More news from Git-Mo
 

The latest story on Guantanamo from The New York Times (snip and paste, full story here with free subscription http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/na...ed=2&oref=regi)

The (Supreme) court ruled 6 to 3 in June that detainees had a right to challenge their detentions in federal court, saying that even though the base is outside the sovereign territory of the United States, federal judges have jurisdiction to consider petitions for writs of habeas corpus from those who argue that they are being unlawfully held.

The hearings here have come under heavy criticism ... For one thing, the detainees are left to argue their cases for themselves, without assistance from lawyers.

The hearings, formally called combatant status review tribunals, were hurriedly devised and put into place just weeks after the Supreme Court's ruling. The administration... told a federal court in Washington last week that the tribunals more than satisfy the Supreme Court ruling. The government argued that because of the tribunals, federal judges should reject the dozens of petitions they have received from defense lawyers asking them to intervene.

Critics have complained that the tribunals are fatally flawed, not only because the detainees do not have lawyers but because they are generally hampered in disputing any charges because they are not allowed to see most of the evidence against them because it is classified.

Detainees at all the hearings are given an unclassified summary of the charges, but the evidence to support the most serious accusations is classified and is considered in a closed session after prisoners are taken back to their cells.

One official said it was apparent from the unconvincing explanations of many detainees as to why they had been carrying a gun or were at a battle site that they were indeed enemy combatants.

The administration has asserted that the Guantánamo detainees are not entitled to the prisoner-of-war protections of the Geneva Conventions as they do not meet the criteria of regular soldiers. International lawyers have criticized the United States, saying that the Geneva Conventions require hearings to determine whether they can be deemed other than P.O.W.'s.

So, on the one hand these prisoners really ARE enemy combatants, but, really, they're not. HUH? George Orwell would have been knocked out by this wonderful example of administration double speak. Even the vilest war criminals at the Nuremberg trials were allowed to have lawyers, confront their accusers and hear the evidence against them. But I guess the US is above all that because we're making the world safe for Democracy. Right.

Its alright, Mari. It isn't that hard to understand, really. Basically, if the government says you are a terrorist, then you are. Therefore, you are an enemy combatant. Except that we aren't actually at war with anyone, so there's no Geneva Convention protection.

Got it? :D

I can't tell you how much better this explanation makes me feel :rolleyes:

I used to be more concerned about this issue until I learned that people have been released from Gitmo only to return to doing battle against US forces.

Or begin...

If you send me to Gitmo guess who I will battle with, if and when I'm lucky enough to leave? Duck and cover... :D

If you grab a tiger by the tail...

If you sent me there I'd wage war on the US afterwards as well.

Grab a jaguar by the tail.....

So these poor innocent law abiding civilians are being scooped up off the streets and thrown in a prison thousands of miles from their homes for no apparent reason other than perhaps being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Somehow I get the feeling there is more animosity toward the Bush administration itself here rather than outrage at the violation of some Iraqi insurgents human rights.

Innocent people are held in Guantanamo for years - and tortured. When finally released, they join the insurgents to attack Americans. Its called revenge. Then Rush Limbaugh types spin this into how the world always hates Americans.

The same source that forgot to mention why innocent people were in Guantanamo - and tortured - now says former prisoners are attacking America. We believe news sources that only report propaganda? We should believe a news source that forgets to mention how America authorized the Spanish Inquisition in Guantanamo?

The problem is not those former torture victims. The problem is that 'so called' responsible news source. You have promoted classic propaganda. If your news sources don't explain why America routinely tortured prisoners and denied those prisioners 'rule of law', then your news source is the real problem.

Then you really don't get it. It is outrage at actions like this that fuels animosity towards the Bush administration. Unfettered indefinite imprisonment is something I do not support. Active avoidance of national and international standards of prisoner treatment and rights is something I do not support. I'm pretty cynical, but I gotta say that if you can't understand something like that, you make me sad. http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/frown.gif

I *get* things just fine. I do not support unfettered imprisonment either, the protocols of the Geneva Convention should apply to anyone imprisoned during a time of war. Indefinite is subjective to how long the war goes on, I do not think these imprisoned people should be let go to return to fight against us again. My original point was, I do not believe we are just scooping up *innocent* people off the streets, these were combatants in a war zone. I do think a fair and impartial inquiry into their imprisonment should be made and they should be let go if, in fact, found innocent.

Some were scooped up in a war zone (ie, random locations in Afghanistan), some were turned in by locals for whatever reason. Neither method is by any stretch of the imagination foolproof. The beef with the administration is that they are resisting any attempts to allow trials of any meaningful kind to determine whether they are innocent. In the meantime, they are treating them as if they have already been convicted. Given their methods, I think it is all but certain that there are substantial numbers of innocent people there, as already turned out to be true in Iraqi POW prisons, and those people (and their family and friends back home) are not getting a very good impression of the US.

My point wasn't that all the people there are loveable little angels who wouldn't hurt a fly. My point is that once they are released, our actions have made it much more likely that they will fight us, whether or not they were fighting us in the first place. UT said that the fact that some releasees (people that even the heavily tilted Pentagon hearings determined were innocent) turned on us made him less concerned about how the US treats its prisoners. That's what I was responding to.

When did you stop torturing your wife?

It's not a blame-the-administration game, it's a blame-the-US game -- which offends middle America more deeply than religious differences, I'd bet.

Yes, perhaps those desert Arabs were merely in wintry Afghanistan to charitably help with the annual poppy harvest and now the US has turned them into violent anti-US terrorists. I kinda doubt it though.

Yep, America is screwed no matter what we do.

We could have these people in 5-star hotels in Cuba and someone would complain that the shrink-wrapped pillow mints we are offering the prisoners are too hard to open.

The detainees are being held not so much for what they have done but for what they know. Once its determined through rigorous interrogations that they don't know anything, they are released irrespective of whether or not they took up arms against US troops. Interrogation is not an art - its a science - it is very easy (with this many detainees) to figure out who knows something and who doesn't.

This is war, people. What would you do if you were in charge - that is what I would like to know. I wish to be as respectful of international law as the next guy but if 8 people tell me (independently) that prisoner X knows where Osama is, then prisoner X ain't going anywhere till he coughs up the goods or until Osama is neutralized. When the war is over, we can all go home again.

If you think the death of Osama would end this 'war', you're at most half as smart as I thought you were. The very nature of what's going on not to mention asymmeterical war in general means that torture is at best, counterproductive and lets not mince words, what goes on in that place is state-sanctioned torture plain and simple, just as bad as Saddam's or Kim's or Pinochet's torture.

I don't think that the war will be over anytime soon much less when Osama is neutralized. I actually think all hell is going to break loose once we capture him and hope we have the good sense to make him "disappear" rather than have him do the perp walk. The last thing we need to do is make a martyr out of our enemy's hero. I was giving an example that if someone did know where he was than he wasn't going home until he told his captors where he was.

I later said that when the war is over, we can all go home.

But, you didn't address my question: what would you do if you were in charge of managing these people and your loyalty (try not to choke) was to the people of the United States. What do you think John Kerry would do had he been elected. At some point, all this criticism needs to evolve into an alternative and the downside of the alternatives needs to be ackknowledged.

That is completely irrelevant.
Of course. All the people in Gitmo are "desert Arabs". How could I be so blind. All is well.

The only way not to make Osama into a real matyr is to have him die free of kidney failure.

The difference is whether you look at the long term of the short term. In the short term you might catch the leader(s) of Islamic Terrorist Group #1532 and stop a bomb attack in X. On the downside the actions of the US since the 9/11 attacks has inflamed world opinion, galvanised the Islamic world's opinion of the US and alienated traditional allies. In the long run, which is better at keeping america safe?

Our actions prior to 9/11 didn't exactly prevent 9/11. Clinton (I don't blame him for Sep 11 nor do I question his tactics) used a much more targeted approach and didn't alienate anyone in the process and look where that got us.

These people have been after our asses since the 70s if not longer and it doesn't seem to matter how "politely" we fight back - they still come at us harder and harder. They attacked when Carter was president, when Reagan was president, When Bush's I and II were president and when Clinton was president. Over that range of Commanders in Chief, we have fought the fight any way you can imagine but the resolve of the terrorists has not diminished in the least.

So, given that, how do you suggest we defend ourselves?

Uhmmmm, work toward energy self-sufficiency here at home via synfuels, alternative energy supplies, and tax breaks for those companies which come up with more efficient ways of using non-renewable resources? That way we wouldn't have to meddle with the Mid-East. Nah, too obvious! :eyebrow:

"Desert Arabs" is a convenient term and now politically correct?....but hey does anyone remember the college students that hit the slammer when trying to register for a new semester? Do you remember the American Arab dropout rate from american civilian and agency pressures? No? Was that too long and inconvenient ago? All the warrents posted over addresses that weren't up to date? Please....Arrests were made here FIRST. And yes at times THEY WERE completely random....so don't even begin to tell me, as I was on the board of the _ _ _ _ at that time having a very difficult time ........ Powerless. Many average kids suffered in almost every major city.....just trying on a new semester...these were Americans.....maybe even your neighbors. Please...desert arabs whatever.... In New York random people were found and taken as a clear numbers issue.. let's just not get into this until you know what you are saying. :yelsick:

We were talking about Git-mo flip, so you are welcome to shut up at any time.

Oh was I too direct......did I not throw in enough racist slang?

I think the incidents Flip cites are quite relevant to the Gitmo discussion. She is talking about innocent people with Arab surnames who were wrongfully arrested or discriminated against. People are upset about the Gitmo situation because of the possiblity of the wrongful detention of innocent people. If the people at Gitmo are enemy combatants, and I'm sure many are, then the US is obligated to treat them under the rules of the Geneva convention. It's not.

A terrorist attack is designed to prove the vulnerability of an enemy and goad the enemy into an action which decreases sympathy for them among moderates. Their goal is to play the matador, with flashy, dramatic stabs resulting in powerful lunges in the wrong direction.

What do we do? I'm no genius. The solution to terrorism isn't likely to show up on the pages of the Cellar. But if you act out the caricature of the "Great Satan", the moderates will start to secretly root for the terrorists, and the borderline people will join them. A war in the Middle East is much more than a military exercise, it really is a war for "hearts and minds". In this war, even more than in all others so far, the US must be scrupulously and dramatically ethical, moral, and fair. Otherwise we are like Mickey with the axe in Fantasia.

Mexicans that illegally immigrated to New York are also missing, and their families in Mexico that were expecting the monthly supplemental U.S. dollar are also curious about their whereabouts. People are missing.....what happens when someone in your life is taken? Gitmo is a SHAM any way you slice it.....that's it.

Given the extreme reluctance of the administration to release identifying information on the people in Gitmo, why do you say they're all desert arabs?

First of all, you could take your political correctness here and, you know, shove it; but what term would you use for Arabs who live in the desert?

But secondly, do you think people in the US arrested with Visa problems wound up in Git-mo?

I don't say they're all "desert Arabs", just a majority of them; but even if you're from Marin County, you don't go to miserably cold unfamiliar mountainous Afghanistan just to take in the scenery.

What if you're from, let's say... Afghanistan?

Who knows? That's the problem in a nutshell. They aren't allowed to have lawyers, they don't get to hear the charges against them, and nobody is allowed to know who they are.

I am sure that the majority of prisoners at Gitmo were indeed enemy combatants, but when people are held in such a manner as the ones at Gitmo are being held under conditions which defy both the Geneva Convention and US law and the Supreme Court has ruled that these folks do have the right to habeus corpus, you have got to wonder just what's going on.

If the world thinks the US is attempting to hide something, it can hardly be blamed.

I think I'm going to stick with the opinions of the civil rights attorneys working around the clock to get the nameless masses out.(once an impossibility now a little more open) I'm not going to do your work for you on the study of immigration laws vs. human rights. It wasn't a Visa problem in the first place that I am referring to....It was a simple problem of a change of address on registration records. People were taken when registering for a new semester. Most did not land in Gitmo...Some did, but all were under investigation. That is when college bounders Dropped Out. Illegal immigrants were taken with less of a profile. I'm not going to explain the obvious past anymore do your own research. As for "desert arabs" it was your context. Now I'm going to go get my "American owned and operated" tag line.

Beestie, by doing something that has been suggested plenty of times but somehow it seems more popular to bomb people into submission or in most cases, shallow graves to be the food for the seeds of the next generation's anger. Give them jobs, stable governments, aircon, Ford Escorts and make their societies vibrant and forward looking. See how many pick up guns then. What's needed is a new Marshall plan. Hug the bastards to death, killing them is about as pointless as it gets, you're swinging at a hydra and you're hitting everything else in the process. Extremeist nutters of any colour or stripe are only really a dangerous force when they gain popular support.

Mari, I wasn't asking you.

flip, can I get a cite please, proof that anyone in Gitmo was picked up on immigration problems with the educational visas.

Reiteration not repitition.

Number of incidents at the World Trade Center while the US was playing Mr. Nice Guy: 2.

Number of incidents since W decided to be a real meany: 0

Looks like galvanizing Islamic world's opinion against the US (which is effectively a no-op anyway) is safer.

[quote=Undertoad]Mari, I wasn't asking you.

Don't tell me to shut up then start asking questions that's in bad form. :yelsick:
Are you the opinion monitor now? :question: Chairman?

Some of the British people that were caught and detained over there said they were tourists. Who on earth books a holiday in a war zone. These people are smiling assasins.

Mariflip, you are a treat whether you're plural or singular.

Let's just not get into this until you know what you are saying, which apparently neither or either of you does.

Yeah, invading Iraq sure calmed down all those people in the Middle East who hate our guts. They're so scared of George W. Bush that they'll never do any mean terrorist things again.

Yeah right. :eyebrow:

Number of years between WTC attacks: 8
Number of years since last WTC attack: 3

You seem a tad confused yourself, UT. And since when is there a rule that only one person can answer a question? I gave my thoughts as to why Flippant's post was relevant, and she gave hers.

And no, much as I would love to be in my 20's, drop dead beautiful, and smart as a whip, Flippant is not my alter ego nor am I hers.

ooh pa-dow. Mari you are oh too kind. If I had an alter ego choice you wouldn't be far from it anyway. Mari's hot. Could you post my pic Mari? We'll clear this up. You know the one......I'll PM my pass.

russotto, we'll see. Put it this way, I'm not touching catastrophy bonds anytime soon.