quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

How are these people not mere criminals?

Mere criminals aren't trying to overthrow governments and set up their own.

quote:

But they are dealt with in the countries in which they fight (Afghanistan). International war criminals can be dealt with through war crimes tribunals. What the US has tried to do is create a separate system that is a hodge-podge. It might even have worked if the system had taken in only those "high-value" fighters. Instead we threw a net out and paid bounties for warm bodies. That caused the system (that had not been set up yet) to be bogged down and lose what credibility it might have had. That's why both major party candidates pledged early on to shut the mess down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
And I have seen no evidence thus far that the prisoners that remain in Gitmo (which are relatively small in number considering the size of the action) are merely 'warm bodies'.

quote:

Of course you haven't, since they havent had any chance to mount a defence.

You haven't seen evidence either way, since they have had no trial.
If, hypothetically, some of them are in fact innocent, how would you have heard their evidence? Have their defence laywers made any statements?

Or do you only take heed of the prosecution in any trial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Of course you haven't, since they havent had any chance to mount a defence.

You haven't seen evidence either way, since they have had no trial.
If, hypothetically, some of them are in fact innocent, how would you have heard their evidence? Have their defence laywers made any statements?

Or do you only take heed of the prosecution in any trial.

It's like you folks have no concept of what proper jurisprudence entails.

Armies don't apprehend people according to criminal legal procedures. If they were required to, they would instantly cease to be able to act as armies. Since this is true, when they capture combatants, those combatants by the very nature of the action can't be properly tried by juries and courts, because at no point in the apprehension of such combatants were there efforts made to prepare for such a trial.

This is why we have never required such a thing for foreign POWs in any war ever. POWs remain in custody until hostilities cease and then are released; there is no means or reason to proceed with a trial which would by it's very nature be incapable of making determinations of guilt or innocence because in war no such evidence can be reliably acquired.

Stating otherwise is nonsense and and ignorant of the realities of war.

quote:

Wait a minute, Jack. These aren't POW's. Again, trying to have it both ways.

quote:

Jhud
What will probably happen (and we should know fairly quickly after Jan.) is that Obama may give a very few some sort of trial, let a few go, and ship the rest off to foreign prisons.
And hope that is sufficient to win the 'good will' of foreign nations he so desires.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

But they are dealt with in the countries in which they fight (Afghanistan). International war criminals can be dealt with through war crimes tribunals. What the US has tried to do is create a separate system that is a hodge-podge. It might even have worked if the system had taken in only those "high-value" fighters. Instead we threw a net out and paid bounties for warm bodies. That caused the system (that had not been set up yet) to be bogged down and lose what credibility it might have had. That's why both major party candidates pledged early on to shut the mess down.

Well, the government in Afganistan was obviously in no condition at the beginning, and may not be still, to apprehend and prosecute these terrorists. And I have seen no evidence thus far that the prisoners that remain in Gitmo (which are relatively small in number considering the size of the action) are merely 'warm bodies'.

Until such time as we can be assured the main terrorist organizations for which they fought are dismantled, there is little reason we should be releasing them to fight again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Wait a minute, Jack. These aren't POW's. Again, trying to have it both ways.

They are prisoners, t's a war; what would you have them called?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Wait a minute, Jack. These aren't POW's. Again, trying to have it both ways.

They are prisoners, t's a war; what would you have them called?

I would agree with you, but the Administration says they are not POW's. If they were POW's we would have some reasonable obligation to follow the Geneva Convention. Not calling them POW's is the basic rationale for the make-it-up-as-we-go tribunal system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Born_Again

I have a question.

In 2001 when we went to Afghanistan and fought against Talban, the people who fought for Talban , are they terrorist?

quote:

No. Attacks against a hostile military force, justified or not, is not terrorism by any definition of the term.

quote:

ORIGINAL: phreddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Wait a minute, Jack. These aren't POW's. Again, trying to have it both ways.

They are prisoners, t's a war; what would you have them called?

I would agree with you, but the Administration says they are not POW's. If they were POW's we would have some reasonable obligation to follow the Geneva Convention. Not calling them POW's is the basic rationale for the make-it-up-as-we-go tribunal system.

We are treating them better than they would be treated as POW's under the Geneva convention. Under the Geneva convention, as POW's they would not have any day in court whether it was a military tribunal or a criminal court. We would be able to keep them until the end of hostilities. Please read the Geneva convention yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: phreddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Wait a minute, Jack. These aren't POW's. Again, trying to have it both ways.

They are prisoners, t's a war; what would you have them called?

I would agree with you, but the Administration says they are not POW's. If they were POW's we would have some reasonable obligation to follow the Geneva Convention. Not calling them POW's is the basic rationale for the make-it-up-as-we-go tribunal system.

We are treating them better than they would be treated as POW's under the Geneva convention. Under the Geneva convention, as POW's they would not have any day in court whether it was a military tribunal or a criminal court. We would be able to keep them until the end of hostilities. Please read the Geneva convention yourself.

I wasn't aware that torture was permitted under the Geneva Convention. For clarity, I prefer the treatment be as POW's because trials would only be required for war crimes. Under this current system, every prisoner remaining should be getting a trial. With the GC, the rules were already in place and we would not be trying to invent a new legal process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

No. Attacks against a hostile military force, justified or not, is not terrorism by any definition of the term.

Well, not exactly; we were responding to an attack, and the Taliban, which was the political arm of Al Qaeda in Afganistan, would certainly be considered a terrorist organization.

quote:

Afghanistan was a sovereign nation invaded with the intent of removing the sitting government. Hadwe declared war, any opposing forces would reasonably be considered POW's. Al Qaeda operated with full support of the Afghan government. Any AQ fighters could be detained as POW's. Any that were believed to have committed war crimes could be tried (as is happening in Iraq). Any that committed crimes in another country could be extradited to that country under existing international laws and treaties.

The Bush admin's desire to operate without scrutiny drove much of this Gitmo-type problem. The administration operated in many ways (not just militarily) with this attitude. And it has come back to bite the US time and again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: phreddy

What torture is happening at Gitmo?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Of course you haven't, since they havent had any chance to mount a defence.

You haven't seen evidence either way, since they have had no trial.
If, hypothetically, some of them are in fact innocent, how would you have heard their evidence? Have their defence laywers made any statements?

Or do you only take heed of the prosecution in any trial.

It's like you folks have no concept of what proper jurisprudence entails.

Armies don't apprehend people according to criminal legal procedures. If they were required to, they would instantly cease to be able to act as armies. Since this is true, when they capture combatants, those combatants by the very nature of the action can't be properly tried by juries and courts, because at no point in the apprehension of such combatants were there efforts made to prepare for such a trial.

This is why we have never required such a thing for foreign POWs in any war ever. POWs remain in custody until hostilities cease and then are released; there is no means or reason to proceed with a trial which would by it's very nature be incapable of making determinations of guilt or innocence because in war no such evidence can be reliably acquired.

Stating otherwise is nonsense and and ignorant of the realities of war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Afghanistan was a sovereign nation invaded with the intent of removing the sitting government. Hadwe declared war, any opposing forces would reasonably be considered POW's. Al Qaeda operated with full support of the Afghan government. Any AQ fighters could be detained as POW's. Any that were believed to have committed war crimes could be tried (as is happening in Iraq). Any that committed crimes in another country could be extradited to that country under existing international laws and treaties.

The Bush admin's desire to operate without scrutiny drove much of this Gitmo-type problem. The administration operated in many ways (not just militarily) with this attitude. And it has come back to bite the US time and again.

Afganistan's government, such as it was, was a branch of Al Qaeda and was utilized mainly to allow them to have a place to develop their terrorist organization. We didn't go there to fight a bunch of primitive warlords, but to dislodge Al Qaeda from it's base of power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: phreddy

"On Dec. 2, 2002, Rumsfeld approved 16 harsher interrogation strategies for use against Kahtani, including the use of forced nudity, stress positions and the removal of religious items."


I wouldn't call those harsh interrogation techniques torture.

quote:

It was still a sovereign nation whose government was overthrown with US military forces at the lead. That is much different than what we are doing with Pakistan, where significant Al Qaeda presence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

It was still a sovereign nation whose government was overthrown with US military forces at the lead. That is much different than what we are doing with Pakistan, where significant Al Qaeda presence.

The Taliban was a puppet government for Al Quaeda which was composed of individuals from many nations. As far as we know the same is not true of the Pakistani government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbark

quote:

ORIGINAL: lightshineon

What? I cannot believe that this goes by unoticed by everyone. What is his motivation? We never wanted them on American soil. They are like cock-roaches, sorry if that offends, but they should never be allowed communication with each other.

Yes, that is offensive. These terrorists have done evil, repulsive things, but they are not cockroaches, they are human. The term "cockroach" that you use is the exact term that the Hutus used for Tutsis in Rwanda when they brutally "exterminated" about one million human beings - mostly hacked to death with machetes.

The first step towards being capable of horrible, ungodly violence is to dehumanize your enemies. That's exactly what the Hutus did in the 90's, that's exactly what the Nazis did in the 40's. Be very careful - when you attempt to dehumanize those you hate - the first thing you lose is your own humanity.

We have a right to bring criminals to justice, but we do not have a right to take away their humanity.