David Hicks The farce of Gitmo continues.

[Crossbow]

Nonsense. Let me refresh your memory:

Bold emphasis mine.


Now you're left with having to lie about my position. I never once claimed that FDR should have been tried for war crimes, nor any other US President for that matter.


Apparently the public education system has failed you to the point of being unable to distinguish between "can be" (my words) and "must be" (what you apparently think "can be" means).


Not at all, because the basis for your claim is a strawman argument I never made.


Which I proved above we are.


Replace "would" with "could" and you've accurately portrayed my position. Your repeated attempts at lying about what I said are noted for all to see.


Wow, you take your lie and run with it to this extent... I guess this means you know you've lost the argument and lies are your only recourse?


Doesn't matter. The spies captured on the battlefield were also no longer a threat. Nothing prevented them from being processed like the thousands of other Germans captured, except for the whims of the officers in charge.

Are you going to keep on resorting to lying about my position Crossbow? Or do you have actual facts to bring to the discussion?

Excuse me all, I think it would be best if stopped discussing anything with this particular carbon-based lifeform.

 

[Crossbow]

Frankly I'm not sure what the US considers him to be, and I'm not sure they know either!

But according to my understanding of the law, since he has been detained, he has to be treated the same as a POW until such time as his "unlawful combatant" status is determined by a Military Tribunal.

This is where the USA have gone TOTALLY off the rails. They seem to be preparing to bring CHARGES against him and put him to TRIAL.

Until such time as a Military Tribunal determines his status (and note, this is NOT a trial in any way, shape or form) he is a POW, and here's the kicker... you can only charge a POW with crimes he has committed WHILE IN YOUR CUSTODY. For example if it's illegal under US law to kill someone, and a POW murders someone (be it a guard or another POW) they can be charged with murder under US law and tried accordingly. However the US are not charging him with crimes committed while in US custody.

The whole thing is lost in la-la land. And I'm frankly finding it utterly amazing that a number of alleged law experts making comments about the case are making all sorts of stupid remarks that clearly show they are thinking in civil terms, not in armed conflict law terms, yet at the same time everyone seems to be ignoring the ACTUAL legal requirements and facts as per laws of armed conflict.

Frankly the whole detainee thing has me convinced the entire western world has totally lost the plot.

-Gumboot

Great post 'Gumboot'! I do belive that you have articulated the problem quite well.

I doubt that the Bush Administration really has any idea of what to do with these people either.

If they are released, then that rather undercuts the argument for holding them to begin with.
If they are kept at their current status, then that rather undercuts the legal process, and I am sure that the Supreme Court still has something to say about the issue.
If they are provided legal due process, then there is great deal of data that will become public knowledge that the Bush Administration would rather keep secret as well as undercutting the powers of detainment that Bush has tried so hard to cultivate.

Ugh! It is just ugly all the way around.

Of course, if the Bush Administration would have simply thought to follow the existing rules and guidelines at the time, then we would not be in this current mess now either. But of course, thinking before acting has never been a strong trait in this Administration.

 

[Davo]

enemy combatant

An interesting and complicated debate, just a few of my own points:

As far as I can see from the facts Hicks was not a hired mercenary, or a spy, therefore would not come under an “unlawful combatant”.

Does, being a member of al queda (basing on this assumption) neccesitate him being a combatant ?

The war against al queda would indicate that the war is against anyone who is part of the group who call themselves “al queda”.

Problem that I see is that a lot of members of al queda are people with the “belief” that attacks on the US are just. Other members will be doing the fighting. So you end up with saying the war is against those that “believe” in anti US thought.

Apply that logic to say WW2, German civilians are also enemy combatants because they believe the actions of their country are just.

Probably starting to go off track but what status are US troops captured by:

a.) al queda
b.) Iraqi insurgents

 

[WildCat]

Excuse me all, I think it would be best if stopped discussing anything with this particular carbon-based lifeform.

So you have nothing to discuss unless you can resort to lies?

 

[fishbob]

Those that want to try apply civil law to an international armed conflict want to see each of the detainees put through a speedy fair American civil trial, found not guilty or whatever charge is invented through lack of evidence, and set free.

Not even close. Your implication is that 'the libruls' want them all set free, while others here want them to all get a bullet to the head.

All we have been advocating is following due process, and not making up new rules. The outcome of the process should be dependent entirely on the facts.

 

[Cleon]

So you have nothing to discuss unless you can resort to lies?

So you're not actually a carbon-based life form?

Well, that certainly explains the difference in perspective...

 

[Mycroft]

All we have been advocating is following due process, and not making up new rules. The outcome of the process should be dependent entirely on the facts.

Advocating following a "due process" that doesn't apply.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I can appreciate the irony. But I can only wonder what the response would be if it were a US citizen who was captured in Pakistan, mysteriously shipped to Egypt and handed over to a foreign power, who entombed him in some awful place without trial. I suspect a full battle fleet would have been despatched long ago...

You would suspect incorrectly.

Read the book By Any Means Necessary and consider the fate of captured American aircrews in the early half of the Cold War.

See also a number of MIA written off. For a case in point, Kelly Patterson. His pilot, Captain Red McDaniel, I had the chance to meet some years ago. (Red McDaniel spent 6+ years in the Hanoi Hilton, and other tourist resorts. His book "Before Honor" was re released under the title "Scars and Stripes." He is the Founder of the American Defense Institute. )

See also numerous kidnappings in the Mid East in the 1970's and 1980's, and the assassination of a few US folks by terrorists. Then consider the response.

Reality check for fifty, Alex.

DR

 

[WildCat]

So you're not actually a carbon-based life form?

Well, that certainly explains the difference in perspective...

My post referred to the post by Crossbow where he repeatedly lied about my position on this, despite having the quotes right in front of him. I guess his philosophy is "if you can't debate what he says, debate what you wish he'd said".

 

[Zep]

The war against al queda would indicate that the war is against anyone who is part of the group who call themselves “al queda”.

Actually, to be more accurate, that should read: The war against Al Quaeda would indicate that the war is against anyone who is designated by the current US administration to be part of the group who call themselves “Al Quaeda”.

That is, anyone at all they don't like or who are "not working in the best interests of the USA".

It also seems to include people who they have been told are Al Quaeda operatives and have been turned in by friends and allies. Such as David Hicks. Hence my offer above to dob in my next door neighbour whom I would like to see gone. I'll write the letter and deliver him to the nearest heliport if that will help.

 

[a_unique_person]

If they are released, then that rather undercuts the argument for holding them to begin with.

The UK citizens were released long ago, at the request of the UK. The only reason David Hicks has not been released is the Australian government has not asked for him to be released. The American citizen Lindh, was processed using an entirely different process.

 

[rikzilla]

The UK citizens were released long ago, at the request of the UK. The only reason David Hicks has not been released is the Australian government has not asked for him to be released. The American citizen Lindh, was processed using an entirely different process.

That didn't really work out so well for him you know.

Lindh is now being held at ADMAX Florence, Co. This is the Federal Supermax facility. Other notable prisoners held here are Theodore "Ted" Kaczynski (The Unabomber), Ramzi Yousef (mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing) and Robert Hanssen (former FBI agent who spied for the Soviets.)

Lindh's (inmate number 45426-083) projected release from federal prison will take place on or after May 11, 2019.

Where would you rather be? GITMO with the possibility of a political deal being made for you because of international pressure? Or SUPERMAX with the certainty that you will grow old before you know freedom again?

-z

 

[Zep]

The UK citizens were released long ago, at the request of the UK. The only reason David Hicks has not been released is the Australian government has not asked had the balls to ask for him to be released. The American citizen Lindh, was processed using an entirely different process.

Corrected. No charge.

 

[Zep]

Where would you rather be? GITMO with the possibility of a political deal being made for you because of international pressure? Or SUPERMAX with the certainty that you will grow old before you know freedom again?

-z

Again, Rik. No-one is arguing for Hick's freedom regardless. They are arguing for what we call "a fair go". If he is guilty, into the SUPERMAX he can go. But he needs to be tried fairly and properly found guilty first. Which just isn't happening...

And the problem is getting worse because all the previous charges, which would have had him hanged ten times over then put before a firing squad for a few years if found guilty, have been dropped. And he has been charged only with a much lesser offence that was clearly not an offence when he was captured. "Sorry, mate. We decided to let you off the murder charge after all and make it jay-walking instead."

So what the heck happened to the masses of evidence of his clear guilt as a mass-murdering terrorist, trainer-of-terrorists, maker-of-bombs-and-mayhem, etc, etc? Where is it now? Are they simply ignoring it? Has it been lost? Did it ever exist? It's a shambles, Rik, a shambles.

 

[Schneibster]

It is emotional reasoning, one based on anger and the desire for retribution rather than addressing the problem at hand.

Basically, by avoiding due process, torturing suspects is punishment without judicial oversight. It's taking revenge on someone you're not even sure is guilty; that's why they're a suspect.

I've seen you make this point several times, athon, and wanted to make this one on top of it at a convenient moment.

 

[Davo]

Actually, to be more accurate, that should read: The war against Al Quaeda would indicate that the war is against anyone who is designated by the current US administration to be part of the group who call themselves “Al Quaeda”.

That is, anyone at all they don't like or who are "not working in the best interests of the USA".

It also seems to include people who they have been told are Al Quaeda operatives and have been turned in by friends and allies. Such as David Hicks. Hence my offer above to dob in my next door neighbour whom I would like to see gone. I'll write the letter and deliver him to the nearest heliport if that will help.

I was talking in theory what a war against al queda would mean. But in terms of actual events youv`e summed it up pretty accurately.

 

[a_unique_person]

That didn't really work out so well for him you know.


Where would you rather be? GITMO with the possibility of a political deal being made for you because of international pressure? Or SUPERMAX with the certainty that you will grow old before you know freedom again?

-z

How it turns out is irrelevant, the process is what matters. If Walker broke laws and got a fair trial, then that is the basics of a democratic society being followed. As far as I can tell, gitmo is modelled on supermax.

 

[fishbob]

Advocating following a "due process" that doesn't apply.

Yeah, those pesky facts just get in the way.
There are plenty of perfectly good, quite applicable, due processes floating around - that do not include rendition, abuse, or Gitmo. Seems like making up your own has some unpleasant unintended consequences.

 

[gumboot]

But what makes him an 'unlawful combatant'?

Being a third party to the conflict, not belonging to a military organisational structure, not carrying arms openly, not operating in "military formation" (what ever the heck that is supposed to mean!) and so forth...

-Gumboot

 

[a_unique_person]

The Taliban did run him that way, as best they could. He was ordered to guard a tank at the airport, for example. If the Taliban structure was not a well organised one, that's the fault of the Taliban, which ran a pretty ramshackle and dysfunctional state.