Australian Gitmo inmate to be released

[Ted Striker]

You should write press releases Winston.

Wake up and smell the ****ing coffee.

[Ramo]

Waahh. Heaven forbid that the US and its WOT allies take enemy combattants prisoner and hold them for a couple of years in less than five star quality accomodation.

Being tortured by Egypt and Pakistan = 4 star accomadation?

Or would you rather the US and allies hadn't taken any prisoners at all that couldn't be brought before a judge, for reasons of confidentiality/sensitivity or hopes of extracting knowledge of enemy infrastructure etc.?

You mean torture information out of them?

These guys in Guantanamo aren't wrongfully imprisoned suspects or anything of the sort, they're known enemy combattants.

We know this because there was a trial proving it. Oh wait...

[Whaleboy]

Waahh. Heaven forbid that the US and its WOT allies take enemy combattants prisoner and hold them for a couple of years in less than five star quality accomodation.

If I were subject to the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo, and had the most tenuous means of ending my life, I would surely take it.

Of course nobody can guarantee that all of them had by their actions merited apprehension, and many have been released (some of them also as "gestures" to allies), but I'm with the US authorities on this, conditions being as they were it was better to be safe than sorry.

Then shoot them on the battlefield, in combat. When they are prisoners, they are subject to justice which history has shown is the best way of determining guilt or innocence.

Or would you rather the US and allies hadn't taken any prisoners at all that couldn't be brought before a judge, for reasons of confidentiality/sensitivity or hopes of extracting knowledge of enemy infrastructure etc.?

Yes. Useless intelligence extracted under torture is not worth sacrificing the only thing that defines your civilisation.

These guys in Guantanamo aren't wrongfully imprisoned suspects or anything of the sort, they're known enemy combattants.

Then why are they being released in droves per political pressures? If they're known enemy combatants, why have they not been subject to the preliminary hearing that the Geneva convention requires for that definition (and further to that definition, requires better treatment)?

Save the massive indignation for a human rights cause that actually generates true sympathy for the victims, not just knee-jerk anti-Bush admin reactions. It's not that there aren't enough to choose from in the world today.

Save the hystrionic gunslingning attitude to solving problems. Guantanamo bay and it's equivalents in the UK are imo the biggest victims of the WoT because they sacrifice justice, which is what defines a civilisation.

[Winston]

The term torture is being twisted and redefined to suit the average frothing critics' contextual needs. There are varying degrees of pressure, physical or not, that can be used to extract information from a non-cooperative prisoner. Some of them would constitute torture, others wouldn't. You are free to guess which kind I was thinking of.

Enemy combattants don't fall under the Geneva Convention as it is being interpreted by U.S. authorities. Those are prisoners-of-war you're thinking of.

But I do agree that there is cause for monitoring closely the methods that are being applied by democratic governments in the WOT. I also agree that we're in a situation where we're testing the very boundaries of justice and due process, one of the important foundations of our free societies.

I just don't believe, with regard to the Guantanamo detainees, that the U.S. could realistically have handled it much differently, faced as they were with a very unconventional kind of warfare. And I certainly have very little sympathy for the combattants in question, whom I presume at the time of their capture were deemed so hardcore they either had to be killed or held indefinitely.

[DinoDoc]

Then shoot them on the battlefield, in combat.

I've actually suggested that a number of times as a way to avoid headaches in these threads especially since I'm quite dubious that even a bare majority of those people (even the ones that return to terrorism after being released from Gitmo) provide much in the way of actionable intel. It never get much acceptance.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Winston
The term torture is being twisted and redefined to suit the average frothing critics' contextual needs. There are varying degrees of pressure, physical or not, that can be used to extract information from a non-cooperative prisoner. Some of them would constitute torture, others wouldn't. You are free to guess which kind I was thinking of.

Enemy combattants don't fall under the Geneva Convention as it is being interpreted by U.S. authorities. Those are prisoners-of-war you're thinking of.

But I do agree that there is cause for monitoring closely the methods that are being applied by democratic governments in the WOT. I also agree that we're in a situation where we're testing the very boundaries of justice and due process, one of the important foundations of our free societies.

I just don't believe, with regard to the Guantanamo detainees, that the U.S. could realistically have handled it much differently, faced as they were with a very unconventional kind of warfare. And I certainly have very little sympathy for the combattants in question, whom I presume at the time of their capture were deemed so hardcore they either had to be killed or held indefinitely.

That argument is a different one and is complteley irrelevent.

If you want to hold someone in prison, you need a good reason.

The UK, Australia, and Canada have all asked for their citizens back because we took them with NO GOOD REASON. PERIOD.

Enemy combatants my ass.

[DinoDoc]

Out of curiosity, why exactly didn't we leave him in Egypt? He had Egyptian citizenship after all.

[Whaleboy]

And I certainly have very little sympathy for the combattants in question, whom I presume at the time of their capture were deemed so hardcore they either had to be killed or held indefinitely.

But again why release them, and to my knowledge there have been no problems with those already released. Indeed, research their lives and one sees this "hardcore murderer" thing to be most likely a misconception.

Enemy combattants don't fall under the Geneva Convention

No enemy combatants is a term quite distinct, and requires a preliminary hearing to establish that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay#Detention_of_prisoners

The U.S. claims to have classified the prisoners held at Camp Delta and Camp Echo as illegal combatants, but has not held the Article 5 tribunals that would be required by international law for it to do so. This would grant them the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), as opposed to the more common Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) which deals exclusively with prisoners of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

The term torture is being twisted and redefined to suit the average frothing critics' contextual needs. There are varying degrees of pressure, physical or not, that can be used to extract information from a non-cooperative prisoner. Some of them would constitute torture, others wouldn't. You are free to guess which kind I was thinking of.

You would only have it if it was being used in the "inquisition" sense.

Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as a means of cruelty, intimidation, punishment, for the extraction of a confession or information or simply for the entertainment of the perpetrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

The key difference here of course being state-sponsored torture. As I use the definition here, the defintion between psychological and physical is irrelevant, since it renders any confession or intelligence to be useless.

I strongly suggest you fully read Wikipedias "torture" article, including the methods, and then tell me what you think of Guantanamo bay's methods. With special attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation

[Whaleboy]

I've actually suggested that a number of times as a way to avoid headaches in these threads especially since I'm quite dubious that even a bare majority of those people (even the ones that return to terrorism after being released from Gitmo) provide much in the way of actionable intel. It never get much acceptance.

It just seems far more tactically prudent. If they are such a risk, execute them, unless they are higher-ranking members of Al Qaeda in which case surely they would have either yielded more useful intelligence, or invalidate the use of torture at GTMO. That begs the question of the nature of the men held prisoner... imo they're sacrificial lambs to appease rednecks.

[Ted Striker]

Another great link is, "A Consequentialist Argument against Torture Interrogation of Terrorists" by Jean Maria Arrigo, Ph.D., Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics

http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE03/Arrigo03.html

[Whaleboy]

http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE03/Arrigo03.html

Skim reading

Articles with 30% of their length as citations

[Ted Striker]

What about the cool little tables and stuff?

[Whaleboy]

Touché

[DinoDoc]

I like this one better than lame wikpedia articles: http://asil.org/insights/insigh81.htm

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Out of curiosity, why exactly didn't we leave him in Egypt? He had Egyptian citizenship after all.

He had Australian citizenship too and his case got publicised. He was only ever "on loan" to the Egyptians for interrogation.

The guy was a cleaner for Christ's sake - father of 4 children. He was known in Australian muslim circles as a bit of a blather mouth and nutter. But no real threat.