.... If the prisoner is captured sans uniform or ID card
international law allows it.

I guess if you repeat it long enough, you come to believe it yourself.

... It may be arbitrary and even barbaric by our
US/UK standards but that is exactly the way most of the world does things.

If the rest of the world jumped on a bridge, would you do that too?

Dave wrote:
Your thinking is hopelessly muddled, Vito. Whether detaining a combatant for
the duration is consistent with law, or desirable from a policy standpoint,
is a perfectly valid inquiry, and I'm inclined to agree with you that they
may be held. But justifying that determination by calling the decision to
hold each one a "trial" is simply an exercise in doublespeak.

I'm curious about issue of holding detainees for the duration. It makes
sense, but shouldn't each one have a hearing to determine that he really
truly was a combatant, not just some unlucky schmuck whose neighbor had
a grudge?

I have not seen any justification under any law for holding any class of
prisoner indefinitely with no due process at all, ever.

Of course by now, we've held them for years... I'd be pretty f&^&in mad
if it happened to me, if they weren't combatants before they will be as
soon as they're freed. And this is wise policy?!?

DSK

DSK wrote:
If the rest of the world jumped on a bridge, would you do that too?


Oops. That should read "jumped *OFF* a bridge" of course. I'm sure most
of you all figured that out.

DSK

Dave wrote:
I will quibble with one point. Each one should have an opportunity to demand
a hearing. That's a bit different from saying a hearing must be held for
each one.

Sure is. And it makes sense, why waste time & effort on giving hearings
to people who don't want them?


.... How you cope with the situation if every prisoner held demands a
hearing before the tribunal is another matter.

Are you asking me? I'd give each one a hearing of course... but then if
it were up to me, I already would have... it's outrageous to imprison
people for years trying to avoid the issue of finding out for real if
they should be prisoners...

Just like I would have made it clear up and down the whole chain of
command that we are the good guys, and good guys don't torture prisoners.

Hey, if they all demand hearings, maybe we can draft some lawyers

DSK

Muslims , around the world, are aggressive towards their neighbors
(Philippines ,Thailand, Bali ,Kashmir, Israel , The Sudan, Algeria ,
France, Lower Manhattan ) and have been since their inception (the invasion
of Spain in 711 and France in 732-etc.,etc.). At the root is Mohammed, who
killed those who disagreed with him, and his Koran calling for the murder
of those who will not "submit". This is less a religion than priestly
theocratic fascism, and free peoples need to treat it as we dealt with
similar threats.


"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote
Nope! If the person has proper identification and credentials, and is
dressed in a business suit, it should be sufficient.

That is absolute rubbish!!! The 9/11 hijackers could easily have
satisfied
your criteria.

The 9/11 hijackers had US DoD ID badges and courier cards? I don't think
so.
But, in any event, airport security didn't stop them then nor would it
stop
them now. The problem was in the air. A hijacking had always meant a
little time spent in Cuba or other unintended destination but loss of life
had been very seldom. Hence air crews were trained to accomodate hjackers
willingly. And that's what happened in all but the last plane. That policy
has changed. I doubt 5 (?) hijackers could seize control of a plane
carrying 100+ people with box cutters today.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 09:57:10 -0500, "Vito" said:

....... As I understand your position it's that if one
person in authority looks at a prisoner and says "I think he should go
to
jail" or "I think he should go to Gitmo" that's a "trial." .....

That's right! If the prisoner is captured sans uniform or ID card
international law allows it. It may be arbitrary and even barbaric by our
US/UK standards but that is exactly the way most of the world does
things.
More important that is the way the people we are talking about do things,
the was they treat themselves, and that is the standard they are trying
to
impose on us, and others, by terrorism.

Your thinking is hopelessly muddled, Vito. Whether detaining a combatant
for
the duration is consistent with law, or desirable from a policy
standpoint,
is a perfectly valid inquiry, and I'm inclined to agree with you that they
may be held. But justifying that determination by calling the decision to
hold each one a "trial" is simply an exercise in doublespeak.

Hey, I'm just going by international law and Afghan legal custom. The
Geneva Convention doesn't require proof like a US/UK court would - but
rather only suspicion.
"Article 5: Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter
is satisfied
that an individual protected person is *definitely suspected of or engaged
in*
activities hostile to the security of the State,......."

A kid I knew got drunk in Mexico and wrecked his car. One passenger was
ejected and killed. He and his other passengers were taken to Jail. The next
afternoon they were told that their trials had been held without them. The
passengers were given probation and told to stay out of Mexico. The driver
got a year in prison. Was that a trial?? US Government said yes - if you
don't like it don't break the law in Mexico. I'm just following the same
rules - don't get caught fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan unless
you're willing to go to Gitmo.

"DSK" wrote
.... If the prisoner is captured sans uniform or ID card
international law allows it.

I guess if you repeat it long enough, you come to believe it yourself.

I cited the applicable part of the Geneva Convention. What more do you
want?

... It may be arbitrary and even barbaric by our
US/UK standards but that is exactly the way most of the world does
things.

If the rest of the world jumped on a bridge, would you do that too?

No - that's why I don't go the Muslim countries or break any laws outside
the US. But if I left a family without support to go fight for the Taliban
I'd expect to end up in Gitmo ... or a nuthouse.

Dave wrote:
Your thinking is hopelessly muddled, Vito. Whether detaining a combatant
for
the duration is consistent with law, or desirable from a policy
standpoint,
is a perfectly valid inquiry, and I'm inclined to agree with you that
they
may be held. But justifying that determination by calling the decision
to
hold each one a "trial" is simply an exercise in doublespeak.

I'm curious about issue of holding detainees for the duration. It makes
sense, but shouldn't each one have a hearing to determine that he really
truly was a combatant, not just some unlucky schmuck whose neighbor had
a grudge?

"Unlucky schmuck" is a bit of a stretch yourself. We are only holding a
tiny percent of captives at Gitmo - those suspicious enough and valuable
enough to be worth the bother. The average Taliban grunt doesn't go there
much less unlucky schmucks. It's too expensive.

I have not seen any justification under any law for holding any class of
prisoner indefinitely with no due process at all, ever.

Article 5: Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied
that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in
activities hostile to the security of the State,.....

The local "magistrate" (OK, tribal leader) decided each one was "definately
suspected" and then a US Intel Officer agreed before any were sent to Gitmo.
That's how they got there. That is "due process" under both Afghan and
international law.

Of course by now, we've held them for years... I'd be pretty f&^&in mad
if it happened to me, if they weren't combatants before they will be as
soon as they're freed. And this is wise policy?!?

No! That's why we will return most to Afghanistan for execution when
finished.

Vito wrote:
.... Was that a trial?? US Government said yes - if you
don't like it don't break the law in Mexico.

I tend to think it also proves that you shouldn't necessarily take the
gov't's word for what constitutes a fair trial.

... I'm just following the same
rules - don't get caught fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan unless
you're willing to go to Gitmo.


Or don't **** off your neighbor who might work for the CIA, and hold
enough of a grudge to drag you in.

DSK

"DSK" wrote
However I *am* claiming (because it is a fact) that there is NO law
saying it's OK to hold prisoners indefinitely,....

You're right. Nowhere will we find "it's OK to hold ...etc." What we do
find is rules that say "I the prisoner meets certain criteria he cannot be
held ... etc." The detainees at Gitmo do not neet these criteria. Ergo they
can be held.

I guess if you repeat it long enough, you come to believe it yourself.


Vito wrote:
I cited the applicable part of the Geneva Convention. What more do you
want?


Are you really a moron, or just playing one on TV?

All you have done is cite the code applying to POWs and say (repeatedly
& repeatedly & repeatedly & repeatedly & repeatedly) that these guys are
NOT POWs so these rules don't apply. Which I agree with.

It does not at all prove that any country is allowed to just grab people
at random and hold them prisoner indefinitely, with no due process.



If the rest of the world jumped on a bridge, would you do that too?


No - that's why I don't go the Muslim countries or break any laws outside
the US.

That's what *you* think.

Do you know how many laws there are? I bet you're breaking a large
number of them right now.


... But if I left a family without support to go fight for the Taliban
I'd expect to end up in Gitmo ... or a nuthouse.

Maybe so. And if you were grabbed off the street & tossed in jail with
no chance to prove you *weren't* fighing for the Taliban, you'd be
pretty PO'd.




"Unlucky schmuck" is a bit of a stretch yourself. We are only holding a
tiny percent of captives at Gitmo - those suspicious enough and valuable
enough to be worth the bother. The average Taliban grunt doesn't go there
much less unlucky schmucks. It's too expensive.

Ya think?

That's why they've already let go (after a year or so in prison) a 70+
year old man who was a farmer. They also released a British man to the
custody of England, there was zero evidence against him so they promptly
let him go.

Nice work, huh?




I have not seen any justification under any law for holding any class of
prisoner indefinitely with no due process at all, ever.


Article 5: Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied
that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in
activities hostile to the security of the State,.....

The local "magistrate" (OK, tribal leader) decided each one was "definately
suspected" and then a US Intel Officer agreed before any were sent to Gitmo.
That's how they got there. That is "due process" under both Afghan and
international law.

Horse ****.

Nothing of the kind has been claimed by anybody except you.

But wait... maybe you're a secret assistant to Rumsfeld, and have inside
info? Maybe that's what the voices told you?

DSK

"Barrett Bonden" wrote
....This (Islam) is less a religion than a priestly theocratic fascism, ...

Good point.