Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

[WildCat]

In what way is it unjust? That is STANDARD treatment for prisoners of war, even under the Geneva conventions. You keep ignoring that point, as if it didn't exist, but it does. And it undermines your entire argument.

Indeed, these guys are demanding favorable treatment that lawful combatants in a war aren't able to get.

In my view, the only thing they have a right for a hearing for is whether or not they were combatants in the war. If they are, then in Gitmo they stay until the war is over.

 

[a_unique_person]

We let him go and then he goes right back to the fight.

So much for letting them go.

Logical fallacy, hasty generalisation.

 

[Elind]

You could have listened to someone else's pov without telling them they are what they are not, and then deriding them for it.

I gave what I thought was an honest and practical analysis of the issue and was open to a critique of those points. Simple. Instead you proceed with the same POV that I was trying to critique in the first place. Perhaps you missed the post?

 

[Elind]

We let him go and then he goes right back to the fight.

So much for letting them go.

I believe there has been quite a few more than one killed in action. Statistically that means what? Either they truly were the dumbest of the dumb or statistically speaking there must be another 4 or 5 or 10 for each of the dead ones waiting in the wings.

Of coures some will try to tell us that this is only because they were tortured and before that they just played with consenting sheep and hurt nobody.

 

[mumblethrax]

We let him go and then he goes right back to the fight.

So much for letting them go.

Tom suspects that Peter holds him in low regard. So the next time they meet, Tom punches him in the nose.

Peter: Ow! What did you do that for, you jerk?!

Tom: Ah-ha! I knew you didn't like me.

 

[rjh01]

Indeed, these guys are demanding favourable treatment that lawful combatants in a war aren't able to get.

In my view, the only thing they have a right for a hearing for is whether or not they were combatants in the war. If they are, then in Gitmo they stay until the war is over.

If they were combatants then they should be classified as POWs. This gives them certain rights. However they have not been given this status. That is part of the problem and one of the reasons why 'The war on terror' will not be won. It is not the fact that it is a hopeless war, it is the fact that it is not being fought correctly.

The only thing that will win the war is if you win the hearts and minds of both sides.

Study history or repeat its mistakes.

 

[Zep]

Look, I've posted links showing the trials these people are having. Can you lay that to rest now?

O RLY?

The links you posted show that the inmates have either been released for lack of evidence (which invites the question: What shabby evidence put them in there in the first place?), or that their trials are "ongoing". None, as far as I'm aware, have had their trials completed, but I'll gladly accept your evidence that they have.

Please tell me when David Hicks, an Australian citizen, is going to come to trial? He's not a towel-head, he doesn't ride camels, he's Aryan...

He's been in there four years already, and three times his military-appointed legal teams have quit because they realised the trial process was illegal (and they didn't want anything to do with it because it would harm their legal careers, presumably).

Hicks' rap-sheet could match just about every third person in the Middle East these days, but somehow we don't see them in Gitmo, but he gets nabbed. Can we spell "too dumb and too slow to get out of the way"? How about "captive of opportunity"?

Intel of value from Hicks? Don't make me laugh! I probably know more about what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan today than he does, and I'm pretty clueless about it all, apparently! And what intel of value can he offer now anyway, after four years out of the loop? He's a squeezed-dry lemon, surely? So isn't it time to get closure on him, and try and convict him?

The Australian government agreed that Gitmo is OK by them? C'mon! What choice did they have? Do you think Bush would have made any changes in the situation whatsoever on L'il Johnny's behalf? No, I didn't think so either... We have to like it or lump it, so our pollies just have to make the best face of it to their constituents. L'il Johnny's only real ability is to blow with the political wind, so "agreeing" to an inevitable and irrevocable situation is typical of him. It's like agreeing to gravity.

Sorry about this, but this is like being a pestering friend to a smoker who refuses to quit, even though he knows it is bad for him. The excuses just get sillier and sillier...

 

[Zep]

Indeed, these guys are demanding favorable treatment that lawful combatants in a war aren't able to get.

In my view, the only thing they have a right for a hearing for is whether or not they were combatants in the war. If they are, then in Gitmo they stay until the war is over.

Unfortunately, there are powers greater than you or I who disagree.

Look, if you want to keep them out of the "war" then by all means do so. But do the right thing and make them POWs, then you can stick them in a POW camp in the middle of Nevada or somewhere for as long as you like. Just feed and house them and treat them like proper POWs - not a big ask, surely.

And if there are war criminals among them, there's proper processes for dealing with them too - just go by the book, like they did at Nuremburg. I don't think you will get any objection to that from anyone here.

Is this too hard to understand?

 

[a_unique_person]

Indeed, these guys are demanding favorable treatment that lawful combatants in a war aren't able to get.

In my view, the only thing they have a right for a hearing for is whether or not they were combatants in the war. If they are, then in Gitmo they stay until the war is over.

The trials would appear to be a way to keep them in prison after the war is over.

 

[LW]

Even arch-bastard and prolific murderer Stalin used to send zeks to the gulags ASAP with at least a show-trial. You are demonstrating you are not prepared to do even that much.

Actually, a rather large proportion of them did not get even a show trial. Most got an audience with a "troika", a group of three party officials who would read the case documents and assign a sentence based on them. The troika might give the accused a chance to plead his or her case, but that was an exception and not a rule and didn't matter in any case.

 

[Zep]

Actually, a rather large proportion of them did not get even a show trial. Most got an audience with a "troika", a group of three party officials who would read the case documents and assign a sentence based on them. The troika might give the accused a chance to plead his or her case, but that was an exception and not a rule and didn't matter in any case.

Yep, but it wasn't usually three years plus from arrest to arrival above the Arctic Circle.

 

[BPSCG]

Actually, a rather large proportion of them did not get even a show trial. Most got an audience with a "troika", a group of three party officials who would read the case documents and assign a sentence based on them. The troika might give the accused a chance to plead his or her case, but that was an exception and not a rule and didn't matter in any case.

Yep, but it wasn't usually three years plus from arrest to arrival above the Arctic Circle.

So you (Zep) are saying that the U.S. justice system at Guantanamo is worse than Stalin, is that it?

Just wanted to check where you were coming from.

 

[Belz...]

Not quite. My claim is that we have no treaty obligations that specify how we must treat them. But then, we don't have treaty obligations for how we treat most ordinary criminals either.

But there is no such requirement in the Geneva conventions, as I keep pointing out. POW's are not tried for any crimes: they are simply held prisoner. That right does not exist, and has never existed.

That doesn't necessarily follow. I agree that they should have SOME rights, I just disagree that they should have more rights than POW's, or even the same rights. And since POW's are NOT entitled to trials, I see no reason to entitle these prisoners to such trials either.

I stand corrected, then. Still, I believe everyone, POWs and all, should be entitled to fair trial. Otherwise, something's wrong.

 

[WildCat]

Unfortunately, there are powers greater than you or I who disagree.

Really? Please quote the relevant US Supreme Court decision on this.

Look, if you want to keep them out of the "war" then by all means do so. But do the right thing and make them POWs, then you can stick them in a POW camp in the middle of Nevada or somewhere for as long as you like. Just feed and house them and treat them like proper POWs - not a big ask, surely.

And by what definition of POW as put forth in the GC are they entitled to the rights of POW's whoe were lawful combatants?

And if there are war criminals among them, there's proper processes for dealing with them too - just go by the book, like they did at Nuremburg. I don't think you will get any objection to that from anyone here.

Nuremburg isn't happening any more. Just look at the whole milosevic fiasco. And besides, the Gitmo prisoners aren't being held for crimes against humanity, but for crimes against the US.

Is this too hard to understand?

Apparently it is.

 

[WildCat]

I stand corrected, then. Still, I believe everyone, POWs and all, should be entitled to fair trial. Otherwise, something's wrong.

Where is it the norm to try POW's for crimes? Isn't this specifically prohibited by the GC and before that by the generally accepted laws of warfare?

 

[rjh01]

Really? Please quote the relevant US Supreme Court decision on this.

I think the powers Zep was referring to were the US government.

Nuremberg isn't happening any more. Just look at the whole milosevic fiasco. And besides, the Gitmo prisoners aren't being held for crimes against humanity, but for crimes against the US.

If they are being held for crimes against the US they should be sent to the US and given a trial. The trial should start within a reasonable time. Three years is not a reasonable time.

 

[DaChew]

O RLY?

The links you posted show that the inmates have either been released for lack of evidence (which invites the question: What shabby evidence put them in there in the first place?), or that their trials are "ongoing". None, as far as I'm aware, have had their trials completed, but I'll gladly accept your evidence that they have.

Please tell me when David Hicks, an Australian citizen, is going to come to trial? He's not a towel-head, he doesn't ride camels, he's Aryan...

He's been in there four years already, and three times his military-appointed legal teams have quit because they realised the trial process was illegal (and they didn't want anything to do with it because it would harm their legal careers, presumably).

Hicks' rap-sheet could match just about every third person in the Middle East these days, but somehow we don't see them in Gitmo, but he gets nabbed. Can we spell "too dumb and too slow to get out of the way"? How about "captive of opportunity"?

Intel of value from Hicks? Don't make me laugh! I probably know more about what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan today than he does, and I'm pretty clueless about it all, apparently! And what intel of value can he offer now anyway, after four years out of the loop? He's a squeezed-dry lemon, surely? So isn't it time to get closure on him, and try and convict him?

The Australian government agreed that Gitmo is OK by them? C'mon! What choice did they have? Do you think Bush would have made any changes in the situation whatsoever on L'il Johnny's behalf? No, I didn't think so either... We have to like it or lump it, so our pollies just have to make the best face of it to their constituents. L'il Johnny's only real ability is to blow with the political wind, so "agreeing" to an inevitable and irrevocable situation is typical of him. It's like agreeing to gravity.

Sorry about this, but this is like being a pestering friend to a smoker who refuses to quit, even though he knows it is bad for him. The excuses just get sillier and sillier...

As you are well aware, detainees who have been released have undergone a review board process before three military officers and one appointed civilian representative. In the majority of cases the actual reason for their release is not disclosed publicly. They are simply declared of no further strategic use and/or no longer a threat. In about ten percent of the cases the latter, as The Painter has pointed out, turns out to be tragically incorrect. This tells me that detainees have a rather low standard to achieve with regard to proving their "innocence" (note that "innocence" is in quotes. Nobody has been declared innocent)

The disposition of Hicks, as you are also well aware, is currently in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. You can't reasonably challenge the legality of a military tribunal and then complain that your military trial has been delayed too long while your challenge is being adjudicated now can you?

 

[a_unique_person]

If they can't assert the legality of their 'court' they should abandon the sham, as your own prosecutors did.

 

[WildCat]

I think the powers Zep was referring to were the US government.

But we all know it is the SCOTUS that will have the final say here.

If they are being held for crimes against the US they should be sent to the US and given a trial. The trial should start within a reasonable time. Three years is not a reasonable time.

Where is the precedent for a civilian trial as opposed to a military tribunal?

And 3 years or more is not at all unusual for a trial in the US justice system, especially for a sensitive or serious case.

 

[DaChew]

If they are being held for crimes against the US they should be sent to the US and given a trial. The trial should start within a reasonable time. Three years is not a reasonable time.

This may be the problem. They are not being held for crimes against the U.S.. They are being held as enemy combatants. There is no precedent in all of history that I'm aware of in which combatants were captured from the battlefield, charged with crimes and placed on trial. The closest precedent I can find would be the various war crimes trials, Nuremburg et. al., and piracy. These, of course, would not apply to the detainees at Gitmo.

I'd be grateful if you had a reference for any single moment in history when a combatant was captured from the battlefield and tried for crimes.