Thats easy, They are captured terrorist. As we all know the terrorist
have no country to call home. International laws do not apply and the
rules of the geneva convention do not apply either.

Joe

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:25:37 +1000, OzOne said:

Don't you think that it would be a good idea if the guys that you
_suspect_ of having shot at your guys had some evidence presented to
show that they had actually done that...any time in the 3 years that
some have been held would be nice....or is it 4 years since
Afghanistan?

No, Oz, I don't think it would be a good idea to hold a trial for every
captured POW over whether he was in fact fighting. How many of those trials
were there in WWI? WWII? The Korean conflict? The Vietnam war? Any other war
you can name

.............. except that your Govt has *specifically* denied that
these people are POW's. Now, where does that leave your argument, Dave?

PDW

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:59:03 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

............. except that your Govt has *specifically* denied that
these people are POW's. Now, where does that leave your argument, Dave?

If you accept the argument that POWs may be detained until after hostilities
have ended, it strengthens the argument. As irregular combatants refusing to
observe the laws of war, these people, when captured, are certainly entitled
to no greater rights to be freed than a regular enemy soldier would be, and
probably lesser rights.

Your Govt has denied that they're POW's, Dave. Fact. Stop squirming
about. All you've written above is off point.

If they *were* POW's, the behaviour of your Govt violates the Geneva
Convention on treatment of captured soldiers. Which is why the US has
been so vehement that they're not holding POW's.

Unfortunately for you, as Doug has pointed out, there doesn't seem to
be a category for you to legally hold them. Why don't you just admit
that fact?

"lesser rights". It was people like you who helped remove fundamental
protections from those who needed them most in the past. You would have
been looking for ways to lock up the Nisei and confiscate their
possessions in WW2.

Years ago, in one of Bob Brownell's books on gunsmithing, there's a
quote that has always stuck in my mind. It was to the effect that you
don't act like a gentleman because the other guy is (or isn't), you act
that way because you *are* one. Transfer that concept to human rights
and the rights under law and your Govt's behaviour is damn shabby, your
rhetoric hollow, and your commitment to equal treatment under the law
shown for the farce most people suspected.

I personally am disappointed.

PDW

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:18:23 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

Unfortunately for you, as Doug has pointed out, there doesn't seem to
be a category for you to legally hold them.

Here we have a major philosophical difference. You seem to be operating on
the "Captain may I" principle. That is, all is forbidden which is not
explicitly authorized. You can do nothing which is not approved by "the
authorities." A quite European notion foreign to most of us in this country.
How else does one explain the "category for you to legally hold them"
language?

In the U.S., on the other hand, we generally operate on the principle that
all is permitted which is not forbidden. Thus when someone says a particular
action is forbidden, the burden in on him to provide the authority for that
proposition, not on the person whose action is allegedly forbidden.

OK, then why do you hold Hicks? Your govt is forbidding him from
leaving Guantanamo Bay. You're saying that his departure is forbidden.
By your own logic, the burden is on you to show authority. You've just
demonstrated my point. Thanks.

I believe that Govt is forbidden to do anything not specifically
authorised. You think that the Govt can do anything not specifically
forbidden. You invert this in saying that I believe that *I* (and by
extension, all individuals) can do nothing without permission. That's
*your* argument WRT private citizens.

I assert that absent a law stopping him, Hicks has the right go as and
where he pleases. You assert that absent a law forbidding the Govt
holding him, it is free to do so. Then you attempt to invert this by
swapping the roles of citizen and Govt. Poor, Dave. Very poor.

Typical lawyer. Your approach leads to endless search for loopholes and
exploiting anomolies.

Your argument boils down to a statement that unless there's a law
forbidding your Govt from taking some action, it's ok to do it. Fine.

BTW, by no stretch of the imagination could I or my fellows be
considered European.

PDW

Dave wrote:
In the U.S., on the other hand, we generally operate on the principle that
all is permitted which is not forbidden.

Wrong, the Constitution specifically says that all powers not granted
expressly are reserved for the states, or for the people.... ie
everything that's not expressly permitted in writing is forbidden.


1- point out the section of the U.S. COnstitution which says "Persons
suspected of being involved in terrorism, or other unanmed & unknown
threats against the U.S., may be imprisoned & sequestered indefinitely
with no charges, no trial, at the whim of the current President."

2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?





...Thus when someone says a particular
action is forbidden, the burden in on him to provide the authority for that
proposition, not on the person whose action is allegedly forbidden.


Kinda like 'guilty until proven innocent' eh? I'm glad as hell you're
not *my* lawyer.

For the record- I am not against the idea of imprisoning & even
sequestering people taken captive in anti-terrorist operations. But
there must be a due process of law, and there must be accountability.
Both are sadly lacking at Gitmo.

DSK

2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?


Dave wrote:
Wrong argument on several scores, Doug.

That must be why you cannot answer the question I asked.

... But perhaps I can help you focus
your thinking more clearly.


I doubt it, since you cannot answer two simple questions on the subject.

As you know, the courts have held that those held in Gitmo are entitled to a
hearing in some form.

True, and actually a bit surprising. I assume things will be different
now the Chief Justice Roberts is in the saddle, and even more different
once Ms. Meirs joins in.

The next obvious question (not that I expect you to answer, since you've
scrupulously avoided answering my questions so far) is 'How long can the
U.S. hold prisoners without even granting them any hearing?' The answer
is obviously in excess of three years.

DSK

Dave wrote:
That's pretty funny, Doug, since you carefully edited out the very simple
factual question I asked, and didn't respond to it.


I asked you first.

DSK

"DSK" wrote
2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?

Absolutely not. But it is my understanding that those imprisoned at Gitmo
were tried in the country where they were captured, not necessarily IAW US
law but at least by military tribunal, and were found guilty. Then rather
than being killed or imprisoned there, they were turned over to us on the
promise that we would not let them return because we believed they had info
we needed. Thus expecting them to be given additional trials at Gitmo is
equivalent to having courtrooms in a stateside max security prison - it just
don't happen.

"DSK" wrote
...... I assume things will be different
now the Chief Justice Roberts is in the saddle, and even more different
once Ms. Meirs joins in.

No telling what either will do once a lifetime appointment that assures
their place in history frees them from political servitude. As a politician
and governor of California, Earl Warren was practically a fascist - anti
freedom, anti-union, pro big government and business. Yet his court upheld
out right to privacy which underpins Roe vs Wade, legalized birth control,
and a host of other "liberal" causes. What if Roberts was abused as an
alter boy ..... (c:

2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?


Vito wrote:
Absolutely not.

Good, we're agreed.

Oddly enough, Dave has avoided answering this question.

... But it is my understanding that those imprisoned at Gitmo
were tried in the country where they were captured

That's contrary to what I have heard.

The Gitmo prisoners are from a number of sources. Some (perhaps most)
are battlefield captives, others were grabbed in counter terrorist
sweeps. At least a few were turned over to the U.S. military by other
"gov't agencies."



... not necessarily IAW US
law but at least by military tribunal, and were found guilty. Then rather
than being killed or imprisoned there, they were turned over to us on the
promise that we would not let them return because we believed they had info
we needed. Thus expecting them to be given additional trials at Gitmo is
equivalent to having courtrooms in a stateside max security prison - it just
don't happen.


If that were the case, I'd agree. But I don't think it is, at least not
for the majority.

Consider this, why would we keep prisoners ourselves, if the military
suspects they have info on terrorist operations and/or organization,
when we can hand them over to one of our 3rd world "allies" secret
police who will simply torture it out of them pronto? OTOH since the
Bush Administration endorses the U.S. military torturing prisoners, why
do we need to keep them at all?

I suspect a lot of these guys are being held because somebody, somewhere
deep in the belly of some spook ops dept, thinks they will be able to be
'turned' and used as a U.S. counter agent in the future.

DSK