Gitmo Prisoners Starving Themselves to Death

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo Prisoners Starving Themselves to Death

Any evidence for yours? The American justice system has long decided that any error should be made on the side of caution. "I'd rather see ten guilty men go free than one innocent jailed," isn't that the maxim?

Obviously some concessions must be made when dealing with a life-or-death situation,

Might those concessions include the possibility of amending your maxim to, "I'd rather see one innocent man suffer than a thousand"?

but I don't think we can chuck that principle out the window entirely. If they're so sure these people are murderous terrorists, there must be some evidence to support that, no?

If they were caught carrying guns on the battlefield, I think that's a prima facie case, and at that point, the burden of proof lies with them. Remember, these guys are not subject to the laws of American civil jurisprudence. They are not innocent until proved guilty.

These guys also seem to have enough contact with the outside world - they can talk to reporters, after all - that if a truly strong case could be made for their innocence, one would think it would have been made by now, without the theatrics of a hunger strike.

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo Prisoners Starving Themselves to Death

Might those concessions include the possibility of amending your maxim to, "I'd rather see one innocent man suffer than a thousand"?

Sure, with reasonable evidence that that's the case.

If they were caught carrying guns on the battlefield, I think that's a prima facie case

Agreed. So, were they?

Remember, these guys are not subject to the laws of American civil jurisprudence. They are not innocent until proved guilty.

I'm not disputing that they are not protected by the law. That doesn't mean we should completely disregard the principles behind those laws.

These guys also seem to have enough contact with the outside world - they can talk to reporters, after all - that if a truly strong case could be made for their innocence, one would think it would have been made by now, without the theatrics of a hunger strike.

Likewise, if the government had a truly strong case for their guilt, they could present it to the world and avoid a lot of accusations and loss of credibility.

Jeremy

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo Prisoners Starving Themselves to Death

Okay. Any evidence for any of those hypotheses?

Let's go back to your claim, that they "were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers."

Any evidence for that? (And the nanny state's say-so doesn't count.)

Here's a hypothesis: These guys are playing the public-relations angle like a violin, as just one more front in the war. "Let's gin up some outrage against the evil American oppressors!"

Any evidence for that hypothesis?

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo Prisoners Starving Themselves to Death

Let's go back to your claim, that they "were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers."

Any evidence for that? (And the nanny state's say-so doesn't count.)

Pretty neat. You dismiss the only witness to the crime. Can I get you on my jury after I get caught trying to knock over a jewelry store at 3:00 am?

Officer: "I apprehended the perpetrator..."
(Later, in the jury room):
Eleven Jurors: "Well, the cop caught him red-handed."
Cleon: "The nanny-state's say-so doesn't count."

Again, American civil jurisprudence doesn't apply here. The Padilla case had to go to the Supreme Court before it was established that an American citizen trying to commit an act of terrorism on American soil was entitled to American civil jurisprudence (a decision I agree with, it may surprise you to learn). But foreign nationals fighting American soldiers on foreign soil? Please.

Now, let me ask you again if you know of any evidence that these prisoners are indeed innocent.

 

[KelvinG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo Prisoners Starving Themselves to Death

Pretty neat. You dismiss the only witness to the crime. Can I get you on my jury after I get caught trying to knock over a jewelry store at 3:00 am?

Officer: "I apprehended the perpetrator..."
(Later, in the jury room):
Eleven Jurors: "Well, the cop caught him red-handed."
Cleon: "The nanny-state's say-so doesn't count."

Again, American civil jurisprudence doesn't apply here. The Padilla case had to go to the Supreme Court before it was established that an American citizen trying to commit an act of terrorism on American soil was entitled to American civil jurisprudence (a decision I agree with, it may surprise you to learn). But foreign nationals fighting American soldiers on foreign soil? Please.

Now, let me ask you again if you know of any evidence that these prisoners are indeed innocent.

Of course, in your example, the perpetrator actually gets a trial. Funny how justice is supposed to work.

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo Prisoners Starving Themselves to Death

Pretty neat. You dismiss the only witness to the crime.

Well, I think that's a little unfair. What I don't want is for the only "witness" to be a government spokesman who wasn't even there.

If a detainee was apprehended carrying a weapon on a battlefield, that's fine. I'll take the word of any soldier who was there, pretty much. Just give me a location, a time, and a description of the circumstances. Surely someone has this information?

Now, let me ask you again if you know of any evidence that these prisoners are indeed innocent.

I am less concerned with what's legal than with what's ethical. Regardless of whether American jurisprudence applies, don't you think that it's reasonable to expect the government to have a good reason before imprisoning someone indefinitely? Government claims should be auditable...if for no other reason, then to prevent abuse and corruption. After all the scandals and incompetence throughout the decades, do you really trust the government so much that you don't even care to verify their story?

Jeremy

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo Prisoners Starving Themselves to Death

Pretty neat. You dismiss the only witness to the crime.

Can I get you on my jury after I get caught trying to knock over a jewelry store at 3:00 am?

Wait...An actual trial? But if your analogy holds, shouldn't the officer's word be good enough to sentence me to life without parole?

Now, let me ask you again if you know of any evidence that these prisoners are indeed innocent.

I'm still waiting for evidence that they all "were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers." You know...That whole "you make the claim, you back it up" thing.

 

[Renfield]

Re: Re: Re: Gitmo Prisoners Starving Themselves to Death

Uh, because they were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers, I guess.

Everyone detained in Gitmo is there for that reason? You sure about that?

 

[rikzilla]

And now, the facts:


Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a military tribunal. Every one. As a result of those hearings, more than three dozen Gitmo detainees have been released. The hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as "enemy combatants" is based.


Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration's failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, "the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the 'Article V' hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case."


Treating foreign terrorists like American shoplifters with full access to civilian lawyers, classified intelligence, and all the attendant rights of a normal jury trial is a surefire recipe for another 9/11. That is why the Bush administration fought so hard to erect an alternative tribunal system long established in wartime in the first place.

Link

Personally I'm in favor of less prisoner taking altogether. If a person is seen planting an IED, attempting covert infiltration, or otherwise attacking Coalition forces or innocent civilians, they should be killed as sabateurs, spies, or terrorists. No need to trouble the leftist conscience or the turnkeys at SHFP. Remove them from the gene-pool. Eventually the population at the SHFP will be reduced to the extent that it could be closed and it's proven guilty may finish their respective sentences in other facilities.

The irony of it all is that leftist concerns about human rights @ SHFP's like GITMO have perhaps already worked out to a higher battlefield mortality rate for the enemy? I'd hardly be surprised.

-z

 

[toddjh]

That is why the Bush administration fought so hard to erect an alternative tribunal system long established in wartime in the first place.

Shouldn't, y'know, a war be declared before the executive branch starts exercising wartime powers?

ETA: Okay, that's too snarky. I just get wary of all the "war" talk. I'm not opposed to fighting terrorism, militarily or otherwise. I'd just like to see our government playing by the rules more often in the process.

Jeremy

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo Prisoners Starving Themselves to Death

I'm still waiting for evidence that they all "were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers." You know...That whole "you make the claim, you back it up" thing.

I note you put the word "all" outside the part of my quotation you selected. Nice way to move the goalposts. Slick.

Anyway, here's a cite to back up my hypothesis: http://cfrterrorism.org/responses/detainees_print.html

Now, for the third (or is it fourth? I'm losing track) time, do you you know of any evidence that these prisoners are indeed innocent?

 

[rikzilla]

Shouldn't, y'know, a war be declared before the executive branch starts exercising wartime powers?

ETA: Okay, that's too snarky. I just get wary of all the "war" talk when no war has been declared. I'm not opposed to fighting terrorism, militarily or otherwise. I'd just like to see our government playing by the rules more often in the process.

Jeremy

I dunno.... Truman called the war in Korea a "police action" but we didn't send any police! Every "war" since then seems to still resemble previous war in every way; and yet they have not been formally declared. Apparently formally declared war is an obsolete idea.

-z

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gitmo Prisoners Starving Themselves to De

I note you put the word "all" outside the part of my quotation you selected. Nice way to move the goalposts. Slick.

In what way are the goalposts moved? You decided that the prisoners going on hunger strike "were picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan while shooting at American soldiers." How does the word "all" change that? Do you think some of them weren't, all of a sudden?

Anyway, here's a cite to back up my hypothesis: http://cfrterrorism.org/responses/detainees_print.html

It doesn't really back it up, so much as repeat the same assertions.

Now, for the third (or is it fourth? I'm losing track) time, do you you know of any evidence that these prisoners are indeed innocent?

I honestly don't care how many times it is, because A) I've never claimed they were innocent, YOU claimed they were guilty and are now doing everything possible to avoid providing evidence for said claim, and B) doesn't the concept of having to prove someone's innocence rather than guilt trouble you in the slightest? The fact that you're so earnestly demanding evidence of innocence scares the bejeezus out of me.

 

[toddjh]

I dunno.... Truman called the war in Korea a "police action" but we didn't send any police! Every "war" since then seems to still resemble previous war in every way; and yet they have not been formally declared. Apparently formally declared war is an obsolete idea.

That's the feeling I get, too. And it may be right -- certainly a "war on terrorism" is a worthy goal (even though many may disagree with our implementation), but it's so vague as to be practically meaningless in conventional terms.

I'd like a set procedure for our government to follow. I worry that the current path does not have enough accountability to the people. And yet, I don't really have any good ideas for how to change things, either.

In other words, this whole post is pretty useless.

Jeremy

 

[Darat]

This one is a complete puzzle to me. I just don’t know how people who believe in justice can not be appalled at what is happening at the camp.

I understand security concerns and I am not advocating the prisoners should be released (and on the whole because of the seriousness of the threat and the security issues I don’t have many problems with how or where they were detained), what I am arguing for is that they should be told the charges they are going to be tried for, enabled to defend themselves in the court and then be fairly judged. If they are all found guilty (whilst I admit I would find that hard to believe) then yes lock them all up for the determined sentence time. If any aren’t found guilty then they should be released.

I think to deprive them of this, especially by one of the nations that can be held up as an example of guaranteeing human rights is terrible.


(Edited for words.)

 

[Manny]

what I am arguing for is that they should be told the charges they are going to be tried for, enabled to defend themselves in the court and then be fairly judged. If they are all found guilty (whilst I admit I would find that hard to believe) then yes lock them all up for the determined sentence time. If any aren’t found guilty then they should be released.

Then I repeat my question. How many WWII POWs were a) told the charges, b) enabled to defend themselves in the court, c) fairly judged or d) released while hostilities were ongoing?

Darat, no country releases battlefield prisoners unilaterally while hostilities are ongoing. Not a single one. Except for the United States in this war. We're the first. The fact is that these guys, denied POW status, are being treated better than any POWs in history. There's no dysentary at Guantanamo, no cholera, no lice. Not a single Guantanamo detainee has been killed by his captors. They're receiving better medical care than many Americans, including me. They're getting customized (not just religiously-compliant) meals, translators, lawyers, hearings. What more could you possibly reasonably want?

 

[Darat]

Then I repeat my question. How many WWII POWs were a) told the charges, b) enabled to defend themselves in the court, c) fairly judged or d) released while hostilities were ongoing?

I just don't think this has any relevance to the current situation. If the USA states that these people are POWs then it would have relevance however so far the USA refuses to do that.

Darat, no country releases battlefield prisoners unilaterally while hostilities are ongoing. Not a single one. Except for the United States in this war. We're the first. The fact is that these guys, denied POW status, are being treated better than any POWs in history. There's no dysentary at Guantanamo, no cholera, no lice. Not a single Guantanamo detainee has been killed by his captors. They're receiving better medical care than many Americans, including me. They're getting customized (not just religiously-compliant) meals, translators, lawyers, hearings. What more could you possibly reasonably want?

What I said.

 

[Rolfe]

The fact is that these guys, denied POW status, are being treated better than any POWs in history. There's no dysentary at Guantanamo, no cholera, no lice. Not a single Guantanamo detainee has been killed by his captors. They're receiving better medical care than many Americans, including me. They're getting customized (not just religiously-compliant) meals, translators, lawyers, hearings. What more could you possibly reasonably want?

I'm hesitant to get involved in this, but do you mean that the documentary where they put volunteers through what was supposed to be happening to the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, but the "lite" version because it wouldn't have been legal to go the whole hog, and several of the volunteers coudn't take it and dropped out and one of them had to be pulled out by the supervising medic, was entirely fictitious?

The volunteers were some Muslims who wanted to see if it was really that bad, and a group of people who believed that there was nothing bad going on at all and everything going on was entirely ethical. This latter group started off very pro-America and pro the camp, but after the experience all had changed their views completely.

We were told that what was done to these volunteers was the least of what had been documented as going on in the camp, partly by lawyers trying to act for detainees, and partly by official US records. It was very unpleasant indeed, including things that weren't perhaps that bad on the face of it, but turned out to be extremely shameful to the Muslim volunteers - like being stripped naked in public.

This was all a lie?

Rolfe.

 

[Manny]

I just don't think this has any relevance to the current situation. If the USA states that these people are POWs then it would have relevance however so far the USA refuses to do that.

Have you checked the Geneva Conventions lately? No, we're not going to give these guys access to scientific instruments (hah!) and we're not going to pay them. Some of them have valuable information and we're not going to surrender our right to interrogate them. They set up this situation, not us. Play for an actual government and wear an actual uniform and you get to be a POW, like almost all of the prisoners taken during the initial part of the liberation of Iraq (and like Saddam himself). Don't, and you don't. I have absolutely not even the teensiest qualm about that and I don't think it's relevent to whether a combatant should be released while hostilities are ongoing.

Rolfe, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[KelvinG]

Hmm, some things have been established in this thread:

1) While the prisoners aren't actually POW's, it's perfectly acceptable to compare them to POW's from previous wars when it suits the arguments. When it doesn't suit the argument, they are not POW's, but enemy combatants.

2) Indefinite confinement without charges being laid, or a trial promised is perfectly OK since Gitmo is such a darn nice place to stay. Kinda like the Hilton. These prisonsers should be happy to be there.

3) It's not the job of the government/military to prove these prisoners are guilty, rather it's the job of the prisoners to prove they are innocent. Of course, they don't actually get a trial to do that.