GITMO detainees and Obama's promise

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm speaking to the correct classification of those captured, which should not be based on the likelihood of military success.
I'm considering the (presumably common) case where conduct of the captured persons was impermissible under ordinary circumstances but permissible if they were waging declared war on the US. Examples: setting bombs and shooting soldiers. If I did either I would be jailed, but if the Duchy of Grand Fenwick declares war on the US and shoots a US soldier, then at the conclusion of hostilities the Duchy soldier would not be liable for that conduct (as the nations were at war).I'm quite honestly stunned that there's any debate on this matter. Perhaps I fail to communicate my point adequately, or perhaps there is some subtlety I miss...?

If you insist that a formal declaration of war is necessary to "legalize" killing, I would agree with you. However, I've already posted links stating that virtually all wars since 1945 (not just US wars) have been waged without a formal declaration of war.

I'm taking the position that native Afghan fighters were acting in self-defense against a US invasion even though I believe the US was justified in invading. Therefore, they were not guilty of any crimes when they took hostile action against US forces. The US could just as well be accused of committing crimes against the Afghan Taliban. To me, it was simply war, even if not declared.

Foreign fighters were presumed to be al-Qaida operatives or supporters. As such, they can be suspected of criminal activities as associates of al-Qaida. Since they were foreigners in Afghanistan, they could not argue they were defending their homeland when they fired at US troops. They were simply criminal elements trying to avoid capture. However, since we are not able to charge them all and expect a conviction under US law, it may be useful hold them as POWs so we are not forced to release them by court order. I've said this tactic may not be acceptable to US courts just as it doesn't appear to be acceptable to you.

 

[alt]

I'm speaking to the correct classification of those captured, which should not be based on the likelihood of military success.



I'm considering the (presumably common) case where conduct of the captured persons was impermissible under ordinary circumstances but permissible if they were waging declared war on the US. Examples: setting bombs and shooting soldiers. If I did either I would be jailed, but if the Duchy of Grand Fenwick declares war on the US and shoots a US soldier, then at the conclusion of hostilities the Duchy soldier would not be liable for that conduct (as the nations were at war).


I'm quite honestly stunned that there's any debate on this matter. Perhaps I fail to communicate my point adequately, or perhaps there is some subtlety I miss...?

It's not a subtlety at all. It's called "Might IS Right" !

 

[SW VandeCarr]

It's not a subtlety at all. It's called "Might IS Right" !

OK. That's one answer to the specific question I posed in post one and repeated in post 61. This discussion has been veering off topic with the discussion of the general issues regarding uprisings and rebellions.

I don't like this answer and say why in post 61 as it relates to Statutory Ape's suggestion that the US courts can be ignored.

 

[nismaratwork]

Your https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2852632&postcount=59", if I understand it, was that a "destruction of a people" is "the cure for insurrection" which sounded to me like something born of too many readings of Gibbon's Decline and Fall. I suggested that is counter to most modern observations of insurrection warfare, thinking we might have some reasonably similar definition of what constitutes such; for me destruction is something close to a genocide, like Rwanda in 1994, the Sudan more recently, Cambodia under Pol Pot, but no not 3 kids killed in NI last month

What's the basis for saying Iraq is 1) in 'chaos', and 2) likely to remain so? Because Iraq's parliament hasn't formed a government? For comparison, the violent fatality rate in Iraq is about twice that of the homicide rate in the US which is tragic, but not what I would call chaos. Pakistan, with the floods, is in chaos. Somalia, rampaged by the psychopathic Ali Mohadum 'Rage' and populated by pirates, is in chaos. Or at least those are the conditions for which I reserve the term.

No, I said that overwhelming force, or conversion of a people is the proper way to commit to warfare. Overwhelming force (in my example, decimation) is NOT the destruction of a people, and I don't believe that successful conversion works very often (perhaps Northern Ireland is a decent example). Decimation is specifically killing one in ten people, which is a minority. As for Iraq, I'd call it chaotic for reasons that seem to obvious to get into. Somalia is ALSO in chaos, and arguably more so now, but that doesn't make Iraq's future any brighter. How long do you think what little "stability" has been instilled by US combat operation in Iraq is going to last?

 

[brainstorm]

If you insist that a formal declaration of war is necessary to "legalize" killing, I would agree with you. However, I've already posted links stating that virtually all wars since 1945 (not just US wars) have been waged without a formal declaration of war.

What is needed to legalize killing then?

I'm taking the position that native Afghan fighters were acting in self-defense against a US invasion even though I believe the US was justified in invading. Therefore, they were not guilty of any crimes when they took hostile action against US forces. The US could just as well be accused of committing crimes against the Afghan Taliban. To me, it was simply war, even if not declared.

I'm not sure this logic of national self-defense applies at the globalist level. Terror networks can connect agents and interests across many national territories. If one national government has to declare war against another national government each time police action is pursued, won't national sovereignty become little more than a means of harboring fugitives? I could see the argument that allowing governments to protect refugees from abusive regimes would be a legitimate use of sovereign power, but on the other hand if sovereignty itself becomes a political instrument in globalist power struggles, wouldn't that render complaints of violating sovereignty as crocodile tears, for lack of a better way to explain it?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

What is needed to legalize killing then?

Well, there's been a lot of wars since 1945. I don't think anyone denies they were wars even though there were no formal declarations of war. Just a short list not directly involving the US: 4 Arab-Israeli wars, 3 between India and Pakistan, one between India and China, Indonesia and the Netherlands (Western New Guinea), Indonesia and Malaysia, UK and Argentina (Falklands), Iran and Iraq, USSR in Afghanistan, the Balkan War, and others. As far as I know, only the Balkan conflict resulted in major war crimes charges.

So, it appears that killing is legal in war situations and formal war crime charges are relatively rare. Terrorism, as the tactic of deliberately targeting unarmed civilians, is a crime but it is also a category of conflict which neither international nor US law handle very well.

 

[mheslep]

...As for Iraq, I'd call it chaotic for reasons that seem to obvious to get into. Somalia is ALSO in chaos, and arguably more so now, but that doesn't make Iraq's future any brighter. How long do you think what little "stability" has been instilled by US combat operation in Iraq is going to last?

What's obvious to me is that there is no comparison between Somalia and Iraq in terms of stability, societal structure, economics, or practically any measure one cares to name. With regards to Iraq's future, well we'll see. But, given that some http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/16/iraq.jonathansteele" (millions) turned out at no little risk to themselves in the big 2005 election, that Iraq exports are around $30B now, that foreign troops have been out of Iraqi cities and towns since June, then I guess the odds are that Iraq will enjoy some relative stability for some time to come. Iraq may even splinter as did the former Czechoslovakia, that's their choice, but I doubt such a split will be violent.

BTW recall that the foreign combat troops in Iraq also included the UK in no small part.

 

[brainstorm]

Well, there's been a lot of wars since 1945. I don't think anyone denies they were wars even though there were no formal declarations of war. Just a short list not directly involving the US: 4 Arab-Israeli wars, 3 between India and Pakistan, one between India and China, Indonesia and the Netherlands (Western New Guinea), Indonesia and Malaysia, UK and Argentina (Falklands), Iran and Iraq, USSR in Afghanistan, the Balkans War, and others. As far as I know, only the Balkan conflict resulted in major war crimes charges.

So, it appears that killing is legal in war situations and formal war crime charges are relatively rare. Terrorism, as the tactic of deliberately targeting civilians, is a crime but it is also a category of conflict which neither international nor US law handle very well.

The way you are reasoning, basically anything that goes on globally is legal until someone claims otherwise - and then I'm guess you don't recognize just any claim of criminality as legitimate. So the question is what authority can legitimately outlaw and punish killing except established governments?

If you cite the geneva convention, then don't you have to apply sanctions where it is breached? The problem with that, imo, is that the typical approach is to target certain high ranking officers to make examples of and everyone else is excused as "just following orders." I hesitate to even mention that, because every time I do I get attacked but this is known as the "Nuremberg defense" and it was deemed unacceptable during the war tribunals of WWII. So the question is what fair and effective method exists to enforce rules of war except law enforcement by existing governments or acts of war? Can terrorism be used to fight terrorism?

Also, when you define terrorism as violence deliberately targeting civilians, are you claiming that military personnel can't be the target of terrorism? Or that all violence directed toward military personnel is war and not terrorism or civil conflict? Also, do you disagree that fear can't be generated without physically attacking people? If, for example, the anthrax letter scare was a hoax that resulted in the same media hype, would this be any less an act of terrorism? The effect is the same whether it is achieved through sending an actual letter or doing it as a hoax, right?

Could ethical or legal guidelines for terrorism be created similar to the way rules of war are?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The way you are reasoning, basically anything that goes on globally is legal until someone claims otherwise - and then I'm guess you don't recognize just any claim of criminality as legitimate. So the question is what authority can legitimately outlaw and punish killing except established governments?

It's not the way I'm reasoning. It's my observation of the way these issues have evolved since WWII.

So the question is what fair and effective method exists to enforce rules of war except law enforcement by existing governments or acts of war?

That appears to be the case.

Can terrorism be used to fight terrorism?

IMO, no.

EDIT: To clarify, terrorists can certainly be attacked wherever they are found, but I'm against "retaliatory" terrorism against a population.

Also, when you define terrorism as violence deliberately targeting civilians, are you claiming that military personnel can't be the target of terrorism?

I didn't say or mean to imply that. However, generally terrorism is thought of as the tactic of targeting civilians in non-combat situations.

Or that all violence directed toward military personnel is war and not terrorism or civil conflict?

Violence directed against military personnel is either legal or illegal as defined by the Geneva and Hague Conventions, at least in theory. In practice, nations observe certain rules out of self interest. What I do to them, they can do to me. Hence, chemical and biological warfare were practically absent in WWII.

Also, do you disagree that fear can't be generated without physically attacking people? If, for example, the anthrax letter scare was a hoax that resulted in the same media hype, would this be any less an act of terrorism? The effect is the same whether it is achieved through sending an actual letter or doing it as a hoax, right?

I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, there's psychological warfare with and without attending violence.

Could ethical or legal guidelines for terrorism be created similar to the way rules of war are?

IMO no. Terrorism as a tactic is by definition outside any set of rules that nations observe.

Now that I've attempted to respond to you, will you and others please respond to me? If you were in Obama's shoes and the Supreme Court ordered you to release a terror suspect from GITMO who you thought might be dangerous, what would you do?

 

[nismaratwork]

Now that I've attempted to respond to you, will you and others please respond to me? If you were in Obama's shoes and the Supreme Court ordered you to release a terror suspect from GITMO who you thought might be dangerous, what would you do?

I'd see they died of "natural causes" shortly after release.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'd see they died of "natural causes" shortly after release.

This will likely be a recurring problem since the US has over 170 detainees at the present time. So do you propose that they all die of "natural causes"? BTW, the choice for Obama would be to charge them or release them.

If we charge them, the Sixth Amendment (right to a speedy trial) kicks in, but it would buy some time. For most detainees, the US either lacks the evidence for a conviction under US law or the evidence is tainted by "enhanced" interrogation methods.

 

[brainstorm]

It's not the way I'm reasoning. It's my observation of the way these issues have evolved since WWII.

You are reasoning that your observations of a pattern indicate something about relative legality or legitimacy generally. You are assuming that trends imply legitimacy. If everyone jumps of a cliff, that doesn't make it a good thing to do.

EDIT: To clarify, terrorists can certainly be attacked wherever they are found, but I'm against "retaliatory" terrorism against a population.

So am I, but what do you think migration controls are? Basically each government decides what level of security to levy against everyone with the same passport, based on political relations between the governments. Also, nationalist stereotypes promote broad prejudices and discrimination on the basis of stereotypes. So, for example, I have heard people condemn Serbians or Germans in general as "criminal types" by reference to war activities associated with those national identities. When these kinds of prejudicial sentiments are widespread, the effect is that people identified with the respective population are subject to systematic discrimination or they must relegate themselves to someplace where such prejudices and discrimination are absent.

I didn't say or mean to imply that. However, generally terrorism is thought of as the tactic of targeting civilians in non-combat situations.

But that may just be a popular definition because it prevents scrutiny of other methods of fear-based control because those are the hegemonic tactics of choice in the modern political economy. It's more comfortable to blame insurrection for terrorism instead of seeing it as the illegitimate child of modern governing techniques.

Now that I've attempted to respond to you, will you and others please respond to me? If you were in Obama's shoes and the Supreme Court ordered you to release a terror suspect from GITMO who you thought might be dangerous, what would you do?

Put them on parole? Some kind of halfway house? Come up with a level of security that allows them to re-integrate without allowing them the opportunity to pursue terrorist activities? Assuming they are suspects who have never been proven guilty of any crime, maybe they should be offered protection and compensation to prevent their lost opportunities from harming their life-chances. To legitimate the negative effects of their apprehension and detainment, wouldn't you have to prove them guilty in a court of law?

 

[Office_Shredder]

So am I, but what do you think migration controls are? Basically each government decides what level of security to levy against everyone with the same passport, based on political relations between the governments.

So forming a good relationship with Canada and allowing automatic visa status to their citizens is the equivalent of committing an act of terrorism against Indonesia?

 

[brainstorm]

So forming a good relationship with Canada and allowing automatic visa status to their citizens is the equivalent of committing an act of terrorism against Indonesia?

Answer it yourself by putting the shoe on the other foot. If the EU automatically grants a visa request from someone with an Australian passport but rejects it for someone with a US passport, all because of governmental relations - how is this not directing political conflicts at non-military individuals?

 

[nismaratwork]

This will likely be a recurring problem since the US has over 170 detainees at the present time. So do you propose that they all die of "natural causes"? BTW, the choice for Obama would be to charge them or release them.

If we charge them, the Sixth Amendment (right to a speedy trial) kicks in, but it would buy some time. For most detainees, the US either lacks the evidence for a conviction under US law or the evidence is tainted by "enhanced" interrogation methods.

I don't see how these people can be allowed to go free, given what we've done to them already, and the threat they may represent. Assuming, as in your hypothetical scenario, that X individual is dangerous, then I say disappear them. Some can die of "natural causes", others can be found dead having "rejoined" their friends in Afghanistan... others can be said to have gone into hiding in Yemen, or Chechnya. The world is a big place. This is all under the assumption that you set out however, that this individual, or individuals are DANGEROUS. I do not propose that people who merely fell afoul of an insane program of incarceration and interrogation be killed.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Assuming, as in your hypothetical scenario, that X individual is dangerous, then I say disappear them. ...

This is all under the assumption that you set out however, that this individual, or individuals are DANGEROUS. I do not propose that people who merely fell afoul of an insane program of incarceration and interrogation be killed.

OK. I have no real idea as to exactly how the US government has been dealing with this situation since 2001. The Bush, and I assume the Obama, administrations have been slowly winnowing down the number of detainees, but they've clearly already made some mistakes since some of those released have rejoined al-Qaida or affiliated groups. I think it's safe to say that we really don't have a very good fix on who's dangerous and who isn't.

Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) is not in this class. Almost all the detainees were delivered to US forces by the Northern Alliance in 2001. The US took them for their potential intelligence value. We intended from the start to interrogate them by whatever means necessary in order to extract information. KSM was arrested by Pakistani police and delivered to the US. He will be tried sooner or later and may or may not get a death sentence.

Possibly a few of the rest will face charges, but most will remain in limbo unless Obama can come up with a plan. I'm sure he will not endorse your plan (but I could be wrong). So assuming your plan is off the table, do you or anyone else have any other ideas?

EDIT: Remember, Obama is under the gun. The USSC has ruled that we must charge or release the detainees. When a specific case reaches the Court, the likely ruling will be for the US to charge the detainee in short order or release him, or perhaps simply to release him immediately.

 

[brainstorm]

I don't see how these people can be allowed to go free, given what we've done to them already, and the threat they may represent. Assuming, as in your hypothetical scenario, that X individual is dangerous, then I say disappear them. Some can die of "natural causes", others can be found dead having "rejoined" their friends in Afghanistan... others can be said to have gone into hiding in Yemen, or Chechnya. The world is a big place. This is all under the assumption that you set out however, that this individual, or individuals are DANGEROUS. I do not propose that people who merely fell afoul of an insane program of incarceration and interrogation be killed.

For one thing, your methods of "disappearing" people sound cruel and unusual, or maybe just unusual because creative, which maybe automatically means cruel as well - not sure. Second, how can you know if any suspect is legitimately dangerous without establishing their guilt or innocence by some form of trial? I understand that when people get off on a technicality that it seems like a failure of the justice system, but surely if there is sufficient evidence for SOME crime, those charges could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe I just still have some faith in the ideals of a justice system that in actuality has evolved beyond the possibility of functioning correctly. If that's the case then what do you do to or for anyone? Allow vigilanteism to rule the Earth?

 

[Office_Shredder]

I don't see how these people can be allowed to go free, given what we've done to them already, ... I do not propose that people who merely fell afoul of an insane program of incarceration and interrogation be killed.

Actually that's kind of exactly what you said.

Obviously these people wouldn't be held if there wasn't some belief that they could be dangerous, but that doesn't mean there's convincing evidence they are terrorists (if there was, we could charge them and throw them in jail!).

brainstorm, the default setup is that people need a visa to enter other countries. The fact that some countries then make deals to avoid the hassle of a visa is not an act of violence against civilians, and I find it hard to believe you really think it is

 

[brainstorm]

Obviously these people wouldn't be held if there wasn't some belief that they could be dangerous, but that doesn't mean there's convincing evidence they are terrorists (if there was, we could charge them and throw them in jail!).

But if US soldiers were being held prisoner for a long time without charges, would you accept the reasoning that they were dangerous and automatically not assume that they were hostages?

brainstorm, the default setup is that people need a visa to enter other countries. The fact that some countries then make deals to avoid the hassle of a visa is not an act of violence against civilians, and I find it hard to believe you really think it is

Whether something is "default" or not doesn't speak to its effects or legitimacy. Since the cold war, the threat of nuclear annihilation is by default a deterrent to war and insurrection, but does that change the effect it has?

Besides, I wasn't saying that so much to criticize visa policies as I was simply pointing out that visa policies, trade policies, etc. are a method for exercising power against soldiers and civilians alike, i.e. against "the general public," which was the definition of terrorism put forth, I think by SWV.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Besides, I wasn't saying that so much to criticize visa policies as I was simply pointing out that visa policies, trade policies, etc. are a method for exercising power against soldiers and civilians alike, i.e. against "the general public," which was the definition of terrorism put forth, I think by SWV.

I was describing terrorism as a tactic in the context of the deliberate use of deadly force against innocent civilians in a non-combat situation.

 

[brainstorm]

I was describing terrorism as a tactic in the context of the deliberate use of deadly force against innocent civilians in a non-combat situation.

What is so special about deadly force in the instigation of fear-based power? Deadly force has its own criminal status. What's special about the "terror" in "terrorism" is that fear is the basis for power, regardless of whether force, deadly force, or just a media hoax is used. As I pointed out before, if the anthrax letters or even the 9-11 attacks themselves had been a hoax, they would have had the same effect on the general public via the media. If the issue with terrorism was deadly force, you would address that instead of the TERROR-ism, wouldn't you?

 

[CRGreathouse]

If you insist that a formal declaration of war is necessary to "legalize" killing, I would agree with you.

I didn't, I was stating it as a sufficient condition.

Foreign fighters were presumed to be al-Qaida operatives or supporters. As such, they can be suspected of criminal activities as associates of al-Qaida. Since they were foreigners in Afghanistan, they could not argue they were defending their homeland when they fired at US troops. They were simply criminal elements trying to avoid capture. However, since we are not able to charge them all and expect a conviction under US law, it may be useful hold them as POWs so we are not forced to release them by court order. I've said this tactic may not be acceptable to US courts just as it doesn't appear to be acceptable to you.

But 'defending one's homeland' isn't at issue here; being a POW is. Unless you're recommending that Afghan fighters be POWs and al-Qaida not be? But even then, distinguishing them in corner cases will be difficult.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

'defending one's homeland' isn't at issue here; being a POW is. Unless you're recommending that Afghan fighters be POWs and al-Qaida not be? But even then, distinguishing them in corner cases will be difficult.

Yes, at least a first cut. I guess I didn't make that clear. As I've said, reclassification is a tactic to buy time. You understand that the US doesn't seem to have enough evidence to win a conviction for all but a few of the detainees. If the they are not charged, the USSC will likely order them released. If they are are charged, the Sixth Amendment clock starts running. I'm repeating myself here, but this a long and noisy thread (see post 86).

I've asked others, and I'm asking you: What's your solution?

 

[brainstorm]

Yes, at least a first cut. I guess I didn't make that clear. As I've said, reclassification is a tactic to buy time. You understand that the US doesn't seem to have enough evidence to win a conviction for all but a few of the detainees. If the they are not charged, the USSC will likely order them released. If they are are charged, the Sixth Amendment clock starts running. I'm repeating myself here, but this a long thread (see post 86).

I've asked others, and I'm asking you: What's your solution?

Do you see how you're framing this issue here? You talk about "winning" convictions and "clocks ticking" to release. When you talk in such terms, it distracts from what should be the real discussion, which is what these suspects have in fact been suspected for, and whether they are guilty of those activities. Sometimes hostages are taken for no other purpose than to make demands. If this is one of those cases, someone should claim that. Ultimately, people should be getting down to the basics of whether this is a tactical or judicial issue. Remember that releasing people without a formal procedure leaves the matter of their guilt open to speculation whereas due process allows them to be declared not-guilty. Still, there is another interest at work, which is that if suspects are found not-guilty, it makes the detaining authorities look bad, which may be enough pressure to ensure that guilt is attributed. Part of the legal process is supposed to neutralize against such interests, but is such neutrality ever really possible to ensure?

 

[nismaratwork]

Actually that's kind of exactly what you said.

Obviously these people wouldn't be held if there wasn't some belief that they could be dangerous, but that doesn't mean there's convincing evidence they are terrorists (if there was, we could charge them and throw them in jail!).

brainstorm, the default setup is that people need a visa to enter other countries. The fact that some countries then make deals to avoid the hassle of a visa is not an act of violence against civilians, and I find it hard to believe you really think it is

You gave me a specific hypothetical in which a court is demanding release, but the president KNOWS that someone is dangerous. As far as I know, this doesn't exist. I answered your hypothetical, but that doesn't mean I believe that the GITMO detainees are dangerous as a group.

Brainstorm: See my above statement... Beyond that, I don't believe what I'm proposing is ethical, just effective. I also don't believe that the the remaining detainees are ticking time-bombs of terror... ooh, alliteration. I think that most can be safely repatriated or tried. I was given a specific hypothetical, that's all.

 

[mugaliens]

I don't know what the solution is. Despite my military service, and knowing what some of these folks have done, including what some of them have done after being released, I'm inclined to try them in a war crimes tribunal, not through normal civil or criminal proceedings.

The thing of it is, waging war is not against international law, and without having actually comitted crimes against the laws of war, such as "deliberate instigation of aggressive wars, extermination of racial and religious groups, murder and mistreatment of prisoners of war, and the muder, mistreatment, and deportation of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of countries occupied by..."

Oh, wait - that was World War II, and the accusations levies by the prosecutors on October 18, 1945, at the Nuremberg Trials.

Reading the above, however, it's clear that much of the acitivities which landed these "detainees" in Gitmo is most certainly along the lines of the prosecution during the Nuremburg Trials.

Try 'em as war criminals. You can't just hold them indefinately, but whatever we do, folks, do NOT just let the heinous people go!

Ok, fine - let's let 'em go. While we're at it, let's empty the nearest max security prisons in and around your hometowns.

Seriously, and please - I ask you to reconsider. These are not "nice but unfortunate people" as some folks in the media would have you believe. Few of them acted in ways better than anyone on trial following WWII, and many have committed atrocities which have been far worse (the ordering of beheadings and suicide bombings of civilians come to mind).

"Civilization" has been around for several thousand years. If we're going to continue to have a civilized society, we must, absolutely, hold everyone accountable to certain broadly-acceptable standards of behavior. Nearly all people would agree the deliberate killing of innocent civilians is an atrocity which should never go unpunished (it's called murder, in case you're not familier with the term), yet the quagmire is that we targeted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki" as a way of ending the war in the Pacific with the least loss of life on both sides. Most people forget the psychological importance of the targets, as well as the herculenean task of invading the Japanese homeland. It was either use the bombs or suffer further losses of millions on each side before the Japanese would surrender. It was a choice of the lesser of two evils.

Terrorists don't choose between a lesser of evils, nor do they bother with more traditional means of electing and/or participating in governments or free speech as a way of improving their society. Instead, they resort to murder, mayhem, sensationalism, all means of violently forced coersian, and often on non-combatants at that, in order to achieve their largely religious or ideological goals.

How would you view a local military with oversight of a small colony who gathers about a hundred members of that colony in the church, then chains the doors and orders it burned?

How would you view some guy who decides to, plans, and succeeds in blowing up a major Oklahoma office building, killing 168 innocent men, women, and children, and injuring 450 others?

I'm sorry for this face of terrorism, which those of us here in America know quite well. The first is from a scene in the movie, The Patriot. The second is not a scene many of us would like to remember. I need not mention the twin towers except as in passing.

Make no mistake. This is the face of terrorism. Their goal is to accomplish this mayhem in order to draw attention to their cause while manipulating you to "feel their plight."

Don't. Please, do not believe in their ploy.

They are there in Gitmo for a reason, and that reason is that they have violated the laws of war, some barely, some massively.

I was never privvy to any details on any of the inmates at Gitmo. I do suspect, however, that some were detained and sent there not because they had either committed or ordered any atrocities themselves, but because they were knowledgeable of those who had. You may feel a serious empathy for those folks. In a way, I do too, except for one thing: Accessory after the fact. Here in the U.S., as well as in nearly all of the leading 100 countries in our world, it's a crime, as it helps enable the criminals to continue to get away with criminal activity.

In the case of those at Gitmo, if those who are knowledgeable of those who had committed atrocities are choosing to remain silent, then they are accessories after the fact to terrorism. They are choosing to support terrorism, rather than choosing to support the rule of law in our world.

I don't know what happens to those whom were caught up in the events but who readily cooperated with international authorities after they were caught. But I do think this is really where the focus needs to be. No, we don't need the particulars! But we do need to know that such folks, if in fact they did not willingly participate in terrorism, that they did in fact willingly participate in helping our civilized society to rid ourselves of terrorism.

If I'm not mistaken, of the two of the individuals associated with turning evidence against McVeigh, one was given immunity for their cooperation and the other was released into the witness protection program.

Good for them!

So why am I focusing on the Murrah bombing? Simple. My Mom was from Oklahoma. Fortunately, she lived. Unfortunately, a couple of her friends did not. I myself lost two friends in the 911 attacks, and have one more in its aftermath.

I absolutely cannot begin to fathom the utter loss of life during WWII, Kmer Rouge, Ghana, Rwuanda, Yugoslavia, or Darfu.

I do ask you, however, to never forget that it has several names, depending on both the reason as to why its done, as well as its intended outcome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism" is another.

So, back to the Iraq/Afghan wars and their "detainees"? Still think they should be released?

 

[CRGreathouse]

You understand that the US doesn't seem to have enough evidence to win a conviction for all but a few of the detainees.

That doesn't strike me as a problem: they should try them and release them if there's not enough evidence. I assume there's some country that would take them.

 

[mheslep]

That doesn't strike me as a problem: they should try them and release them if there's not enough evidence. I assume there's some country that would take them.

There's a good chance they would remain here, under order of the court. If they are not convicted, the courts might well take a dim view of the government acting to deport someone found innocent, and not a POW, that the government brought here in the first place, which brings us back to another reason for POW status.

 

[nismaratwork]

There's a good chance they would remain here, under order of the court. If they are not convicted, the courts might well take a dim view of the government acting to deport someone found innocent, and not a POW, that the government brought here in the first place, which brings us back to another reason for POW status.

That's not within the purview of the courts; these people are not American citizens, and are therefore subject to deportation. The issue is that we have to find countries willing to take them, and many are not.

 

[brainstorm]

That's not within the purview of the courts; these people are not American citizens, and are therefore subject to deportation. The issue is that we have to find countries willing to take them, and many are not.

If the courts find that people arrested and detained are subject to constitutional rights and protections, it may we be illegal to export people for punishment. If it is illegal to detain someone without trial but by deporting them they can be held somewhere else indefinitely without trial, that would seem to be a loop hole in constitutional protection, no? Oh wait, GITMO is that "somewhere else" that escapes constitutional obligations. Does the constitution regulate deportation? If not, which laws do?

 

[russ_watters]

If the courts find that people arrested and detained are subject to constitutional rights and protections, it may we be illegal to export people for punishment.

nismaratwork did not suggest they should be exported for punishment. And someone captured in a war is most certainly not subject to constitutional rights and protections.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

nismaratwork did not suggest they should be exported for punishment. And someone captured in a war is most certainly not subject to constitutional rights and protections.

The US Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the detainees cannot be held indefinitely without charges and that detainees have a right to have their cases heard in civilian courts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/12/supremecourt/main4175226.shtml

 

[jwxie]

The US Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the detainees cannot be held indefinitely without charges and that detainees have a right to have their cases heard in civilian courts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/12/supremecourt/main4175226.shtml

What the court says doesn't really matter because the WH can simply ignore the decision made by the judiciary, just like Jackson did.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

What the court says doesn't really matter because the WH can simply ignore the decision made by the judiciary, just like Jackson did.

See my post 61 (page 4).

 

[jwxie]

Yes I just read the #61. Nixon was a different story, wasn't he? The Senates is right and the Supreme Court is right about the decision. The scandal brought resentment, and the public demanded investigation. So the Senates took the action, and Nixon resigned.

The detainees issue is not a scandal. It was a legacy problem left by the Bush administration, and proposals have been rejected by many American citizens.

The WH has the final says here. Note that politicians don't give a damn until some serious reactions slapped their faces. That was the case with Nixon.