Pentagon Gags Aussies

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Here is a perfect example of the double-standards imposed by the US supposed "free society".

http://au.news.yahoo.com/031210/21/mv93.html

Freedom of Speech (thought) in the US (sorry, Cuba) is well and truly dead.

[Nereid]

But Dogon, don't you know there's a war going on? As Mr Hicks is in Guantanamo Bay, he must be an enemy combatant (if he weren't, he wouldn't be there; the various US authorities are infallible when it comes to being able to tell who's a
'goodie' and who's a 'baddie' [;)] ).

One must admire Mr Kenny; he must surely know that the outcome of any trial is certain, so why waste time and money? Worse, the whole thing creates legitimacy where none can possibly exist.

What I'm curious about is why the Bush Administration isn't being slammed harder for their sheer hypocrisy; the State Department is really big on criticising various countries for lack of due process and sham trials, yet it's quite OK for Ashcroft and Rumsfeld to indulge in precisely the same behaviour.

[russ_watters]

Freedom if speech is not, never has been, and never was intended to be absolute.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Freedom if speech is not, never has been, and never was intended to be absolute. Perhaps Dogon will comment on this.

Would you care to comment on the apparent hypocrisy of the Bush Administration fiercely criticising some countries for lack of due process, but engaging in the same behaviour itself?

[kat]

Originally posted by Nereid
fiercely criticising some countries for lack of due process, but engaging in the same behaviour itself? just curious..can you give me the quote or something where Bush "fiercely" criticised?

[Njorl]

I am of mixed emotions about the detentions at Guantanamo. We ARE engaged in a war. Terrorists do want to harm us. It is entirely reasonable that we may have captured high ranking terrorists who would transmit information through their lawyers if they could, possibly without the lawyer's knowledge.

On the other hand, there has to be some recourse to due process. Many men have recently been released because we learned they were implicated by those who had personal vendettas against them. These ordinary men spent two years in isolated detention for no reason at all. That is appalling. There has to be some independent auditing. Someone has to pay for excesses.

Njorl

[Nereid]

Originally posted by kat
just curious..can you give me the quote or something where Bush "fiercely" criticised? A good place to start would be the State Department's Human Rights reports, for example the 2002 one, with this section on Syria:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18289.htm

Some quotes (you can judge for yourself the degree to which they're 'out of context'):

"The Government did not permit independent monitoring of prison or detention center conditions, although diplomatic or consular officials were granted access in high profile cases."

"Arbitrary arrest and detention were significant problems."

"Defendants in civil and criminal trials had the right to bail hearings and the possible release from detention on their own recognizance. Bail was not allowed for those accused of state security offenses. Unlike defendants in regular criminal and civil cases, security detainees did not have access to lawyers prior to or during questioning. "

"Detainees had no legal redress for false arrest. Security forces often did not provide detainees' families with information regarding their welfare or location while in detention. Consequently many persons who have disappeared in past years are believed to be in long-term detention without charge or possibly to have died in detention"

Connection to Bush? Read his speeches on 'the axis of evil'; count the number of references that his team makes in their speeches to human rights (with direct or indirect reference to the State Department's annual reports); ...

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Originally posted by russ_waters;
“Freedom if speech is not, never has been, and never was intended to be absolute.”

Geez, that’s piss-poor.
You are either FOR freedom of speech or AGAINST it.
There is no in-between. There are no boundaries.

I think what Russ means is that Freedom of Speech is a limited right reserved for those who proclaim "acceptable truths" championed by the entrenched establishment.
Am I wrong?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Originally posted by russ_waters;
“Freedom if speech is not, never has been, and never was intended to be absolute.”

Geez, that’s piss-poor.
You are either FOR freedom of speech or AGAINST it.
There is no in-between. There are no boundaries.

I think what Russ means is that Freedom of Speech is a limited right reserved for those who proclaim "acceptable truths" championed by the entrenched establishment.
Am I wrong? There are a number of types of speech that are NOT protected by the First Amdendment. They include hate speech, slander/libel, vulgarity, and speech that causes dangerous situations (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).

There is no arguement on this point. If you want, you can argue whether or not these things should be protected, but it is a FACT that they are NOT.

This is also another one of those scenarios where either you didn't know what you were talking about or you did and purposely misrepresented what I wrote. Ignorance is ok if you are willing to learn. Belligerent ignorance is not ok.

[FZ+]

There are a number of types of speech that are NOT protected by the First Amdendment. They include hate speech, slander/libel, vulgarity, and speech that causes dangerous situations (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).

Certainly many politicians have been guilty of hate speeches, such as towards a certain Mr Saddam... So when do we impeach them?

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

For a mentor, you have the logic of a gnat;
“There are a number of types of speech that are NOT protected by the First Amdendment. They include hate speech, slander/libel, vulgarity, and speech that causes dangerous situations (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).

There is no arguement on this point. If you want, you can argue whether or not these things should be protected, but it is a FACT that they are NOT.

This is also another one of those scenarios where either you didn't know what you were talking about or you did and purposely misrepresented what I wrote. Ignorance is ok if you are willing to learn. Belligerent ignorance is not ok.”

I quote Chomsky;
“Noam Chomsky: Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.”

Read some Noam Chomsky and go back to school. You are the ignorant one;
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/7/1/Chomsky123-127.html

Do you want me to give you some links (I could come up with at least 100) where Bush's speeches contain HATEFUL, RACIST comments. Do you want them?

[kat]

Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)


Read some Noam Chomsky and go back to school. You are the ignorant one;
lol, thanks for the laugh.[;)]

[selfAdjoint]

Boy I like a lot of leftist writers, but anyone who takes Chomky seriously needs a brain lavage. He is the most selective evidence-spinner of 'em all. If an atrocity is done by somebody he likes it's an alleged event, if mentioned at all. Every accidental death by the forces of those he hates (mostly the US) is the worst thing since Attilla the Hun. Read Bear Left, or Chun the Unavoidable, or Ken Macleod, and the people they link to, but avoid Chomsky, the Ann Coulter of the left.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Read some Noam Chomsky and go back to school. Jeez, for some reason I thought Jefferson and the other founding fathers wrote the Constitution and based it on the ideas of Locke and Rousseau. Maybe I do need to go back to school. [*(]

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Oh yeh, Noam Chomsky would know nothing about how the media can manipulate ignorants through the simple use of “selective phrases” and the “dumbing down” of analysis in the English language. After all, he’s only an;
(Institute Professor; Professor of Linguistics. He specialises in Linguistic Theory, Syntax, Semantics, Philosophy of Language)
http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/chomsky.home.html
You’re right. All his books are crap. I don’t know why he bothered. How many of these books have you guys read? I’ve read them all (+ most of the books regarding syntax theory);
http://www.erraticimpact.com/cgi-bin/amazon_products_feed.pl?input_templates=1&input_mode=books&input_string=noam+chomsky
I’m sure, everybody out there feels better that you guys don’t like Chomsky.

Posted by Russ;
“Jeez, for some reason I thought Jefferson and the other founding fathers wrote the Constitution and based it on the ideas of Locke and Rousseau. Maybe I do need to go back to school.”

Oh yeh, Rousseau. The guy was the original blueprint for the Nazi. Taken from;
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/rousseau.htm
“The Social Contract, on the text that all men are born free and equal, regards the State as a contract in which individuals surrender none of their natural rights, but rather agree for the protection of them. Most remarkable in this projected republic was the provision to banish aliens to the state religion and to punish dissenters with death. The Social Contract became the text-book of the French Revolution, and Rousseau's theories as protests bore fruit in the frenzied bloody orgies of the Commune as well as in the rejuvenation of France and the history of the entire Western world.”

And when you say Locke, are you referring to this raving Christian loonie?
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/locke.htm
“Locke's greatest philosophical contribution is his Essay, and we have his own account of the origin of that work. In the winter of 1670, five or six friends were conversing in his room, probably in London. The topic was the "principles of morality and revealed religion," but difficulties arose and no progress was made.”

But don’t listen to me, I obviously don’t know what I am talking about…

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Back to the bull**** double-standards that I started this thread for. Let David Hicks go.
David Hicks’ daily doings;
http://blogs.salon.com/0001186/
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8181030%255E1702,00.html
http://www.fairgofordavid.org/

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Three years and no charges.
Just let him go (he's not going to start a Terrorist Cell, for Christ's sake).

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055627374.html

[phatmonky]

I quote Chomsky;
“Noam Chomsky: Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.”

You've got to be kidding me......

[Zero]

You've got to be kidding me......

Problem with freedom?

[kawikdx225]

Are you people suggesting that yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre should be protected as free speech????????????

[Zero]

Are you people suggesting that yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre should be protected as free speech????????????


Yes...if there is an actual fire, or at least the appearance or odor of smoke.

[russ_watters]

Yes...if there is an actual fire, or at least the appearance or odor of smoke. I'm sure you know, Zero, that wasn't the intent of the question. 'Yelling "fire" in a crouded theater' is the standard case study on the limit of the freedom of speech right. We've discussed it before.

edit: Oy - this is the thread where we discussed it before. It so didn't need to be resurrected.

[Zero]

I'm sure you know, Zero, that wasn't the intent of the question. 'Yelling "fire" in a crouded theater' is the standard case study on the limit of the freedom of speech right. We've discussed it before.

edit: Oy - this is the thread where we discussed it before. It so didn't need to be resurrected.


I knew exactly what I was talking about. Some people will insist that nothing should be said even as the place is burning down around our ears. You know, like accusing people or being negative, as though you can't be negative and also right.

[Adam]

Are you people suggesting that yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre should be protected as free speech????????????

Absolutely. Free speech should be limited not by the state (which leads to someone else enforcing their standards on the individual), but by personal responsibility. I know that's probably a rare thing in the land of litigation, but I like it.

[pelastration]

These ordinary men spent two years in isolated detention for no reason at all. That is appalling. There has to be some independent auditing. Someone has to pay for excesses.
And KIDS, remember?
What was their age: 12, 13 and 14. Was the kid of 12 a personal assistent to Osama? A general? A bom-specialist? ...

And about freedom of speech in US? Does include that also the ban on photo's about the coffins? We know why don't we ... one image tells more than 1000 words.
Have you ever seen some on the net?

[kat]

And KIDS, remember?
What was their age: 12, 13 and 14. Was the kid of 12 a personal assistent to Osama? A general? A bom-specialist? ...


I don't know...I remember that 14 year old afghani who was head of his own regiment..child soldiers are a big and very serious issue..
It seemed like these kids were better off (and actually enjoyed, comparatively) at Guatanamo bay then they were being used as soldiers..maybe?

[RageSk8]

I'm sure you know, Zero, that wasn't the intent of the question. 'Yelling "fire" in a crouded theater' is the standard case study on the limit of the freedom of speech right.

Yes, it is the cliché response and it is a valid example. It is also illegal to threaten to kill someone (assault). However, what the hell do these (valid) examples have to do with the gag order on the Aussie lawyer? Absolutely nothing! I view your and kat's posts on this thread as incredibly irrelevant, even laughably so. That is not to let Adam off the hook for being sucked into your mindless dribble and stating absurdly off base views of free speech. The question at hand is whether or not the US government is overstepping its bounds in the censorship of Kenny. Parading hackneyed expressions that are inapplicable to the topic does the thread a disservice.

Alright, back to topic. I am no legal expert, so I cannot give a definitive opinion. But this situation sure as hell doesn?t look good. There is no tailoring of the governments gag, Kenny can't speak publicly about "anything to do with Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks." (emphasis mine)

[Dayle Record]

Democracy and freedom of speech are convenient, and colorful banners with which to wrap ones self while making speeches.

Democracy and freedom of speech are somewhat a moot point, if ones body is dead, or if one belongs to a gender that has no value in a society except for services rendered. So regarding the "kids" serving as soldiers, here is an old Afghani saying. "Better a girl have her first period in her husbands house than in her fathers house." These "kids" in the fundamentalist world are used in every way imaginable, and then they also have great power. Shall we say that they are accepted as adult in society as soon as they even vaguely mature sexually. This is how we used to be, when the queens and kings of Europe were teenagers. An historical figure like Napoleon's Josephine, was eighteen at her coronation, maybe even younger. These youthful and wealthy and all powerful rulers brought Europe such smash hits as the Hundred Years War, and etc.

So democracy was only supposed to ever work, if the society was educated. With our results oriented new Corporate Government, education is there for those that are willing to man a corporate niche, soldiers if you will, in the cause of commerce. I had a history teacher who used to wax passionate regarding the fact that The United States Of America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. We would do well to remember that. Freedom of speech is moot, if the information that needs to be spoken is concealed in the confidential paperwork of corporations, that subcontract for the government; but do not answer to the government of the people, by the people and for the people. For this current government to babble on about bringing Democracy there or there, why don't they try it out here first?

The next time the President speaks in Utah, or the Vice President, we can just go over to our little "Free Speech Area", and talk among our selves, unless of course, we are given such headaches we can't even hear or speak, by the new, sonic crowd control weaponry that has been developed in the private sector, for sale to the Government. Well if the government legislates that it is too inhumane for the military (chortle), then the private subcontractors can always haul it out, pointing out that Rock Concerts are loud, and jet airplanes, so what's the fuss? Freedom of speech? Look up silent scream, on google. A lot of this equipment is made by mainstream makers of audio systems, so, silent scream, or microwave to skull communications, coming to a theater near you. The folks that make this equipment will have no problem with the freedom of speech, or screech issue.

White scientists rule, if not now, very soon. You will be able to say, "Yes, yes, yes sir.", all you like. Let us practice now.

[pelastration]

I don't know...I remember that 14 year old afghani who was head of his own regiment..child soldiers are a big and very serious issue..
It seemed like these kids were better off (and actually enjoyed, comparatively) at Guatanamo bay then they were being used as soldiers..maybe?
So apply this too on the criminal gangs of youngster in NY, Chicago, LA, .....? No rights, no lawyer, ... all communication forbidden ...

[Adam]

These "kids" in the fundamentalist world...

This, from Utah? :P

[toloXXX]

This, from Utah? :P
Yes, Utah.
See location ?

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Hicks (by the US's own admission) has never;
(1) Fought against any US forces
(2) Never harmed any US citizen (or threatened to harm)
(3) Was "on the outer" of the "outlawed" organisation, he was supposedly involved in.

Hicks is a scapegoat for an Admin desperately trying to justify it's stuff-ups, and cover-ups related to it's fictional "war on terrorism". Its all a smokescreen...

[russ_watters]

Yes, it is the cliché response and it is a valid example. It is also illegal to threaten to kill someone (assault). However, what the hell do these (valid) examples have to do with the gag order on the Aussie lawyer? Absolutely nothing! I view your and kat's posts on this thread as incredibly irrelevant, even laughably so. This thread was dug-up from the dead after 4 months and got a little fractured. I used that example on the first page and it followed directly an assertion that freedom of speech was 'dead,' and the implication that it must be absolue to exist at all.

There was another issue that I either missed or let go at the time: the characterization of those held in 'Gitmo was incorrect in several posts - and I believe that was what kat was getting at. We discussed that in another thread though.

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Let's bury this thread six feet under, wrap it's coffin in the Stars 'n' Stripes, and pray for American justice - which is dead.

David Hicks is still illegally interned in a Concentration Camp in Cuba. The issue remains alive, even though his rights are non-existent.

When American treats it's allies like this, what hope it's enemies?

[kat]

Let's bury this thread six feet under, wrap it's coffin in the Stars 'n' Stripes, and pray for American justice - which is dead.

David Hicks is still illegally interned in a Concentration Camp in Cuba. The issue remains alive, even though his rights are non-existent.

When American treats it's allies like this, what hope it's enemies?
I could swear I saw a transcript from a pre-trial hearing on this guy. But, anyway...Americans are treating a person who was a member of a terrorist organization and captured in the middle of a war like this, he's not an ally...if anything he's a traitor and an illegal combatant.

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Posted by kat:
"I could swear I saw a transcript from a pre-trial hearing on this guy."
Bull****

"..if anything he's a traitor and an illegal combatant."
A traitor to who?
Not to me, I'm Australian, you're not.
"..who was a member of a terrorist organization and captured in the middle of a war like this.."
Which organisation?
What war?

Show me the transcript, or go back to LAH-LAH Land...

[hughes johnson]

Freedom of Speech (thought) in the US (sorry, Cuba) is well and truly dead.

Freedom of speech (thought) in the US is alive and well. Check out our newspapers, and our television and radio stations and you will see how wrong you are. You are badly misinformed.

[kat]

Posted by kat:
"I could swear I saw a transcript from a pre-trial hearing on this guy."
Bull****

"..if anything he's a traitor and an illegal combatant."
A traitor to who?
Not to me, I'm Australian, you're not.
"..who was a member of a terrorist organization and captured in the middle of a war like this.."
Which organisation?
What war?[/QUOTE[

Apparently people in YOUR government think it was Al Queda. [QUOTE]Journalist: Reports that David Hicks was trained as a suicide bomber ....(inaudible)....

Downer: Well I don't know about suicide bomber, but I do know that David Hicks trained with al-Qaida. And this was something we ourselves were aware of. This is something that has been confirmed by David Hicks' father. And this is something that has now been confirmed by an investigating officer apparently. But the fact is that David Hicks trained with al-Qaida, which is the world's most evil terrorist organisation. And he of course has got himself into a great deal of trouble as a result of that. We hope that his hearing before the military commission will take place soon, and that's a work in progress. But it's merciful if it's true that he was asked to be a suicide bomber he said he wouldn't. That at least is a merciful thing.

Journalist: What's your understanding of the nature of the training?

Downer: Well I don't have the details with me now, and I would have to recheck. But as I understand it, it was broadly speaking terrorist training with al-Qaida, and there were various components of that - weapons training and training for urban activities and so on.



Show me the transcript, or go back to LAH-LAH Land...

Oh byte me :cool: I never presented it as anything concrete.

[schwarzchildradius]

There's at least one US citizen in Gitmo, correct?

[hughes johnson]

pray for American justice - which is dead.

David Hicks is still illegally interned in a Concentration Camp in Cuba.

When American treats it's allies like this, what hope it's enemies?

American justice is alive and well. The vast majority of the people on our streets do not belong in prison, and the vast majority of the people in our prisons do not belong on our streets. American justice works very well, thank you very much.

No court has ruled that the terrorist Hicks is imprisoned illegally, as far as I know.

We don't consider terrorists like Hicks to be our allies.

[Nereid]

American justice is alive and well. The vast majority of the people on our streets do not belong in prison, and the vast majority of the people in our prisons do not belong on our streets. American justice works very well, thank you very much.

No court has ruled that the terrorist Hicks is imprisoned illegally, as far as I know.

We don't consider terrorists like Hicks to be our allies.How do you know he's a 'terrorist'? Because John Ashcroft/GW/Rummy said so? How do they know?

Unless I'm mistaken, a US citizen in the US cannot be held indefinitely in Gitmo without any charges being made against her, and an opportunity (however proscribed) to defend herself against those charges. Further, if a US citizen is held indefinitely by the authorities in some non-US country, without charges, I am sure John, Dubya, and the boys would raise all kinds of fuss. And doesn't the State Department castigate regimes quite harshly for lack of due process? In fact, isn't that an element in the reason given by Wolfie, today, why Saddam just 'had' to be overthrown??

Remind me again how you spell 'hypocrisy' :mad:

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Posted by kat:
"Oh byte me I never presented it as anything concrete."
You never present anything at all.

Next time Olly North (can easily be applied to ANY American citizen, with a bit of "spin") takes a holiday to a foreign country, I hope some rogue nation's terrorists (Intelligence Agencies) pick him up, charge him with "picking some daisies from a garden", make all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations, lock him in a cage (you wouldn't keep a dog in", and withhold all info from the public.

Like Nereid said, you'd all be crying like babies if it was of your own. In fact, you'd probably lob a couple of Crusie Missiles and use your Veto.

[Adam]

"Oh byte me I never presented it as anything concrete."
You never present anything at all.

Oh, that's not entirely true. If you say black is black, white is white, she'll argue that it's open to interpretation until she's blue in the face.

Anyway, the international law has been covered extensively. Even the USA's own civil rights groups know it. The ONLY group on the opposing side is the USA govermnent, which just happens to have all the guns and money.

[kat]

Oh, that's not entirely true. If you say black is black, white is white, she'll argue that it's open to interpretation until she's blue in the face.



And adam hominem the king of ad hominem chimes in.

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Hey kat, out of 703 posts, have you EVER had 1 idea of your own?

Feel free to prove me wrong, by posting something original (ie. a thought of YOUR OWN).

You logged off pretty quickly, after I posted that Kat. Ha ha....

[Adam]

Woohoo! Bite that worm!

[hughes johnson]

Next time Olly North (can easily be applied to ANY American citizen, with a bit of "spin") takes a holiday to a foreign country, I hope some rogue nation's terrorists (Intelligence Agencies) pick him up, charge him with "picking some daisies from a garden", make all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations, lock him in a cage (you wouldn't keep a dog in", and withhold all info from the public.

"Can easily be applied to ANY American citizen"? You hope that "ANY American citizen" is picked up by terrorists and locked up in a cage? Is this what you really hope for? This would make you feel good?

[schwarzchildradius]

rotfl. okay come on somebody answer my little question please?
BTW so I've heard, WW2 vets are angry about what's going on in Gitmo, for the obvious (to some) precedent that it sets, i.e. American P.O.W.'s & US citizens could be detained indefinitely with no law & order except the law of the jungle, and that's unacceptable to civilized human beings.

[kat]

There's at least one US citizen in Gitmo, correct?
something original for you :tongue: ....no, there are not any there that I am aware of. I believe early on there were a few who were naturalized citizens but they are not there any longer.


*edit: actually, the more I think about this..I don't think there were actually any americans held at Gitmo. Someone else can chime in and help me out...John Lindh was the only American? Although there was prescedence from Ex Parte Quirin that could have allowed the United States to claim he had renounced his citizen ship and then treat him the same as other the other combatants.

[kat]

BTW so I've heard, WW2 vets are angry about what's going on in Gitmo, for the obvious (to some) precedent that it sets, i.e. American P.O.W.'s & US citizens could be detained indefinitely with no law & order except the law of the jungle, and that's unacceptable to civilized human beings.
It's interesting that WW2 vets would say this about Gitmo setting a precedent when the precedent was set because of a case involving German combatants during the ww2 era. :confused:

[hughes johnson]

BTW so I've heard, WW2 vets are angry about what's going on in Gitmo, for the obvious (to some) precedent that it sets, i.e. American P.O.W.'s & US citizens could be detained indefinitely with no law & order except the law of the jungle, and that's unacceptable to civilized human beings.

This is the way that American POWs have always been treated. It didn't seem to bother Jane Fonda.

[Nereid]

This is the way that American POWs have always been treated. It didn't seem to bother Jane Fonda.Not so. There are, AFAIK, various conventions and protocols regarding the capture, treatment, etc of POWs. In the case of those held at Gitmo, the Bush team has explicitly stated that these conventions etc do NOT apply, and have introduced a new concept "unlawful combatant" (?) and are making up the rules as they go along.

IIRC, there are no US citizens held at Gitmo for precisely the reason that that would allow a serious and expedited challenge before the Supreme Court, and the treatment meted out to such citizens would immediately be ruled unconstitutional.

Without any US citizens in Gitmo, Bush&Co are relatively unfettered.

I'll be the first to admit a lack of understanding of the US Constitution, so this may be quite inappropriate (my emphasis): "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Mr johnson, please remind me again, how do you spell 'hypocrisy'? :mad:

[kat]

Not so. There are, AFAIK, various conventions and protocols regarding the capture, treatment, etc of POWs. In the case of those held at Gitmo, the Bush team has explicitly stated that these conventions etc do NOT apply, and have introduced a new concept "unlawful combatant" (?)

Neried-Unlawful combatant is not a new concept..it is an old concept..based upon precedence set with Ex Parte Quirin ...during the WW2 era...specificly 1942..I think.. :wink: ...that's pretty darn old, dontcha think?

[Adam]

Yet, amazingly, the law remains the same, as has been shown before. Those people are POWs.

[kat]

Yet, amazingly, the law remains the same, as has been shown before. Those people are POWs.
Your constant repeating of this lie does not make it true.

[selfAdjoint]

The WWII case involved German infiltrators who were landed on Long Island, I believe it was, from a submarine. They were quickly captured, all wearing civilian clothes. One of them had been born in the US and so was a US citizen. They were tried and convicted; the citizen's case went to the Supreme Court and was decided against him, and he was executed along with the others. It was determined that they were not prisoners of war because, among other things, they were not wearing uniforms. What they were was spies, and spies have never been part of the Laws of War.

At the hearings in the Supreme Court yesterday, according to Dahlia Lithwick's account in Slate, several justices seemed uncomfortable with the simple extension of the 1942 decision to the present day. One of them noted that the German infiltrators did get a real trial in an ordinary courtroom.

[kat]

Self adjoint-
You have the two cases mixed up. O'conner was referencing Eisentrager 1950. The Germans in that particular case were caught, tried and convicted by a military trial in China. And although they did get a trial..it was not as you seem to infer...The court found that the prior rejection of their petition for a hearing was correct and that they had no immunity from military trial or punishment.
The case concerning the German Infiltrators was Ex Parte Quirin in 1942.

[pelastration]

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/b]."

Mr johnson, please remind me again, how do you spell 'hypocrisy'? :mad:

... within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. They fly in on US planes ... thus within standard US jurisdiction ... then dropped on a spot again out of that jurisdiction.

[Adam]

I'm not quite sure why, but there seems to remain some lack of comprehension regarding POWs. Thus I supply again this information:


Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.



Once again, in terms of pure logic: POW = A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+A4+A5+A6+B1+B2

This Boolean statement shows precisely which are POWs.

[schwarzchildradius]

Not so. There are, AFAIK, various conventions and protocols regarding the capture, treatment, etc of POWs. In the case of those held at Gitmo, the Bush team has explicitly stated that these conventions etc do NOT apply, and have introduced a new concept "unlawful combatant" (?) and are making up the rules as they go along.

IIRC, there are no US citizens held at Gitmo for precisely the reason that that would allow a serious and expedited challenge before the Supreme Court, and the treatment meted out to such citizens would immediately be ruled unconstitutional.

Without any US citizens in Gitmo, Bush&Co are relatively unfettered.

I'll be the first to admit a lack of understanding of the US Constitution, so this may be quite inappropriate (my emphasis): "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Mr johnson, please remind me again, how do you spell 'hypocrisy'? :mad:
There you go: bring out the Constitution and suddenly things become crystal clear:
"... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/b]."

if Gitmo is the jurisdiction of the state, (what other jurisdiction is it possibly under!) what they're doing is unconstitutional. BTW, there was one US citizen held in Gitmo, but as soon as they found out his nationality they sent him out, so I've heard.

[Adam]

I believe US military bases fall under US federal jurisdiction.

[kat]

There you go: bring out the Constitution and suddenly things become crystal clear:
"... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/b]."

if Gitmo is the jurisdiction of the state, (what other jurisdiction is it possibly under!) what they're doing is unconstitutional. BTW, there was one US citizen held in Gitmo, but as soon as they found out his nationality they sent him out, so I've heard.

What state is Gitmo a jurisdiction of?
Who was the citizen? I don't think there was ..John Lindh was not brought to Cuba.

[Nereid]

I believe US military bases fall under US federal jurisdiction.Did I not hear that one reason Gitmo was chosen was because it is NOT sovereign US territory (merely a perpetual lease from Cuba)? 'Honest Your Honour (oops, "Honor"), you can't say we're naughty little boys for holding those guys in Gitmo without charges etc; it's not sovereign US territory, so the constitution an' all just don't apply!'

[pelastration]

Did I not hear that one reason Gitmo was chosen was because it is NOT sovereign US territory (merely a perpetual lease from Cuba)? 'Honest Your Honour (oops, "Honor"), you can't say we're naughty little boys for holding those guys in Gitmo without charges etc; it's not sovereign US territory, so the constitution an' all just don't apply!'
These guys - for sure not kind and fully innocent people - are the show-case that the 'war' is not over. They are shown form time to time like red monkey's in 'zoo'-conditions. Animals. That's the picture the administration tells implicite. "But ... see we bring them to justice ...". Except - as far as we know - there are in that zoo no female spieces. Maybe some of Cheney's friends can organize tourist tours to observe them and take photo's. And throw peanuts. Imagine ... eye in eye with real terrorists. Yeah, I forgot the Love boats. Bring them on!

[russ_watters]

Did I not hear that one reason Gitmo was chosen was because it is NOT sovereign US territory (merely a perpetual lease from Cuba)? 'Honest Your Honour (oops, "Honor"), you can't say we're naughty little boys for holding those guys in Gitmo without charges etc; it's not sovereign US territory, so the constitution an' all just don't apply!' I actually think Adam is right on this one: territory under lease (bases, embassies, etc.) are under federal jurisdiction.

I don't think there are any jurisdictional issues here, but keeping them at Gitmo avoids the issue altogether. Plus there is the practical benefit of keeping them on an isolated military base away from meddling hippies.

As far as the status of these prisoners, we've had the discussion before and Adam is still wrong: they are illegal combatants, not POWs. Adam provided the relevant part of the Geneva convention that shows this quite explicitly. Adam knows this too, since being a member of the Australian military, he certainly would have been issued a Geneva Convention ID card and been briefed on what it means and how to be eligible for Geneva Convention protection (things like you must be a uniformed, open combatant). He was likely even briefed on what happens to special operations troops in combat: depending on the mission, they may not necessarily be covered under the Geneva Convention.

But lets get right to the point: Adam, tell me which one of those 8 criteron the prisoners at 'Gitmo meet.

[Adam]

I believe US military bases fall under US federal jurisdiction.

[Adam]

As far as the status of these prisoners, we've had the discussion before and Adam is still wrong: they are illegal combatants, not POWs.


Russ_waters, I have posted the law, which the USA signed on to. Rather than the usual "You're just wrong!", please try to explain logically why those people do not fit the laws provided.

[hughes johnson]

Not so. There are, AFAIK, various conventions and protocols regarding the capture, treatment, etc of POWs.

Mr johnson, please remind me again, how do you spell 'hypocrisy'? :mad:

Here is how I spell hypocrisy:
When someone is aware that these "various conventions and protocols" have not been applied to American POWs, and says nothing, and then complains that these same "various conventions and protocols" are not afforded to terrorist illegal combatants, who are our enemies, that is EXACTLY how I would spell hypocrisy.

It would be a very good idea for you to talk to an American POW. If you can find one who will tell you his story, make sure that you're sitting down. I assure you, you will NEVER forget it.

[hughes johnson]

I have posted the law, which the USA signed on to. Rather than the usual "You're just wrong!", please try to explain logically why those people do not fit the laws provided.

The laws do fit. These terrorists are illegal combatants. In other words "you're just wrong!". I think that maybe you might have a problem with reading comprehension.

[Adam]

hughes johnson, please read the laws again. Then again, and maybe a few more times. The laws specifically identify those who are considered POWs.

[hughes johnson]

It's interesting that WW2 vets would say this about Gitmo setting a precedent when the precedent was set because of a case involving German combatants during the ww2 era. :confused:


You seem to have trouble understanding the concept of legal precedent. This doesn't necessarily mean that you have a learning disability. A careful reading of kat's posts may help you understand better. Be patient, it will come to you after a while.

[russ_watters]

Russ_waters, I have posted the law, which the USA signed on to. Rather than the usual "You're just wrong!", please try to explain logically why those people do not fit the laws provided. I did explain it (or rather, I asked a pointed question) - you just ignored that part. Again -

Its quite simple: none of those 8 criterion you posted apply to the prisoners. If you disagree, tell me which one applies (I already asked...).

For example, #1 - they are not members of any armed force. I could go through all 8, but save me some time: which one (or 2 or 3) do you think applies? The laws specifically identify those who are considered POWs. Yes, again, on this we agree. However, by corollary, they exclude anyone who does not fit the criterion. So again: tell me which one of those specific criterion apply in this specific case.

[Adam]

Okay. This has all been covered before, several times. But since you are too lazy to do the background reading to support your statements, here goes again...


1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

They fall into this category.


2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

* (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* (c) That of carrying arms openly;
* (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Many fall into this category.


3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

Many fall into this category.


4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

They do not fall into this category.


5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

They do not fall into this category.


6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Whether they followed the laws of war must be examined on the basis of individual instances/prisoners, so we'll count this one out for the sake of charity to those who can't read the laws.


B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

Many fall into this category.

Now, once again, a POW is: A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+A4+A5+A6+B1+B2

The people in Guantanimo qualify as A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+B1

Thus, they are POWs, whether the USA government admits it or not. They signed the laws. They (the USA government) are currently breaking the law.

[kat]

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict Taliban may count as the armed forces but as they have been recognized as POW's by the U.S. this post is not relevent to them. as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. The Al Queda may fall under this but in order to be recognized as POW's they must fall under:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

* (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* (c) That of carrying arms openly;
* (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Al Queda does not fulfil these conditions.

[Adam]

Now, once again, a POW is: A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+A4+A5+A6+B1+B2. In other words, a prisoner need only fit ONE of those to be a POW.

The people in Guantanimo qualify as A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+B1.

[kat]

Now, once again, a POW is: A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+A4+A5+A6+B1+B2. In other words, a prisoner need only fit ONE of those to be a POW.

The people in Guantanimo qualify as A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+B1.

The Al Queda being kept at Guantanimo do not qualify under
A1. They are not "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. "
I'm not sure why you keep claiming they are..maybe you can explain...

under
A2 they must fulfil a, b, c, and d...they might, with a very loose interpretation fullfil :
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
They did not follow
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
They did not follow
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
They most certainly did not follow:
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
I don't know how you can disagree..if so, please explain...skipping what you've already typed repeatedly as it's obviously not getting us anywhere.

A3...you're not seriously suggesting that Al Qaeda fits under this?! "(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power"

B1...You'll have to explain how you think Al Queda fits under this one as well "(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country," ....

[Adam]

First, riddle me this: Are they all members of Al Qaeda?

[kat]

First, riddle me this: Are they all members of Al Qaeda?
My understanding is that members of the Taliban who were granted POW status are not held at Gitmo, Iraqis are not held at Gitmo... I have not heard of any others being held there today.


Now, could you please respond to my post above. Thanks.

[Njorl]

I think this debate, are they POW's or illegal combatants, is not the issue. They have been labelled illegal combatants, and denied any avenue to appeal that labelling. While I can understand doing this in the short term, while information they have could be devastating if it is released, in the long term it is not defensible.

The Bush administration seems to be arguing that an illegal combatant has no right to try to prove that he is not an illegal combatant. This is circular reasoning. If it is allowed to stand, we must assume that the executive branch of the US government can indefinitely detain anyone in the world. I would rather live in a world slightly more prone to terrorism than accept that.

Njorl

[Adam]

1) The abductees held at Guantanamo Bay are not all Al Qaeda. There has never even been any charge related to them all being Al Qaeda.

2) Many are members of the Taliban. Many of those were forced to fight for the Taliban. The Taliban (pay attention here please) is not Al Qaeda.

3) Members of the Taliban, the Mujahadeen, and other military and paramilitary forces fit into the first condition of the law in question.

4) Just about anyone recieving military training and working in a military organisation, for a power recognised or not recognised by other states, fits into A3.

[kat]

4) Just about anyone recieving military training and working in a military organisation, for a power recognised or not recognised by other states, fits into A3.

A3 specificly speaks of "Members of regular armed forces", I believe they specificly outlined the definition for this at the Hague, but...in order to be clear how are you defining this and where did you derive your definition from?

I'll get to the rest of your post once this is clarified.



Njorl, Although I agree with you, I'm going to continue with this debate because this has been an ongoing issue with this guy. It'd be nice to clarify it once and for all.


*Edit: Is "abductees" even a real word?

[pelastration]

The Bush administration seems to be arguing that an illegal combatant has no right to try to prove that he is not an illegal combatant. This is circular reasoning. If it is allowed to stand, we must assume that the executive branch of the US government can indefinitely detain anyone in the world.
Good points.
Indeed circular.
Anyone, yes: based on 'national interest' of USA ... worldwide.

And even posting on PF could be interpreted as being against US national interest.

[kat]

Njorl, you may find this interesting. Enemy Combatant Determinations and Judicial Review (http://www.fed-soc.org/Laws%20of%20war/enemycomb.pdf) (Adam would probably do well to read it as well, but that brings us into the wrong tree---barking thing and I'm just not in the mood)

[Adam]

"Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."

[Adam]

Abductee: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abductee

[Adam]

Well, I've answered questions. They aren't all Al Qaeda. They fit the defintions of POWs. Now tell me specifically why you think they don't.

[pelastration]

When you detain individuals during a 'War against Terror' ... are they POW's?

[Nereid]

When you detain individuals during a 'War against Terror' ... are they POW's?Ah the joys and delights of the English language (or is it just the US variant?)!

Bush&Co seem keen to invoke stern images, prepare the world for general nastiness and sacrifice, etc ... for which purpose the word 'war' is well suited.

However, the word carries baggage, such as 'casualties of war', 'fog of war', 'war bonds' (should we expect some soon I wonder?), ... and 'POWs'.

But as kat et al point out, Bush&Co don't mean a 'lawful war', even though they have 'declared war' (for sure though, it's an 'awful war').

And so on ...

[selfAdjoint]

The Supreme Court has (unwisely as I believe) extended the term "war" and the legal strictures associated with it to whatever the president asserts, rather than the constitutional meaning, which can only be declared by an act of Congress.

[kat]

1)
4) Just about anyone recieving military training and working in a military organisation, for a power recognised or not recognised by other states, fits into A3.


A3 specificly speaks of "Members of regular armed forces", I believe they specificly outlined the definition for this at the Hague, but...in order to be clear how are you defining this and where did you derive your definition from?

I'll get to the rest of your post once this is clarified.



*Edit: Is "abductees" even a real word?

"Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."

Note...I specificly asked for the source of your definition of "regular armed forces".


Abductee: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abductee



*Edit: Is "abductees" even a real word?

Abductees (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abductees)

No entry found for abductees.

LalaLalaLala

[kat]

When you detain individuals during a 'War against Terror' ... are they POW's?

I think this actually is a whole nother can o' worms. Their status as POW"S depends on whether they fit within the outlines that I listed above. They don't stop being POW's becuase of the type of war it is. The issue arises when you have a war that is not against a state, and in which an end is not neccesarily easily defined. POW's can be held until the war ceases without charges as they are not being held for criminal purposes but to prevent them from further fighting in the war. Normally once a halt to the war has been called they would be released/returned.

[kat]

The Supreme Court has (unwisely as I believe) extended the term "war" and the legal strictures associated with it to whatever the president asserts, rather than the constitutional meaning, which can only be declared by an act of Congress.

Uhhh..not exactly, again I suggest you look at past precedence.

[russ_watters]

Thanks, kat - you picked up nicely where I left off. I had a busy weekend.

Njorl - you have a good point. I don't think there is any precident (national or international) on that though. How exactly would you go about asserting Geneva Convention protection? The Red Cross has been in to see these guys. Did anyone attempt to assert POW status then? Perhaps by showing their Geneva Convention ID cards...?

I don't think many of those guys have a leg to stand on when it comes to asserting status. To clarify my position though, I would much prefer that satus hearings/trials be held quickly.

[russ_watters]

More on ID cards. HERE (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument) is the complete text of the 3rd Geneva Convention (revised 1949). Article 17 states: Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him. Clearly, this complicates any claim that the people at 'Gitmo should be afforded POW status.

[Adam]

Note...I specificly asked for the source of your definition of "regular armed forces".

Regular armed forces are members of a conventional military organisation serving a command structure which may or may not be recognised by the detaining power.


Abductees (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abductees)
LalaLalaLala

You are familiar with something called the English lanaguage, yes? "Abductee" is a noun. The plural form is "abductees".