US Guantanamo Tribunals 'Illegal'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:

I appreciate that both of you want to see perfect social justice in the world. Great. More power to you. Put it somewhere with more impact and potential like Africa. Unless you beleive that Islamic extremists should be slaughtering people across Africa and most of the continent should be under an HIV pandemic. Where is your righteous rhetoric on those much larger issues?
[/quote]

To sum my point up:

They may not be POWs, I was wrong there, but they still have rights under the Geneva Convention equalling that of POWs. Bite me.

Still, that does not apply to people that are not subject to the Geneva Convention because they were kidnapped.

This last part is the real inconvenient part if one tries to justify Guantanamo isn?t it?

How is your government different than a mafia boss ordering his thugs to kidnapp someone he liked to question?

Wait, let me answer that, they hide behind the American flag and you think they mean well.

They are however, not supposed to mean well , they are supposed to follow the law and, as a government, they also have to convincingly appear to follow the law.

Clinton lied about a blow job and American conservatives shit their pants, because of the illegality of it, and KIDNAPPINGS are somehow something that is worth trying to find a legal loophole for to squeeze it through?

To you think that is what your “Founding Fathers” envisioned or are you of the “saving America by destroying its moral roots” persuasion?

If you salute the American flag then, you will salute an empty husk…

As to the diverse strawmen you put up:

The American justice system does not work? Fix it.

The world is a bad place with lots of bad people doing bad things and even if that weren?t so it still sucks sometimes on its own (HIV).

BECAUSE the world is a mess we cannot have America flirting with fascism, the world is supposed to be as free as the US by the world becoming more free not the US becoming a banana republic.

Lighten our load by remaining the land of the free, home of the brave. OMG, live up to your self proclaimed virtues if it actually costs something.

The last argument was weak anyway, just because somewhere something allways goes wrong I am in no way entitled to break into my neighbours house, kill him, rape his wife and put his house on fire…

However, if your own government sells you the same BS with its neverending “War on terror” you seem to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

As if creating a state of constant warfare wasn?t the oldest trick in the book, Jesus, don?t they teach history in the US?

Well, at least Karl Rove reads books, damn shame he seems to be the only one…

62

[quote]makkun wrote:

The fact that so many guys have been released has been mostly due to external pressure of other nations, civil rights groups and lawyers who don’t trust in the judgement you describe. If you follow the whole story you end up with chipping away from the original stance of the government “the worst of the worst” towards, “well maybe this one isn’t so bad… and yeah, well that one too … and oh, him…”. And with their non-acceptance of mistakes and being proven wrong or out of line time after time, the credibility is out of the window.[/quote]

Out of curiosity, “so many” relative to what? The number of US “prisoners” publicly executed w/o trial? The total number of detainees held w/o trial? The number of people of people that died on 9/11? Or are we talking about the exceptions that prove the rule? Were I in the Bush Administrations situation, the most obviously innocent would be released first and the unlawful combatants that I would want to execute publicly over the internet would stay in Gitmo until Congress and the USSC decide whether I’m able to do it or not. Much like the situation seems to be progressing.

I half agree with you here. I believe it’s not a matter for the US courts as these are not US criminals. Some of these men may deserve punishment in excess of or outside of what a US court can hear or decide. As has clearly happened, some of these individuals need to be returned to their country of origin for proper punishment.

[quote]Well that’s pretty much against what all experts here say - and by the way our courts here in the UK:

"The statistics are depressing. Since 22 July 2005, there have been three thwarted attacks on the British mainland, while the police and Security Service (MI5) say they are working flat-out monitoring those they believe are liable to carry out violent acts out of revenge for perceived injustices.

A year ago, those individuals numbered about 800, today they believe the figure is at least 1,200. The problem, they admit, is that the factors that helped radicalise Mohammed Siddique Khan and his co-conspirators are still around today.

They include the conflict in Iraq sparked by the US-led invasion, the denial of a viable Palestinian state, the conflict in Chechnya and, closer to home, a deep sense of alienation and victimisation by some sections of Britain’s Muslim communities."

Funny what is given here as the foremost reason… Thanks, guys. ;-)[/quote]

So, because radical Islamists in the UK are believed to have increased their numbers 50% and have become much less effective, you’re thanking the US? Um… You’re welcome, I guess. (You should be thanking MI5).

BTW- I know they’re radical Islamists because they a) live in the UK and hate the US b) live in the UK, probably aren’t all Palestinian but are offended with affairs regarding the ‘Palestinian State’ (did they vote for Hamas?) and c) feel alienated by more moderate Muslim communities who choose not to idolize suicide bombers.

Not to veer too far off topic, but you appear to have a bias towards arbitrarily inflating peoples’ “rights”.

63

lucasa,

[quote]lucasa wrote:
[…] Out of curiosity, “so many” relative to what? The number of US “prisoners” publicly executed w/o trial? The total number of detainees held w/o trial? The number of people of people that died on 9/11? Or are we talking about the exceptions that prove the rule? Were I in the Bush Administrations situation, the most obviously innocent would be released first and the unlawful combatants that I would want to execute publicly over the internet would stay in Gitmo until Congress and the USSC decide whether I’m able to do it or not. Much like the situation seems to be progressing.[/quote]

“The total number of detainees held w/o trial” in Gitmo. I suggest you read the earlier posts on this matter.

[quote][…]
I half agree with you here. I believe it’s not a matter for the US courts as these are not US criminals. Some of these men may deserve punishment in excess of or outside of what a US court can hear or decide. As has clearly happened, some of these individuals need to be returned to their country of origin for proper punishment.[/quote]

I don’t agree. The US has taken them into custody and is therefore responsible for their fate. This is best decided by US courts, and sending them to a country where they might be tortured would be clearly wrong.

[quote][…]conflict in Iraq sparked by the US-led invasion[…]

Funny what is given here as the foremost reason… Thanks, guys. ;-)[…]

So, because radical Islamists in the UK are believed to have increased their numbers 50% and have become much less effective, you’re thanking the US? Um… You’re welcome, I guess. (You should be thanking MI5).[/quote]

This was a tongue-in-cheek comment about how the UK authorities are admitting now that UK participation in the Iraq war has increased the risk of terror attacks against the UK. In context it meant that my safety here in London is compromised stronger by the US led Iraq war than by letting Gitmo detainees get fair trials.

That sentence I don’t understand.

I cannot other than take this as a compliment: Indeed my approach is more inclusive than not. If I were alone with my views and in power, I might act “arbitrarily”, but fortunately I live in democracy where others share my views and are protected from my alleged arbitrary conduct by those “rights”. Unfortunately with extraordinary renditions, kidnappings of foreign citizens and second class prisoners “detainees”, that’s not a safety guarantee anymore.

Makkun

64

Makkun and Orion are really amusing.

Stating the US is on the verge of fascism is ridiculous. You really need to stop watching so much TV, drinking so much Kool Aid, watching so many movies.

The US courts are a failure. Murderers, child rapists, and corporate criminals all routinely get away with their crimes. Our Supreme Court just made it legal for a private enterprise to take ownership of other peoples homes for demolishon and development if the local government beleives it will raise tax revenue. In your socialist countries, that may seem like a good thing, but not here.

The International Courts are just as bad. How long has the Slobodan Milosevic trial been going on, 4 years now?

I actually think those captured in Afghanistan could reasonably be tried in Afghanistan. If the others could be tried where they allegedly committed their crimes, I would go along with that too.

As far as implying that the the US presence in Iraq is causing more Muslims to become extremists; that is weak and shallow minded. Muslim extremists have been fomenting thier poison for decades now.

America wasn’t in Iraq when the PanAm flight was dropped in your backyard. America wasn’t in Iraq when barracks in Saudi were blown up. America wasn’t in Iraq when the USS Cole was blown up. America wasn’t in Iraq when the WTC was burned down. And are any of these extremists even Iraqi’s? Hardly any.

The truth among most Iraqi’s is that they appreciate what America is trying to help them with as far as developing democracy and they understand they must engage in their own security and that when they have done that, US forces will redeploy from Iraq. I know you won’t get that from the BBC, or CNN, or MSNBC or NPR or Al’Jazeara.

Your Muslim extremists are just trying to increase their own Sphere of Influence with their own brand of propoganda by referencing US presence in Iraq as an affront to Islam. What about RIOTS because of cartoons? How retarded is that? You just don’t get it. The Muslims who would be extremist will find a reason to be extremists, because they are sheltered and raised that way.

Yeah, I know, you’re gonna call me a fascist, blah blah , whatever. Or say I hate Muslims. Wrong again. Really, I don’t give a shit what you think. I have personally saved the lives of several Muslim terrorists either wounded in combat or as a result of faulty bombs trying to attack other Muslims. I have also saved the lives of dozens of Muslim civilians wounded by attacks from other Muslims. Even saved two Muslim rapists beaten, stabbed and shot in Muslim mob justice, two hours after treating the woman they brutalized.

The world is not a civilized place. The people in most places are not what you consider civilized. Rules of a civilized society simply do not apply there. And when these people move to Oregon, Buffalo, or Leeds, surely they do not leave their old ways behind.

Has the administration done everything right? Of course not. There is plenty of criticism to be handed out. Am I defending the administration …NO!

You and I will never agree on this issue. I understand that. And that’s fine.

65

[quote]makkun wrote:

“The total number of detainees held w/o trial” in Gitmo. I suggest you read the earlier posts on this matter.[/quote]

I did read the earlier post(s), “so many” seemed arbitrary, I wouldn’t describe 167/~750 as “so many”. Of course, I’m assuming that the current ‘free of charges’ release rate isn’t indicative of the larger population (as I said before, I believe the opposite).

Even if it was their country of origin or detention? How would it be any less moral than a normal extradition? (As if that weren’t gray enough in-and-of itself.)

I know you don’t understand it because you are ascribing meaning to an article where there is none. If you look at it as a whole:

-Motivation for the terrorists includes US foreign policy, denial of a Palestinian state, and alienation from moderate Islamist communities.

How is this news? How do you read this from a news company and not chuckle? Headline: Terrorists hate the US! Want Palestinian Nation! Disagree with moderate Muslims! Read all about it! Tell your friends you heard it here first!

It goes on to further say;

-There are believed to be more terrorists in the UK now than a year ago.

-Intelligence services are looking more closely at domestic terror networks than just individuals and ignoring potential threats.

The second point quite easily explains the first.

And sums it up with;

-Are we (you) safe(r)?

They don’t really answer that question at all. The (assumed) first plot worked, the subsequent three were foiled, nobody knows whether you’re safer or not, but we believe there are more potential terrorists now, especially because we’re paying attention and have a keen glimpse into the terrorist mind (see above).

You could be beheaded :slight_smile:

Silly me, I should’ve foreseen someone who sings “God Save the Queen” taking the arbitrary assignment of the rights of man as a compliment. (Especially ones he himself does not enjoy.)

Fortunately, I live in a democracy as well where, usually, the legislative branch composes the law, the executive branch enforces it, and the judiciary administers it. Rather than one where term-based popularly elected officials are overruled by lifetime appointed ones.

66

Patrick Williams,

[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
Makkun and Orion are really amusing.[/quote]

Thanks, I’m here all week…

You must mean the other guy. Those pesky Austrians… :wink:

While disqualifying yourself by referring to the UK and Austria as socialist countries (which shows deep lack of understanding of the term and european history), regarding the USSC, I can only quote the newest Economist (yes, print version) who is full of praise of John Roberts:

“But he ruling was typical of the court under his leadership. It blocked the executive from doing what was clearly unlawful [referring to the Gitmo decision], but otherwise sought to interfere as little as possible. This modest approach to judging is exactly what Mr Roberts promised when he was appointed last year. […] The new chief justice offers instead a cautious, incremental approach. Rather than issuing sweeping commandments from the bench, judges should decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds.” (The Economist, July 1st-7th, p49)

As for sentencing of criminals, at least here in the UK, the trend has been going towards longer sentences and fuller prisons - the press saying otherwise is plainly wrong, if you read the statistics. As for the US, it might interesting to read up if there is a similar trend.

At least he had a trial, the Gitmo detainees have been doing that without one for 4 years - oh, and yeah, he’s dead. Missed the news?

Sure, Afghan citizens can be brought back to Afghanistan, which is currently a democracy (I’m just listening to news where it is said that yet more UK soldiers are to be deployed there to defend this democracy).

Tell that to

It’s not always that simple: Indeed there were lots of extremists before that, but numbers are rising, as stated in the quote regarding extremist numbers; the US’s presence and conducct in Iraq is a welcome recruiting tool for getting more people radicalised. Hence the assessment by your and our officials.

Of course you get that, but you also get critical journalism there - and almost 5 years “after” the war in Afghanistan, the UK is deploying more troops there, due to growing unrest. And the situation there is seen as more stable than Iraq. I believe your argument, once I see a US gouvernment official visit Iraq, when it is not a surprise visit.

I partly agree with that. But there is a difference between dealing with a few nuthead extremists and a growing number of sympathisers who are being drawn more and more on the extremist side as the US’s actions gives them more and more propaganda material.

Well, you’re alone on that one. I’m not interested in insulting you - my manners and my respect for you forbids that. Your projecting of such an image on me is on the other not nice. Or do you mean that Austrian again… :wink:

I’m glad to hear that you personally tried to do what you think is right. And that your motives are of a humanitarian nature. I question the people whom you answer to, though.

I would hope that free and democratic states have institutions, laws and courts to deal with that. I would have assumed that that is what you were defending.

[quote]Has the administration done everything right? Of course not. There is plenty of criticism to be handed out. Am I defending the administration …NO!

You and I will never agree on this issue. I understand that. And that’s fine.[/quote]

Ok. We agree on that one - I would guess that we just don’t like different things about the US administration.

Makkun

67

lucasa,

[quote]lucasa wrote:
[…]
I did read the earlier post(s), “so many” seemed arbitrary, I wouldn’t describe 167/~750 as “so many”. Of course, I’m assuming that the current ‘free of charges’ release rate isn’t indicative of the larger population (as I said before, I believe the opposite).[/quote]

That’s 22%, more than one in five. Given the fact that there is indeed the chance of the death penalty for these guys, that’s a whooping number. Imagine that in a civilian jail - it would be a scandal. Ah, it is one…

[quote][…]
Even if it was their country of origin or detention? How would it be any less moral than a normal extradition? (As if that weren’t gray enough in-and-of itself.)[/quote]

Firstly, any country that extradites to where people are in danger of being killed, tortured, maimed etc. should rethink its values. Proper grey, I agree…

Secondly, there are ample examples of “arrests” by warlords’ minions and non regular troops. Should they be treated as legitimate?

And thirdly - it is the US that hold them for crimes against the US. So any extradition should be to the US. Get the courts ready, is all I say…

[quote]That sentence I don’t understand.

I know you don’t understand it because you are ascribing meaning to an article where there is none. If you look at it as a whole:

-Motivation for the terrorists includes US foreign policy, denial of a Palestinian state, and alienation from moderate Islamist communities.

How is this news? How do you read this from a news company and not chuckle? Headline: Terrorists hate the US! Want Palestinian Nation! Disagree with moderate Muslims! Read all about it! Tell your friends you heard it here first![/quote]

It’s not news - and it wasn’t really news when I wrote about my impressions of London on the day of the attack here on T-Nation.

Back then of course, no one admitted that the UK’s involvement in the Iraq war was to blame.

[quote]It goes on to further say;

-There are believed to be more terrorists in the UK now than a year ago.

-Intelligence services are looking more closely at domestic terror networks than just individuals and ignoring potential threats.

The second point quite easily explains the first.

And sums it up with;

-Are we (you) safe(r)?

They don’t really answer that question at all. The (assumed) first plot worked, the subsequent three were foiled, nobody knows whether you’re safer or not, but we believe there are more potential terrorists now, especially because we’re paying attention and have a keen glimpse into the terrorist mind (see above).[/quote]

We must have read two differen articles, as this answer is given:

"Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of the Government’s anti-terrorism legislation, has told the BBC that the fact that the 7 July bombers were British citizens leading outwardly ordinary, respectable lives was something of a wake-up call.

He said: “That made us really take note of a changed situation. I think Britain is a less safe place as a result, and I think eternal vigilance is required.”"

As long as I can keep my cock…

I don’t sing “God save the Queen”, as I’m not a UK citizen. But I do enjoy all the rights as a EU citizen.

Like the USSC?

I think that you should read a little about the UK’s political system. Of course, it’s not mine - I only live here. But nice try.

Makkun

68

[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
Makkun and Orion are really amusing.

Stating the US is on the verge of fascism is ridiculous. You really need to stop watching so much TV, drinking so much Kool Aid, watching so many movies.

The US courts are a failure. Murderers, child rapists, and corporate criminals all routinely get away with their crimes. Our Supreme Court just made it legal for a private enterprise to take ownership of other peoples homes for demolishon and development if the local government beleives it will raise tax revenue. In your socialist countries, that may seem like a good thing, but not here.

[/quote]

Flirting with, not on the edge…

Sounds unlikely?

McCarthys witch hunts, “Concentration camps” for Japanese Americans during WWII (I know the German ones were different, but the original British weren?t so much)…

A mythology/political ideology based on race was never part of the US political landscape?

Well obviously the US are incapable of flirting with fascism much in the same way they are unable to flirt with socialism…

69

[quote]orion wrote:

Flirting with, not on the edge…

Sounds unlikely?

McCarthys witch hunts, “Concentration camps” for Japanese Americans during WWII (I know the German ones were different, but the original British weren?t so much)…

A mythology/political ideology based on race was never part of the US political landscape?

Well obviously the US are incapable of flirting with fascism much in the same way they are unable to flirt with socialism…

[/quote]

This response cleary shows your lack of knowledge regarding the current American poliical and social landscapes and the dynamics which shape them.

70

[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
orion wrote:

Flirting with, not on the edge…

Sounds unlikely?

McCarthys witch hunts, “Concentration camps” for Japanese Americans during WWII (I know the German ones were different, but the original British weren?t so much)…

A mythology/political ideology based on race was never part of the US political landscape?

Well obviously the US are incapable of flirting with fascism much in the same way they are unable to flirt with socialism…

This response cleary shows your lack of knowledge regarding the current American poliical and social landscapes and the dynamics which shape them.
[/quote]

It was never meant to do that, it was meant to show that the US is not above flirting with -isms of any kind, which is why this possible danger needs to be in the back of our heads, allways…