America is at war
 

Dave wrote:
This is fairly typical of the muddled thinking one sees in some quarters.

You forgot to accuse the other side of calling names instead of
presenting facts.

DSK

America is at war
 

Dave wrote:
Hardly a matter of "forgot." Some of us do apply a bit thinking with the
head before shooting from the lip. Peter hadn't, in the post to which I
responded, engaged in name calling. He had simply been guilty of muddled
thinking.

You're just saying that because you don't have an answer to his
statement... the Bush Administration insists that the Gitmo prisoners
are not POWs and refuses to accord them the rights due to such.

All we have is the repeated contention that they are "enemy combatants"
and therefor not due any process whatever.

How can any American can think it's right to simply grab people and
imprison them indefinitely, with no recourse to any legal procedure
whatever?

If they are enemies, then they are accorded the treatment due to
prisoners. If they are terrorists, then they get a trial. If they are
citizens of another country, we owe that gov't a legal process showing
why we are holding them.

DSK

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
You're just saying that because you don't have an answer to his
statement... the Bush Administration insists that the Gitmo prisoners
are not POWs and refuses to accord them the rights due to such.

All we have is the repeated contention that they are "enemy combatants"
and therefor not due any process whatever.

How can any American can think it's right to simply grab people and
imprison them indefinitely, with no recourse to any legal procedure
whatever?

If they are enemies, then they are accorded the treatment due to
prisoners. If they are terrorists, then they get a trial. If they are
citizens of another country, we owe that gov't a legal process showing
why we are holding them.

You are trying to apply logic to law but law is seldom logical.

The rules say that a 'combatant' captured out of uniform need not be treated
as a POW. He can be shot out of hand, held incommunicado indefinitely, even
killed without trial, as a spy or saboteur. According to Bush, those held at
Gitmo are in this special catagory.

America is at war
 

Doug,

If you think the Geneva Convention is a wonderful thing, I don't
understand why you would want to weaken it by implying there's no
advantage to
signing it. Al-Qaida and the talliban do not play by the rules of the
Geneva convention.
The geneva convention that covers the rights of prisoners had it's
standards set by civilized people.

Al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgents defy all the rules enshrined
and symbolized by the Geneva Convention (and, often, the Koran) and yet

administration critics piously demand that these thugs should be given
all
the benefits that come with being a signatory to it.

Well, if the barbarians get all of the benefits of the Geneva
Convention
without obeying any of its rules, then it becomes not merely quaint,
not
merely worthless, but a tool of those who wish to overthrow all it
stands
for.

Joe

America is at war
 

If they are enemies, then they are accorded the treatment due to
prisoners.


Dave wrote:
Nice try, but no cigar, Doug. There's no convention dealing with "enemies."
There is one dealing with "prisoners of war." The two are not synonyms.


I didn't claim they were.


Vito wrote:
You are trying to apply logic to law but law is seldom logical.

The rules say that a 'combatant' captured out of uniform need not be treated
as a POW. He can be shot out of hand, held incommunicado indefinitely

Wrong.

... even
killed without trial, as a spy or saboteur. According to Bush, those held at
Gitmo are in this special catagory.


This is a reply to both Vito & Dave.

There is no category of person who can be "held incommunicado
indefinitely."

Spies, pirates, and mutineers caught in the act can be killed on the
spot, but when captured they must also be given due process. Enemy
soldiers on the battlefield can be killed. Otherwise it's simply murder.

To repeat- I do not comprehend why *any* American thinks it's OK to
simply grab people and lock them up forever, just because it's
convenient for the gov't. It would have been inconcievable to me a few
short years ago that any American would approve of torture of prisoners.

But it's happening. At least we can still sing songs about how brave &
free we are.

DSK

America is at war
 

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:00:16 -0400, DSK said:

If they are enemies, then they are accorded the treatment due to
prisoners.

Nice try, but no cigar, Doug. There's no convention dealing with "enemies."
There is one dealing with "prisoners of war." The two are not synonyms.

Now the question is, was your argument evidence of your inability to think
clearly, or the opposite--your ability to manipulate the language to fool
others who don't think clearly.

Is the United States not a member of the United Nations and as such a
signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights?

Cheers
Martin

America is at war
 

Joe wrote:

the benefits that come with being a signatory to it.

Well, if the barbarians get all of the benefits of the Geneva
Convention
without obeying any of its rules, then it becomes not merely quaint,
not
merely worthless, but a tool of those who wish to overthrow all it
stands
for.


Joe I think your understanding of the situation is rather puerile, one
cannot call oneself "civilized" and at the same time resort to
barbarianism: The Geneva Conventions apply to situations outside of war.
I suggest you Google up the "Convention against Torture", I'll include a
bit here for you to read:


Article 16

1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under
its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when
such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent
or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles
10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to
torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.

Now I remind you that the USA is a signatory to this convention, there
is nothing in this Convention that requires that detainees, of any ilk,
must be from a nation that is also a signatory in order to receive the
protection provided therein.

Cheers
Martin
Joe
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----

America is at war
 

I suggest you google up what the Geneva convention says about spies.

Essentially, under the GC, the captives in Gitmo are spies.

Article 46.-Spies

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this
Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who
falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage
shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be
treated as a spy.

2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on
behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party,
gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as
engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his
armed forces.

3. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is a
resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who, on behalf
of the Party on which he depends, gathers or attempts to gather
information of military value within that territory shall not be
considered as engaging in espionage unless he does so through an act of
false pretences or deliberately in a clandestine manner. Moreover, such
a resident shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war
and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured while engaging in
espionage.

4. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is not a
resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who has engaged
in espionage in that territory shall not lose his right to the status
of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is
captured before he has rejoined the armed forces to which he belongs.


I would welcome a cited excerpt of the GC, saying differently and
describing the type of "warrior" OBL, AQ and fellow
travellers are.

Joe

America is at war
 

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
Doug,

If you think the Geneva Convention is a wonderful thing, I don't
understand why you would want to weaken it by implying there's no
advantage to
signing it. Al-Qaida and the talliban do not play by the rules of the
Geneva convention.
The geneva convention that covers the rights of prisoners had it's
standards set by civilized people.

The true test of a civilization is not how it treats good and decent
people, but how it treats those who do evil.

Our laws and constitution are designed not for majority rule, but
rather to protect the minority from the majority.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

America is at war
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
And does that say that when you capture people trying to kill your soldiers
you have to immediately let them go so they can return to the battle field?
I don't think.

hmmmm....


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

America is at war
 

Right you are Jon,

Lets set these guys up with a 7-11 store..... or give them
shrimpboats.

Joe

America is at war
 

Martin Baxter said:
Is the United States not a member of the United Nations and as such a
signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights?


Yeah, but they had their fingers crossed behind their back when they
signed it.

Dave wrote:
And does that say that when you capture people trying to kill your soldiers
you have to immediately let them go so they can return to the battle field?
I don't think so.

I don't either. And nobody has suggested that... gee, and you accuse me
of setting up a straw man.

Tell me, what category of persons can legally be imprisoned indefinitely
with no due process and no recourse, going solely on the gov't's say-so?
Are you in favor of the US becoming a Stalinist state that creates
"un-persons"?

DSK

America is at war
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:52:01 -0400, DSK said:

Dave wrote:
This is fairly typical of the muddled thinking one sees in some quarters.

You forgot to accuse the other side of calling names instead of
presenting facts.

Hardly a matter of "forgot." Some of us do apply a bit thinking with the
head before shooting from the lip. Peter hadn't, in the post to which I
responded, engaged in name calling. He had simply been guilty of muddled
thinking.

So..... which bit of muddled thinking was it when you called these
people POW's, then?

PDW

America is at war
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:10:58 -0400, DSK said:


There is no category of person who can be "held incommunicado
indefinitely."

Straw man, Doug.

OK, how long, then?

A day?

A week?

A month?

A year?

2 years?

3 years?

5 years?

10 years?

At the Govt's pleasure?

You guys have brought back the old pre-Revolutionary French system of
lettres de cachet. Face it, your principles have been tested and found
wanting.

Hicks et al have been locked up, without contact with family, friends,
legal aid of their free choice etc etc for 3 years now. No oversight by
anyone of any independent nature. Even during WW2, the Red Cross got
into the German POW camps. You guys are acting along with the Japanese
& USSR.

Anyone can stick to their principles when the going is easy, and it
doesn't hurt. The acid test comes when things aren't going well. You
guys have failed.

I wouldn't have had the slightest problem if these people had been shot
if/when caught on a battlefield, in possession of arms, any more than I
do about killing the insurgents with arms in Iraq. However, once
captured, you need to deal with them in a civilised manner, not because
*they* are civilised, but because *you* purport to be.

PDW

America is at war
 

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:22:58 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

Is the United States not a member of the United Nations and as such a
signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights?

And does that say that when you capture people trying to kill your soldiers
you have to immediately let them go so they can return to the battle field?
I don't think so.


It says everyone is entitled to due process, it does not say you may
invade another country, capture and detain anyone you like without
charge, occupy said country indefinitely, all without formal declaration
of war.


Cheers
Martin

America is at war
 

Joe wrote:

I suggest you google up what the Geneva convention says about spies.


Are you suggesting that those captured on Afghan soil are spies?

Cheers
Martin
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

America is at war
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:19:09 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

So..... which bit of muddled thinking was it when you called these
people POW's, then?

I don't recall doing so, but perhaps you can identify the message where you
believe I did.

Crawfish followed by a pike!

PDW

America is at war
 

Fighting out of uniform for an army makes you a spy. The Geneva
convention is very clear on the matter.

Joe

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
There is no category of person who can be "held incommunicado
indefinitely."

Spies, pirates, and mutineers caught in the act can be killed on the
spot, but when captured they must also be given due process.

Ahhh, now I see what you missed. These people did get "due process" in the
form of a militry tribunal back in Afghanistan or Iraq. Thats how they ended
up at Gitmo instead of a local prison, being shot, or being set free.

I we houldn't hold them indefinately. We should have been hanging them from
day one.

America is at war
 

Vito wrote:
Ahhh, now I see what you missed. These people did get "due process" in the
form of a militry tribunal back in Afghanistan or Iraq. Thats how they ended
up at Gitmo instead of a local prison, being shot, or being set free.


???

Do you have a reference for this?

Even the military supervisors of the Gitmo prison don't know where some
of the captives came from, nor who captured them. Many were handed over
to military custody by clandestine agencies.


I we houldn't hold them indefinately. We should have been hanging them from
day one.


The ones who are given due process, sure. Or stoned, if that's more in
accordance with their own laws.

My problem is that the U.S. gov't is engaging in the practice of simply
imprisoning lots of people without showing any reason why, nor giving
any reasonable proof of guilt, in fact, denying the whole concept of any
accountability in the matter.

A strange thing for a proponent of 'freedom' to do.

DSK

America is at war
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote
OK, how long, then?
......
At the Govt's pleasure?

You guys have brought back the old pre-Revolutionary French system of
lettres de cachet. Face it, your principles have been tested and found
wanting......
I wouldn't have had the slightest problem if these people had been shot
if/when caught on a battlefield, in possession of arms, any more than I
do about killing the insurgents with arms in Iraq. However, once
captured, you need to deal with them in a civilised manner, not because
*they* are civilised, but because *you* purport to be.

You're right. But there guys had a trial back where they were captured.
Their sentance was detention at Gitmo instead of local prison, death or
freedom. They were sent to Gitmo because their trial determined they had
useful information. Once it is extracted they should be hanged.

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
Tell me, what category of persons can legally be imprisoned indefinitely
with no due process and no recourse, going solely on the gov't's say-so?

Those who would otherwise be put to death where they were captured but who
possess information that we need.

America is at war
 

Vito wrote:

But there guys had a trial back where they were captured.
Their sentance was detention at Gitmo instead of local prison, death or
freedom. They were sent to Gitmo because their trial determined they had
useful information. Once it is extracted they should be hanged.

Where can I obtain transcripts of these "trials", or are they like
Chinese State trials and secret?

Cheers
Martin

America is at war
 

Joe wrote:

Fighting out of uniform for an army makes you a spy. The Geneva
convention is very clear on the matter.

Indeed it is, from your own post "3. A member of the armed forces of a
Party to the conflict who is a
resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who, on behalf
of the Party on which he depends, gathers or attempts to gather
information of military value within that territory shall not be
considered as engaging in espionage..".

Even if the above were not true, nowhere in the Geneva Convention is an
act of combat defined as spying.

Now before you fly of the handle, I don't like what these miscreants
did, or stand for anymore than you, but if you arbitrarely imprison, or
excecute them without due process you become no better than they are.
Even Hitlers henchmen got trials.

Cheers
Martin

America is at war
 

Dave wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:12:33 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

And does that say that when you capture people trying to kill your soldiers
you have to immediately let them go so they can return to the battle field?
I don't think so.


It says everyone is entitled to due process, it does not say you may
invade another country, capture and detain anyone you like without
charge, occupy said country indefinitely, all without formal declaration
of war.

Now could you answer the question I asked?

I'm sorry Dave I did.

Cheers
Martin

America is at war
 

Now could you answer the question I asked?

I'm sorry Dave I did.


Sorry? For what? You didn't asnwer the question, Martin.


RB

America is at war
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote:

Now could you answer the question I asked?

I'm sorry Dave I did.

Sorry? For what? You didn't asnwer the question, Martin.

RB

Go away Bob, your out without your mommy again.

Cheers
Martin

America is at war
 

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
Fighting out of uniform for an army makes you a spy. The Geneva
convention is very clear on the matter.

Joe


Next time I get into an argument with she-who-must-be-obeyed, I'll
remind her of that.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

America is at war
 

Dave wrote:



Now could you answer the question I asked?

I'm sorry Dave I did.

No, you engaged in considerable elision, but didn't answer the question. The
question required a simple yes or no answer. I take it that the answer to my
question is no.

Pots and kettles, you chose to parry my question with another, I chose
to by just as evasive.
To borrow from Doug, you first. When did elision move from the
linguists' lexicon to that of the jurist?

Cheers
Martin

America is at war
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote
Where can I obtain transcripts of these "trials", or are they like
Chinese State trials and secret?

You can't. They are like Chinese trials, or even worse by US/UK standards.
They may involve a local tribal leader or mullah hearing evidence and
declaring guilt. But they ARE legitimate in accordance with local custom.
Thus those held at Gitmo are convicted criminals according to the law where
they were captured.

As we both know, law in Afghanistan or Iraq or any Muslim country, or France
or Spain or Cuba for that matter, is very different than that in the USA or
UK. If one doesn't like it one shouldn't go to those countries. We are
merely acting a surrogates for the countries where these convicted criminals
were captured because we believe they have info we need. Otherwise, they
should be hanged, shot or beheaded IAW the laws of those countries. US law
does not apply.

America is at war
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:26:33 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

OK, how long, then?

A day?

A week?

A month?

A year?

2 years?

3 years?

5 years?

Perhaps the following excerpt from the opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld may be
enlightening:

" The capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture,
detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by "universal agreement and
practice," are "important incident[s] of war." Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S.,
at 28. The purpose of detention is to prevent captured individuals from
returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again. Naqvi,
Doubtful Prisoner-of-War Status, 84 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 571, 572 (2002)
("[C]aptivity in war is 'neither revenge, nor punishment, but solely
protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of
war from further participation in the war' " (quoting decision of Nuremberg
Military Tribunal, reprinted in 41 Am. J. Int'l L. 172, 229 (1947)); W.
Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 788 (rev. 2d ed. 1920) ("The time has
long passed when 'no quarter' was the rule on the battlefield ... . It is
now recognized that 'Captivity is neither a punishment nor an act of
vengeance,' but 'merely a temporary detention which is devoid of all penal
character.' ... 'A prisoner of war is no convict; his imprisonment is a
simple war measure.' " (citations omitted); cf. In re Territo, 156 F. 2d
142, 145 (CA9 1946) ("The object of capture is to prevent the captured
individual from serving the enemy. He is disarmed and from then on must be
removed as completely as practicable from the front, treated humanely, and
in time exchanged, repatriated, or otherwise released" (footnotes
omitted))."

............ except as you have admitted, these people aren't prisoners
of war and therefore none of the above is relevant.


And later in the opinion:

"Active combat operations against Taliban fighters apparently are ongoing in
Afghanistan. See, e.g., Constable, U. S. Launches New Operation in
Afghanistan, Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2004, p. A22 (reporting that 13,500
United States troops remain in Afghanistan, including several thousand new
arrivals); J. Abizaid, Dept. of Defense, Gen. Abizaid Central Command
Operations Update Briefing, Apr. 30, 2004,
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0430-1402.html (as visited
June 8, 2004, and available in the Clerk of Court's case file) (media
briefing describing ongoing operations in Afghanistan involving 20,000
United States troops). The United States may detain, for the duration of
these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban
combatants who "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States." If
the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in
active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of
"necessary and appropriate force," and therefore are authorized by the
AUMF."

Ah. So there isn't a new Govt controlling Afghanistan, then? It's still
in the control of the Taliban as a political and military force?

Not.

PDW

America is at war
 

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0430-1402.html (as visited
June 8, 2004, and available in the Clerk of Court's case file) (media
briefing describing ongoing operations in Afghanistan involving 20,000
United States troops). The United States may detain, for the duration of
these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban
combatants who "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States." If
the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in
active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of
"necessary and appropriate force," and therefore are authorized by the
AUMF."


Peter Wiley wrote:
Ah. So there isn't a new Govt controlling Afghanistan, then? It's still
in the control of the Taliban as a political and military force?

Not.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an armed conflict going
on. In fact, the legal blah-blah Dave cited does make some sense and
could cover the case for prisoners from Afghanistan.

The problem is, it's *still* not what the U.S. gov't is doing with
regard to the Gitmo detainees, nor the 'War On Terror' in general.

DSK

America is at war
 

In article , DSK
wrote:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0430-1402.html (as visited
June 8, 2004, and available in the Clerk of Court's case file) (media
briefing describing ongoing operations in Afghanistan involving 20,000
United States troops). The United States may detain, for the duration of
these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban
combatants who "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States." If
the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in
active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of
"necessary and appropriate force," and therefore are authorized by the
AUMF."


Peter Wiley wrote:
Ah. So there isn't a new Govt controlling Afghanistan, then? It's still
in the control of the Taliban as a political and military force?

Not.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an armed conflict going
on. In fact, the legal blah-blah Dave cited does make some sense and
could cover the case for prisoners from Afghanistan.

The problem is, it's *still* not what the U.S. gov't is doing with
regard to the Gitmo detainees, nor the 'War On Terror' in general.

The problem is, depending on how you define it, there's an armed
conflict going on in so many different places that you could detain
probably 75% of the planet's population.

Look at the USA and various nutcase militia examples. Is this an
example of an armed conflict?

I don't, as I've said, have any problem with dealing summarily with
people caught under arms, sans uniform, on the field of battle, or
shooting people in cities who are actively trying to shoot you.
However, if they're captured, they're then entitled to a trial.

Face it, the Gitmo people have been locked up away from legal advice
and subjected to psy abuse for years now. How long did it take to deal
with the Japanese and Germans after WW2 finished?

From
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj.../nurembergACCO
UNT.html

Twelve trials, involving over a hundred defendants and several
different courts, took place in Nuremberg from 1945 to 1949.* By far
the most attention--not surprisingly, given the figures involved--has
focused on the first Nuremberg trial of twenty-one major war
criminals.* Several of the eleven subsequent Nuremberg trials, however,
involved conduct no less troubling--and issues at least as
interesting--as the Major War Criminals Trial.* For example, the trial
of sixteen German judges and officials of the Reich Ministry (The
Justice Trial) considered the criminal responsibility of judges who
enforce immoral laws.* (The Justice Trial became the inspiration for
the acclaimed Hollywood movie, Judgment at Nuremberg.)* Other
subsequent trials, such as the Doctors Trial and the Einsatzgruppen
Trial, are especially compelling because of the horrific events
described by prosecution witnesses.* (These three subsequent trials
each receive separate coverage elsewhere in this website.)

You guys haven't even managed to bring ONE person to trial as yet. One
strongly suspects this is because, unlike the Nuremberg trials, there
*is* nothing to charge these people with. In which case, it's an act of
an arbitrary and untrustworthy Govt and as such deserves to be
condemned out of hand, lest someone else closer to home goes the same
way.

People like Dave & Vito would have given the Amistad slaves over to the
Spanish.

PDW