BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:29 PM

Well, we're back to "are they POWs or not". POWs have a legal status, but they don't have to be given that status by a court of law.

If they are not POWs, what are they?

We're in new territory, so it's no shame that there are points of contention ranging from Geneva to Washington D.C.

It'll all get thrashed out, preferably via the spoken and written word. They're even trying to legally define torture and set bounds on it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:45 PM

" I'm sure there are probably some relatively harmless people there who are victims of circumstances. What I'm not sure of is whether there is a mechanism of impartial justice to separate 'em out and deal with them as they deserve."

Robomatic, these people in Giantanamo are not the victims of circumstances. They are victims of the Republican government's deliberate abuse of legal processes which took the American justice system into the dark ages.

One of the original accusations against David Hicks, an Australian in Guantanamo, was that he had admitted to putting the US embassy in Kabul under surveillance. Once his Australian lawyer pointed out that there had not been an American embassy in Kabul at the time David was picked up, this accusation was withdrawn.

The people in there are detained illegally and should be released, unless there is some hard evidence to lay charges on.

"They're even trying to legally define torture and set bounds on it. "

Torture is already defined by a Geneva Convention - there is no need to redefine it in a way that makes some "minor" forms of torture acceptable. Any information extracted under coercion of any sort is suspect and can not be admitted in any court. People don't say the truth under torture - they will say anything to make the person stop.

People who rely on statements and allegations are people stuck with trying to make a case against detainees, when they have no evidence against them.

Subject: RE: BS: A Victory for the Rule of Law in the US
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 09:12 PM

"One of the original accusations against David Hicks, an Australian in Guantanamo, was that he had admitted to putting the US embassy in Kabul under surveillance. Once his Australian lawyer pointed out that there had not been an American embassy in Kabul at the time David was picked up, this accusation was withdrawn. "

When I was being harassed at work by those who later turned out to have mental problems, I discovered real fast not to try this tack - the easy lunacies to expose get pruned out early, and then you end up getting shafted harder with things that are impossible to prove or disprove - this ends ends up just word of mouth against you - until these can be checked where you can get a 'real reckoning' when all these weak fanciful allegations CAN be shown to be just BS, and you have a chance of getting away.

This is why I believe that Hicks is most likely innocent - he (and I) were naively deluded that our harassers were honest sane people.

Note: the drivers for Hitler and his cronies were not persecuted JUST because that (driving) was their job - in fact they were seen as valuable allies to gain real insight into the real criminals, and document their actions - only nutters try anything else. The inmates ARE running the US (asylum).