Guantanamo bay

[Az]

For me, cultural relativism and logic forms a very important part of how I think societies should deal with each other, which is pretty relevant here.

cultural relativism and logic? they're impossible together.

and yes, I am going to be a pain in the ass until we confront each other on this issue, once and for all.

[Velociryx]

Prisoners have no rights to deny. Prison =! a day at the zoo or day-camp.

Because we are a nation and a people not known for torture, we do not have running water, car batteries, and jumper cables on rolling carts to wheel in and torture those being held there.

Having a hood placed over ones head =! torture (in that case, the KKK inflicts self torture at every meeting, and tens of thousands of little kids do so every Halloween....we must live in a truly sick, twisted, barbaric society).

They're prisoners. They get food (in many cases, better, and more regularly than they got when NOT in prision--'member the Afghanis who got released some months ago....the ones they had to buy new pants for cos they had gained so much weight in prison? But....we're treatin' them sooooo bad....yeah.

-=Vel=-

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


That doesn't affect competence. That is simply a legal opinion that al Qaeda is not a qualifying combatant power or a qualifying organization or militia of a combatant power, such that membership therein created a general presumption of POW status, beyond the initial presumption afforded all captured persons.

That's no different than determining that members of Mad Mike Hoare's Wild Geese captured in the Congo were unlawful combatants, because it was an irregular mercenary organization which didn't give a damn about the customs of war.

There is precedence for such determinations, based on determining the legal status of a group or organization.


The Taleban, OTOH, was found to be a militia of a qualifying combatant, and thus most Taleban members were presumptively POWs on the basis of their membership.

The point is that the decision was not left to the board; as I recall, it was issued by the Prez (or at least some branch of the administration). And the tribunal was ordered, as I recall, to follow that guideline.

Again, which makes a laughingstock of its competence.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Eh? We did okay at Cowra. Over 50 to 1.

It's that 1 part I don't like.

You had a security situation were hundreds of prisoners were able to simultaneously attempt escape. We have created a security situation where precisely none can do so.

Maybe somebody should leave a gate open over there and oil the machine guns......

Not bad, not bad.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The point is that the decision was not left to the board; as I recall, it was issued by the Prez (or at least some branch of the administration). And the tribunal was ordered, as I recall, to follow that guideline.

Again, which makes a laughingstock of its competence.

Following an NSDD or NSF or however the finding was packaged doesn't affect competence. Once al Qaeda was found to be not a lawful combatant organization, that pretty much settled the issue of individual member status, if/once they were determined to be members of al Qaeda.

[KrazyHorse]

It was found not to be a lawful combat organisation by the US admin.

The point is that the decision was not supposed to be up to them, but rather up to the tribunal. Which is the very heart of what competence is. Otherwise the Prez would be allowed to issue an order that only people of a certain height were lawful combatants and the board left only the decision of who fell in that guideline.

[KrazyHorse]

What the hell is an NSF or NSDD?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by elijah


I spent months researching it, and am finishing a book on the topic. I would postulate that my knowledge of Islamic fundamentalism is greater than yours .

Postulate away.

You seem to be misunderstanding my arguments, perhaps you should actually read my posts before you assume that I am supporting Al Qaeda because I understand them in a relativist manner.

I did. First you summarize (apparently coincidentally) their claim that they attacked us in relation to our foreign policy. Foreign policy is not the issue, the capability to engage forcefully (i.e. to contest the overthrow of secular arab governments) is.

Then you did the cutesie kill this, that, blah blah blah and justify it in the name of Islam as your summary for their ideology.

If you're not ignorant, I can't be blamed for your ability to disguise that fact.

It is becoming increasingly clear the Guantanamo bay is an exploitation of a legal loophole... hence they do it on Cuban soil, not US soil, so apparently the constitution doesn't apply.

Read ex parte Quirin. We can run military tribunals and shoot 'em here, the legal precedent has already been examined. Gitmo is more of an ideal security situation. No worries about sympathizers, guards, these guys getting loose and going anywhere, or revenge crazed rednecks taking them out.

Considering some of the prison location you Brits have, you're not in much position to *****, unless you're the sort who thinks being a murdering ******* entitles you to a free stay in a 4-star resort.

They declare these people "unlawful combatants", even though they give no evidence of that, except reports of the general manner of capture that cannot be corroborated.

And your point is? That's what the Geneva Convention requires, and that's what we adhere to.

They justify incarceration and conditions that are easily classified as torture for the sake of international/homeland security.

Three square meals a day, no pork or non-appropriate food, nice tropical breezes (hey, people pay to go to Cuba for vacations), a little thingy on a pole so they can point themselves towards Mecca, calls to prayer at the appropriate times of day, medical care. ****ing paradise.

They exploit legal loopholes to do this, but they cannot get away from the fact that these men are human beings first and thus deserving of all human rights affordable to them, until they are found guilty of a crime... yet thus far they havent been charged.

Unlawful combatants don't count. The simple fact that they're alive means they're lucky.

When they are, they will face an unfair trial and a high possibility of the death penalty. They are presumed guilty before innocent, and that is unnacceptable.

Since you're such an expert on the makeup of the tribunals and the procedures to be used, perhaps you'd care to enlighten us with your knowledge?

These men represent little or no tactical threat, and cannot be deemed otherwise without evidence.

What part of taken prisoner as members of an unlawful combatant organization fighting in a foreign country, and sworn to jihad against infidels don't you understand? Of course they represent no threat now, because we have their asses locked up.

A bunch of mindless, hand-wringing drivel...

Rant over.

How about we give them back their weapons and move them into your neighborhood, and you deal with 'em, tiger.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It was found not to be a lawful combat organisation by the US admin.

The point is that the decision was not supposed to be up to them, but rather up to the tribunal. Which is the very heart of what competence is. Otherwise the Prez would be allowed to issue an order that only people of a certain height were lawful combatants and the board left only the decision of who fell in that guideline.

The US is a high contracting party to the GC. The tribunal needs merely be composed of personnel of a combatant force which is a signatory. <-- Period. They are not magically put under international authority, or transported to some magical world where every day is a brand new day, and every issue arises in a vacuum. The guidance on al Qaeda's status came from legal experts on the subject, who were also part of the government (i.e. combatant power, high contracting party, competent, etc.) and the legal finding on status was endorsed by the chain of command.

Your height example is absurd. There was a specific legal question, i.e. the status of al Qaeda as to whether or not it was a type of resistance or regular or irregular militia force that would grant it's members presumptive POW status. That is an entirely separate issue from classification of individuals, and properly determined by legal authority of the US, or any other power who had taken prisoners and was a signatory. Answering a very specific legal question created by criteria set forth in international law is entirely different than pulling an arbitary criteria out of your ass.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
What the hell is an NSF or NSDD?

National Security Finding or National Security Decision Directive.

Actually, I think the decision on status originated with some legal types in one of the DoD departments, then it got applied through the chain of command. One very good reason for doing that is that each military service in the US (lumping the USMC in with the USN) has their own legal corps.

[KrazyHorse]

Why apply through chain of command? Why not just put legal experts on panel that makes decision?

Smacks of prejudicial interference by US admin (which is not a member of panel).

[KrazyHorse]

Especially when mass decision is made like that...

Individual review was necexxary, especially in a chaotic situation like Afghanistan was. Did some of Al Qaeda members join up to defend Afghanistan as Al Qaeda members and act in a manner inconsistent with laws of war while fighting? Probably. Did some join up spontaneously as individuals living in Afghanistan independent of orders from Al Qaeda? Quite possibly. If so, then they're POWs and their crimes against the US need to be prosecuted via military or civilian courts.

[KrazyHorse]

And by the way, in case somebody thinks I'm US-bashing here, I hold my government as culpable as that of the US for turning over prisoners to the US prior to their treatment as POWs being guaranteed...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why apply through chain of command? Why not just put legal experts on panel that makes decision?

Military tribunals work through chain of command. Assimilating civilian DoD lawyers and Navy/USAF JAG lawyers into an Army tribunal is a pain in the ass, and accomplishes no specific purpose. And if you do it your way, you have to make a separate determination as to the status of al Qaeda or Taleban or whoever, as a combatant organization for each individual, in addition to then determining the status of those individuals. That's ridiculous.

Smacks of prejudicial interference by US admin (which is not a member of panel).

Doooooodooooodooooodoooooh... we enter... the KrazyHorse zone. The US administration, more specifically, the office of the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, is the convening authority for the tribunal.

And so prejudicial that the same panel of legal experts ruled that the Taleban was a lawful combatant organization, as an organized irregular militia of a combatant party, despite it's loose to non-existant structure in the field, it's laxity of uniforms, concealment of weapons, propensity for being lax with the laws and customs of land warfare, and the lack of legitimacy of the Taleban as a "government." IF this panel had been prejudiced in any way, they could have easily taken a "hang 'em all" approach, but did not. Not wrt distinguishing the status of the Taleban and al Qaeda, and not wrt the status of indivuduals, most of whom, even the al Qaeda, "Afghan Arabs," and volunteer Pakistani jihadi, were never transferred to Gitmo.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Especially when mass decision is made like that...

Individual review was necexxary, especially in a chaotic situation like Afghanistan was. Did some of Al Qaeda members join up to defend Afghanistan as Al Qaeda members and act in a manner inconsistent with laws of war while fighting? Probably.

Individual reviews were done based on information available, including interrogation of the prisoners.

Did some join up spontaneously as individuals living in Afghanistan independent of orders from Al Qaeda? Quite possibly. If so, then they're POWs and their crimes against the US need to be prosecuted via military or civilian courts.

And a huge number of those types, both Afghan Arab and Pakistani in particular, were left in Afghan custody, transferred to Pakistani custody, or released after transfer to Afghan custody. What is in Gitmo represents about TWO PERCENT of total prisoners taken and examined.