s why President Obama held 3,000 detainees in Afghanistan instead of shipping them to Guantanamo.
Citation? The information I have is that there were 3000 detainees total (including in Guantanamo, Madagascar, Poland etc.), and the other torture centers were shut down by the time Obama came to power, if not soon after.
But I’m sure you think Bernie would be different.
I won’t be voting for him.
Regardless, your opposition to a country where the rule of law applies speaks volumes about YOU, not others.
7 Likes
“Comfortable”
5 Likes
