BS: Close Gitmo?

Subject: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 07:42 PM

Some folks have proposed that the Gitmo detention center at Guantanamo be closed because of the alleged atrocious acts that have been committed by the guards there against the detainees. They feel that it is hurting the image of the U. S. abroad.

I say horsepucky! The U. S. is hated around the world because this is the U. S. and George Bush is our president.

Closing Gitmo wouldn't help one bit to improve the image. If, however, Gitmo is closed, I do have a proposal to make. Since most of the major complainers are U. S. Senators, send the detainees to prisons in the states of those U. S. Senators who are proposing that the prison be closed.

If that is not acceptable (and I can just hear the screams from those senators already)perhaps they could be sent to Canada.

I think it's about time Canada started making SOME kind of contribution to the war against terror.

What do you think?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 07:45 PM

I don't know what you're smokin' but I WANT some, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 07:50 PM

Doug-
My objection to the Gitmo operation is that the detainees are not charged with anything, have no access to legal representation and that the entire operation doesn't even have a quasi-leagal basis.

It's no more part of a war on terror than it is part of a war on cancer.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: RichM
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:00 PM

This is Amerika's problem. Don't ask Canada to fix it. Fix it yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:03 PM

LOL RichM. Yeah, terrorism is the sole property of the USofA.

dick greenhouse: I admit that's a problem. I don't think anyone with a sane mind would propose that the detainees simply be let lose though, do you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: jaze
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:03 PM

Do you really think that's the reason they hate us,Doug? No other possible reason? Like interfering in other countries affairs or maybe attacking a country for something another country did? It's some of our policies they hate. Policies can be changed with intelligent dialogue,not bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:09 PM

Move the detainees to US prisons. They'd have to let them have lawyers then.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:16 PM

David Hicks, an Adelaide man, was captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in early December 2001 while travelling with Taliban soldiers who were defending their territory from the Northern Alliance. David's father, Terry, said his son seemed unaware of the September 11 attacks and extremely doubtful of their authenticity when they spoke on a mobile phone a few days after the American bombing campaign had begun.

Since David's capture he has been handed over to the Americans who have moved him to Cuba and the infamous Camp X-ray. He remains there uncharged after numerous interrogations by both American and Australian government military officers and/or officials. He was detained in a small cage for more than five months, and was transferred to a small "shed type" prison cell about the middle of 2002. There is a bed, no chair and no window. The lights are on twenty four hours a day. He has only two fifteen minute exercise periods a week where he is walked shackled between two guards. He is forced to wear an overall type uniform whether it is forty-three degrees Centigrade (over one hundred degrees Fahrenheit) or less.

In a recent letter (early 2003) he wrote about an operation - the nature of this was not disclosed - where he was in hospital and was treated like a human being for three days. After this he was given a chair to sit on for three days.

Presently, it seems that the Australian government officials have been trying to "persuade" David to confess to some crimes in order to be repatriated to his homeland. This is despite comments by Victoria Clarke, Pentagon spokesperson, in February of 2002 stating that all prisoners in Cuba were only the "rats and mice" of the Taliban and would possibly never be charged with any crime. (This includes the man said to be over one hundred years old who was sent home to Afghanistan in the last few months.) Furthermore American officers from the camp have visited Afghanistan and asked those in command to stop sending these unimportant prisoners to the camp and to concentrate on bigger fish - if and when they capture them.

David has not been charged with any crime in Australia. He has not been charged with any crime in Afghanistan. He is detained without charge, without trial and without access to family or consular assistance.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:20 PM

from fair go for david hicks

BTW, when they finally got around to laying charges, they accused him of attemptong to bomb the US embassy in Kabul at a time WHEN THERE WAS NO US EMBASSY IN KABUL. makes you confident in the justice process, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:26 PM

That's the problem with Gitmo. Because it's not within the boundaries of the US, or of the home countries of the people being held there, it is being used as quasi-legal way to detain people outside of the laws of any country. So they can do pretty much anything they want to prisoners there.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:37 PM

Doug, why have a legal system? you accept uncritically that detainees are guilty, without evidence, trial or any due process.

from an editorial in the sydney morning herald, a year ago..
Hicks still a long way from justice; June 14, 2004

When Australian David Hicks was captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in 2001, the Herald reported that he was with the Taliban and had trained with al-Qaeda. The charges now brought against Hicks by the US allege he was with the Taliban and had trained with al-Qaeda. This is after almost 2 years of questioning at Guantanamo Bay.

It is not surprising that Hicks's US military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, should complain. He says that Hicks was labelled "one of the 10 most dangerous men in the world and yet he's not charged with actually physically and personally ever injuring anyone".

The charges are, firstly, that Hicks conspired to commit war crimes by training with the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation and by joining al-Qaeda fighters who were guarding a Taliban tank, and because he "joined others ... engaged in combat against [US-led] coalition forces". He is also charged with attempted murder because he allegedly "intended to kill American, British, Canadian, Australian, Afghan and other coalition forces". Hicks is charged, too, with "aiding the enemy" because he "intentionally aided ... al-Qaeda and the Taliban [during] armed conflict". Major Mori characterises the charges as "weak", a view echoed by a number of Australian legal experts.

That is not to minimise Hicks's alleged offences. Giving any help to a murderous organisation such as al-Qaeda is to be condemned. So is supporting a regime as ruthless as the Taliban in repressing its own people.

But having read the charges, Australians are entitled to be surprised that Hicks has been kept somewhere as harsh as Camp X-Ray, and for so long. His detention suggested he was either very dangerous or had very valuable information, or both. Perhaps he did. But there is nothing in the charges to show that.

Another thing that suggested serious and weighty reasons for holding Hicks in Guantanamo Bay was the reluctance of the Australian Government to intervene to have Hicks either charged or freed.

The Howard Government was little moved by suggestions that the test of a government's mettle is how vigorously it defends the rights of even the least popular of its citizens. Rather, Australia was the accommodating ally, content to let the Americans move at their own glacial pace.

Now things have changed. The Prime Minister, just back from Washington, says the US has promised to convene the military commission "as soon as possible". Mr Howard believes it could be underway in August. We do not know what part the Australian Government played in getting Hicks his belated appearance before the commission.

The Prime Minister would, no doubt, be pleased if the lingering Hicks issue could be resolved before the next election.

Meanwhile, the vague and unsatisfactory charges against David Hicks can only reinforce concerns that he has been treated unfairly - and faces further unfairness by being tried in a military tribunal rather than an ordinary court.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 09:19 PM

Gulag-antanamo...

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 09:45 PM

LOL, Foolestroupe.

frieda: what would you suggest that the U. S. do with the detainees? Turn them loose? If so, could we turn them loose where you live?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 10:25 PM

Doug-
Why not just try them? As soon as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 10:48 PM

There is no evidence that David Hicks has done anything wrong, many Australians would be very pleased if he was released and returned. Tho we wonder about the psychiatric servuices needed to help him recover from trauma.

And as for all the afghans - i dont see why they should not be returned to afghanistan - is that such a problem?

By the way, Doug, did you know that David Hicks is not a muslim?


freda

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: Troll
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 11:11 PM

As far as I am able to determine, the Gitmo detainees are not covered by the provisions of the Geneva Convention as set down for soldiers. While they do have rights, they are severly limited.

This said, their treatment is much better than they could have expected in their own countries. They have adequate food, shelter, clothing and medical care and their religious beliefs are, for the most part, respected. They get better food than the troops who guard them.

If you want a whiff of hell, spend some time in a Mexican jail, or one in Turkey or the old Soviet Union.

Terrorists, and those who collaborate with them, have no rights. The only reason to allow them to live is to try to get intel about their organization and it's plans.

The ONLY reason.

I don't claim that all those at Gitmo are or were terrorists, but until we know for sure, I say it's better to keep them locked up than to let them go free to commit more acts of terror.

I haven't kept up with the numbers, but in the Senate hearings that are (were) being held, it was reported that a significant number of those who had been re-patriated have been involved in attacks on troops and govt. installations in Afghanistan in the past year or so. This is known because they were either KIA or captured in the commission of those acts.

As far as conditions at Gitmo are concerned, we could have incarcerated them at a facility in Alaska.

Foolestroupe, go read some history before you try to compare Gitmo to a gulag. This is sound-bite sloganeering; long on hype and short on fact. It's mildly humerous to anyone of average intellect or who hasn't been convinced by anti-US rhetoric that the US is EVIL and always wrong.

But it IS incorect and it DOES send the wrong message.

RichM, the fight against world terrorism is everyones problem. Do you honestly think that those who want to turn the world into an Islamic theocracy will stop at the Canadian border if they ever manage to bring the US down?

If you do, I've got some "waterfront" property in Florida that you might be interested in.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: GUEST,cl
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 11:19 PM

I don't claim that all those at Gitmo are or were terrorists, but until we know for sure, I say it's better to keep them locked up than to let them go free to commit more acts of terror.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 11:31 PM

Don't know what happened.

"I don't claim that all those at Gitmo are or were terrorists, but until we know for sure, I say it's better to keep them locked up than to let them go free to commit more acts of terror."

I don't claim that all those who live in slums are or were murderers and drug-dealers, but until we know for sure, I say it's better to keep them locked up than to let them go free to commit more criminal acts.

I don't claim that all CEOs are or were crooks , but until we know for sure, I say it's better to keep them locked up than to let them go free to commit more acts.

I don't claim that Troll is or was a (fill in blank), but until we know for sure, I say it's better to keep him locked up than to let him go free to commit more acts of (blank).

This used to be he US of A, Troll, not a dictatorship. We believed in human rights. That's HUMAN. All HUMANS were supposed to be endowed with certain inalienable rights.

Can you remember?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 11:42 PM

Hicks adrift in US terror debate
By Michael Gawenda; Washington; The Age

This weekend David Hicks is meeting his American and his new Australian lawyers at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, to prepare his defence against charges by a military commission. Hicks, who has been held at Guantanamo for more than three years, is the last detainee from countries that were part of the coalition of the willing that fought the war in Afghanistan.

The last of seven French detainees were released in March and five British detainees were released around the same time. All were freed on their return home.

WHY WERE THEY FREED? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT COMMIT ANY CRIME!

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 11:47 PM

Just ordered shirts for the entire staff....they think it is a hoot!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/clubgitmo.guest.html

Get yours at Club Gitmo - before they ain't got no.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 11:49 PM

Hicks adrift in US terror debate: The Age; June 18, 2005

This weekend David Hicks is meeting his American and his new Australian lawyers at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, to prepare his defence against charges by a military commission.... A decision is due at the end of the month on a Federal Court appeal by the Administration against a ruling by a Federal Court judge, who found that the military commissions [at Guantanamo Bay] were unlawful. If the appeal fails, the Administration has signalled that it will take the case to the Supreme Court, which means Hicks could spend another 12 months waiting for his commission hearing.

It's our position that, legally, they can be held in perpetuity [said] MICHAEL WIGGINS, deputy associate Attorney-General

But the Guantanamo debate is becoming more and more heated and is part of a wider debate about the war in Iraq and the US war on terror.

In the past fortnight, a number of polls have shown that not only do most Americans now think the war in Iraq was a mistake, but that the war has made America less secure.

Crucially, only 50 per cent of Americans now believe Mr Bush is doing a good job on security.

This week, about 40 Republicans in the House of Representatives joined Democrats to vote down parts of the Patriot Act, which Mr Bush said gave the FBI and other security agencies the powers needed to track and apprehend terrorists.

Michael Wiggins, deputy associate Attorney-General, was asked for how long the detainees at Guantanamo, classified as enemy combatants, but not charged with any specific crimes, could be held.

"As long as we are at war," he said.

Had the Justice Department defined when there is the end of conflict? Democrat senator Joseph Biden asked.

"No sir," Mr Wiggins said.

"If there is no definition as to when the conflict ends, that means forever; forever these folks get held at Guantanamo Bay," Senator Biden said.

"It's our position that, legally, they can be held in perpetuity," Mr Wiggins said.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 12:05 AM

Clint, have you stopped beating your wife?

They are there because they were captured on the field of battle,Clint along with those who have to destroy our country. They were not simply scooped up of the streets of Kabul. They were engaged in trying to kill American troops, alongside those who had aided and abetted the terrorists who tried to paralize our economic system by crashing airplanes into the world trade center.

Do you recall that incident, Clint?

They have their HUMAN RIGHTS Clint. They are alive and being cared for.
The problem is that THEY and their comrades have threatened OUR HUMAN RIGHTS, such as the right to exist.

Do you remember what happened on 9/11 Clint?

I do.

The HUMAN RIGHTS of a lot of people were violated rather abruptly

Your little "I don't claim" sound bites are really rather pathetic. They really have nothing in common with my original statement except for the first few words. We in the US do not imprison or murder entire groups of people without reason (unlike Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Saddam) and this is evidenced by the fact that several hundred detainees have been realesed and re-patriated already, it having been determined that they were (a) innocent of terrorist activity or, (b) had no information that would be useful to us.

The next time you start screaming about HUMAN RIGHTS, take a closer look at those whom you are defending to see just what kind of HUMAN RIGHTS record they have.

Oh yeah, that's troll with a lower case "t".

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 12:27 AM

Why do we need to be in Cuba anyway???? Cause we can't do this crap on US soil???

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 12:38 AM

The US holds a lease on the Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay. The prison facilities there are very high security and it would be very difficult if not impossible for a group such as al Queda to mount a raid to free the prisoners.

The chances that the Castro govt. would cooperate with al Queda are quite slim, given that Cuba is a country with a mostly Catholic population.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: heric
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 12:45 AM

No. Sorcha, you had it exactly right.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: heric
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 12:46 AM

and where is this crap about "releasing them all" coming from? Is this talk radio shit?

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 12:47 AM

I haven't stopped beating my wife because I never started. That's easy enough as long as you quit looking for a yes-or-no answer.

"They were engaged in trying to kill American troops, alongside those who had who tried to paralize our economic system by crashing airplanes into the world trade center."

and

"…several hundred detainees have been realesed and re-patriated already, it having been determined that they were (a) innocent of terrorist activity or, (b) had no information that would be useful to us."

Well, which is it? aiding and abetted the terrorists? or innocent of terrorist activity?

What I'm saying is charge them or release them, and do not presume guilt. Why is that so hard?

"The next time you start screaming about HUMAN RIGHTS, take a closer look at those whom you are defending to see just what kind of HUMAN RIGHTS record they have."

I do not look to the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, or any of those guys as a guide to conduct. We are supposed to be better than them. Aren't we?

And again, you are presuming guilt.

In WWII there were lots of Germans who were engaged in trying to kill American troops, alongside those who had established extermination camps. As I recall, we charged them or released them.

As freda said to DougR, "why have a legal system? you accept uncritically that detainees are guilty, without evidence, trial or any due process."

Clint can go with either upper case or lower case. I'm not proud.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:31 AM

It's simply that my Mudcat name is troll with a lower case "t". If you don't care how your name appears, that's your business. Most of the oldtimers on the Forum know me but I don't get out much anymore.

In WWII the captured soldiers were interrogated and then released as per the terms of the Geneva Convention. If they were not wearing uniforms but were firing on Allied forces, they were shot on the spot.

As I said before, these enemy combattants do not fall under the protections afforded soldiers under the Geneva Convention; no uniforms, etc.

So just what Human Rights have they been denied?

You said,

"Well, which is it? aiding and abetted the terrorists? or innocent of terrorist activity?"

I should have thought that that was obvious. Those who had no discernable terrorist connections were released. The others who were released may have had connections to either al Queda or the Talliban but it was felt that they had no intel worth pursuing and that holding them would serve no good purpose.

It would now appear that this was a bad decision since some of them ( I don't know the numbers) have rejoined terrorist groups and have been active in them. We know this from bodies that we have been able to identify and from captured prisoners. You may be sure that the Afghan Govt. will not be as gentle as we were.

Charge them? Yes. But with what? They were captured on the battlefield. What was their role? Why were they there? These questions have to be answered before they can be charged and tried.

And who should try them? A military tribunal or a US District Court? They are not entitled to the same constitutional protections as American citizens. John Walker is a case in point. As an American citizen, he got the same protections that you or I would recieve.

As far as the presumption of guilt is concerned, they were caught in the company of known antigonists of this country, and were captured during or directly after attacks on American troops.

If it looks like a duck...

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: GUEST,Feed Up
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:50 AM

I know what to do...I have A big rusty sword.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: heric
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:56 AM

They were captured on the battlefield, or driving their cars down the street, or watching television. But why quibble.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:58 AM

"As far as the presumption of guilt is concerned, they were caught in the company of known antigonists of this country, and were captured during or directly after attacks on American troops."

That was true of the Germans and Japanese in WWII also. But when "Michael Wiggins, deputy associate Attorney-General, was asked for how long the detainees at Guantanamo, classified as enemy combatants, but not charged with any specific crimes, could be held.
…"It's our position that, legally, they can be held in perpetuity," Mr Wiggins said." (See freda's post.)

That is perposterous, and we didn't do it that way in any previous war that I know of.

Jose Padilla is one American citizen being held without charge. It's been several years now. Jose Padilla may be a traitor and a terrorist. But he was not captured in Afghanistan with a gun in his hand. He was arrested at Chicago O'Hare airport. If Jose Padilla can be held without criminal charges, strictly on the say-so of the President, then any American can be. I don't know who else is being held, but we do know that there are prisoners being held off the books.

Dammit, this nation is supposed to be better than that.

If you want to be called "troll" that's your business. Just deviling you a little bit, as my grandfather would say.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:59 AM

Ahem. "preposterous."

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: GUEST,1947
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 03:15 AM

Someone should remind Michael Wiggins that this isn't really a war but a police action.

troll - "It would now appear that this was a bad decision since some of them ( I don't know the numbers) have rejoined terrorist groups and have been active in them. We know this from bodies that we have been able to identify and from captured prisoners."

What??????????????? are your sources for this information?

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe those who were detained became terrorists after they were subjected to cruelty inflicted by the U.S. while they were detained? I know that if I were subjected to such an injustice, I would want to fight against it.

This police action is creating far more terrorists than we ever had before.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 03:53 AM

"We in the US do not imprison or murder entire groups of people without reason"

No, but you sure are good at killing the people on your own side. "Friendly fire" my fat ass!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 08:34 AM

"Do you remember what happened on 9/11 Clint?"

Yes, some people who were terrorists working from an organisation based in Afghanistan, not Iraq, committed a violent act that magically left an undamaged wallet from the back pocket of the pilot sitting on top of the rubble.


Don't like the Russian word Gulag? OK, call it a concentration camp then. The British invented them during the Boer war, where they indefinitely imprisoned innocent civilians, who were really political prisoners. Gulags were used to imprison innocent political prisoners.

It seems to me that the 'terrorists' consider themselves in a political war with the USA and its running dogs, 'defending' their own system of intended religious dictatorship. They would probably consider themselves political prisoners too in that case.

Some people may think ahead of what others can, or may have wider experience or knowledge on which their comments are based, thus their comments are not understood by some others.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 11:14 AM

So, GUEST 1947:we should excuse the captured terrorists because it's OUR fault that they are a terrorist. Gimme a break.

troll: welcome back.

Clint: I would welcome your comment on this scenerio: Omar is captured in Afghanstan after setting off a car bomb that kills or wounds American troops plus several Afghans. He is brought to Gitmo for questioning. I believe it is your point that he should either be tried or turned loose.    If he is to be tried, with what should he be charged? What American law did he break? If he is to be turned loose, turned loose where?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 12:04 PM

The fact that the other side may be worse is NO EXCUSE for being bastards.
"We in the US do not imprison or murder entire groups of people without reason" --Tell that to tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. Or to Gitmo detainees. Or to the guys who were shipped of to be tortured because we wanted to keep our hands clean (on Fox News, of course.)

Laws are not applicable only to those we like o trust.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: heric
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 12:23 PM

You guys can ignore me all you want, but it does not turn this into a sensible discussion. Taking up arms against the United States (or any state) as an unlawful enemy combatant IS a crime under US law and would be valid as a crime under the laws of any state.

It would be nice to assume that George, who likes baseball and seems like a good feller, would and could personally assure us that everyone in Guantanamo is an unlawful enemy combatant, so we don't need to feel bad about it, and, in fact, can feel good that progress is being made against terrorist organisations.

Facts are increasingly being uncovered that some people in Guantanamo were not reasonably deemed enemy combatants. Are you really surprised by that? Or do you, in fact, just not care? Do you not understand the vital importance of separation of powers?

If the Soviet Union had come out ahead in the arms race, to become the world's only superpower, and held US citizens in such fashion after a conflict in, say, Newfoundland. . . . No documentation, no representation, no real disclosure, but with the Pooty-poot's personal word that these were all bad guys who wanted to shoot at or undermine the Soviet Military, well. Think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 12:34 PM

The process of law is being ignored and violated under the excuse of war.

If these people are serving sentences for determined guilt, that is one thing.

But that is not the case.

Gitmo should not be closed, if it has tactical value of some kind, but it sure as hell ought to be brought under the processes of law we claim to respect, and it isn't there by a long shot.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 12:53 PM

...and heric knows a lot about the subject of the law. He's not just talking off the top of his head.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: heric
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:04 PM

oh, thanks, Carol. But I know insurance (and health care). Not international or criminal law. I'm another newspaper reader here.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: heric
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:13 PM

But I was serious about that talk rado question, even if I phrased it badly. Are the Michael Savages/Rush Limbaughs teaching that "liberals" want to let all the terrosist go? We have a real problem with the state of entertaino-journalism these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: GUEST,1947
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:22 PM

DougR - Either you can't read or you are turning my words around. Perhaps you are having trouble comprehending. What is it that you do not understand about detaining and torturing innocent people?

I thought the U.S. was supposed to be the champion of human rights!

You also sound a little sour toward Canada. Maybe you should have listened to Canada when they said don't invade Iraq. Maybe Bush should have thought of that when he said he would, "Go it alone". Yes, Doug, the war on terrorism belongs to the U.S. - they declared it, they wouldn't listen to reason and now they are in the middle of a stinking mess.

You want Canada to help? We already have tried to help but you wouldn't listen and then there's that little problem of "friendly fire" and the problem of torturing detainees. Do you think Canada wants to wear that shame?

Figure it out Doug. The war in Iraq has disgraced the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:32 PM

1947: Canada tried to help? By advising the coalition not to replace Saddam? What kind of help is that? Also, your definition of torture might vary considerably from what the Geneva Convention considers torture. The Gitmo folks never had it better in their entire lives.

Heric: I'm not convinced you are right when you make the statement that enemy battlefield combatants in a foreign country are guilty of commiting a U. S. crime if they kill American soldiers abroad. I do not know, but I suspect that is why so many populate Gitmo but have not yet been charged. Perhaps someone on the forum who knows the U. S. laws might post some help.

Carol: this really is not an insurance or healthcare question I'm sure you are aware, but a legal one.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: heric
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:34 PM

(She knew I'm a US lawyer, Doug.)
I'll try and track down specifics, after my kids' pool party.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: heric
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:38 PM

But I'm pretty sure that international conventons allow a state to detain enemy combatants for the purpose of preventing them from returning to the fight. In this case, the administration says that may be a very, very long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: heric
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:44 PM

Lawful enemy combatants are entitled to Geneva Convention rights. Unlawful combatants are not entitled to all of those. Still, it is unlawful according to the Supreme Court, and should be un-American, for them to have NO rights whatsoever, even a simple right of review of the enemy combatant status.

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 02:40 PM

"Omar is captured in Afghanstan after setting off a car bomb that kills or wounds American troops plus several Afghans. He is brought to Gitmo for questioning. I believe it is your point that he should either be tried or turned loose.   If he is to be tried, with what should he be charged? What American law did he break? If he is to be turned loose, turned loose where?"

Charge him with guerilla warfare. He blew up soldiers that were invading his country. Terrorism, I believe, is violence directed at civilians for purposes of shock & awe, so perhaps the Afghans have (scanty) grounds for trying him, unless they consider it collateral damage.

Damned if I know what American law he broke, and I assume from your question you don't know either. So if he didn't break an American law we should hold him w/o charge? Odd logic. There's lots of American laws you & I haven't broken. We could be up the w.k. creek.

Turn him loose back where he came from. Why was he shipped all the way to Gitmo anyway? If we can't think of a reason to hold him ("Just in case" isn't a reason) why are we doing it?

Ng is captured in Vietnam after setting off a bomb that kills or wounds American troops plus several Vietnamese…

Pierre (of the Resistance) is captured in occupied France after setting off a bomb that kills or wounds German troops plus several Frenchmen…

Far as I can see "Gitmo" is shorthand for a number of abuses committed by a government that believes torture is acceptable, and any criticism of themselves is not.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 07:59 PM

"Taking up arms against the United States (or any state) as an unlawful enemy combatant IS a crime under US law and would be valid as a crime under the laws of any state"

Only because the 'Laws' have been carefully written to reflect that, and ignore WHY those 'combatants' are attacking. Funny too that the USA refuse to play by International Law, because the US Politicians think their country came out of the arsehole of God.

Remember THE ALAMAO!
Remember WACO?

'Habeas Corpus' is dead int the USA.

And this 'game' is being played in Australia too, where the phrase 'illegal immigrants' reminds me of 'illegal combatants'. People here have been held for up to 7 years without 'habeas corpus' too.

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Close Gitmo?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 10:03 PM

Starting with the latest, Robin, following your logic, the French should not have resisted the Germans in WWII because their laws against their country being invaded did not take into account the REASON for the German attack. You yap about law when you know nothing about it.

Just what does Australian law have to say about the rights of someone who is in the country illegally? When you find out, let us know. until then, don't prate about OUR laws if you don't even know your own.

As for this: "Yes, some people who were terrorists working from an organisation based in Afghanistan, not Iraq, committed a violent act that magically left an undamaged wallet from the back pocket of the pilot sitting on top of the rubble."

This statement suggests that you think that the World Trade Center bombing was either staged or faked. Surely you are not as big a fool as that.

I used 9/11 as an example to show what these radical Islamists are capable of. Because it happened, Robin. And it will probably happen again. And then you will scream that the US should have stopped it. How? Why by capitulating, of course. After all, what right do we have to defend our country and way of life? A Talliban style theocracy would be ok and then everyone would be happy because the US would no longer be the big dog on the block.


Next, Clint, you still haven't answeres my last question but never mind. Just how are the Gitmo detainees being "tortured" and what is the source of your info.

Heric, I think that they are splitting legal hairs here. If they were on US SOIL, the Supreme Court would apply. But thet are not, techinally, since the US does not "own" Gtimo base. I'm not a lawyer but I am very familiar with the hair-splitting that can go on in legal matters. Remember Clinton asking what the prosecutor meant by "is"?

1947, please define torture (with examples) and innocent people. And don't worry about our asking Canada to help. We know that you have plenty of shame to bear already. As for where I got the info on the re-patriated detainees who went back to being terrorists, I watched the Congressional hearings. The informantio comes from testimony before a congressional committee.

dick greenhaus, I believe that if you will check your figures, you will find that most Iraqi civilian deaths can be traced to terrorist activity since the taking of Baghdad. Most of those killed prior to that time were in fact Iraqi military or were caught up in military action. I forget the numbers now but the number of civilian deaths in WWII was staggering- somewhere in the millions.

Last time I looked, war was considered a good reason for people getting killed and I haven't noticed the entire country rising up against the Coallition Forces either. Democratic elections have been held and, just recently, the "insurgents" have hinted that they might like to talk.

The terrorist bombings now being carried out in Iraq are partially Saddams old Baathist Party, the minority Sunnis who ruled under Saddam, or foreign Islamist terrorists such as al Queda operatives.

Liz, why don't you check and see how many British soldiers have killed by "friendly fire" in some of the wars in the past. No one who has not been in combat should blindly criticize what happens in a fire-fight. If you have not been shot at, put a sock in it.

One last thing; regarding my name. I have been "troll" since before the days of CB radio. I explained the name years ago on a thread about how we all got our names.

I am not "a Troll" in the internet sense although I do have strong opinions, which I express freely. Everyone is intitled to my opinion.

troll