Suspected Terrorist = Actual Terrorist

[Provost Harrison]

With this kind of tactic, you know the war against terror is completely lost, because it has clearly come the war between different terrors.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Its called being pro-active instead of being re-active.

If your poractive, there are less terror attacks, but mistakes can be made.
If your reactive, then no mistaes are made but you have hundreds, or thousands of people dead; and usually no one to try, as they kill themselves in the process.

I, for one, prefer that the US government maintain its proactive stance to insure my saftey.

I agree. And for me, that isn't the problem. The problem is that we capture someone innocent, and then keep them locked up in inhuman conditions for six plus months. The problem isn't that mistakes are made, the problem is that mistakes aren't corrected. I get the sense that we care more about appearing to not mistakes than actually not making mistakes. And trust me, this is a problem.

[DanS]

To be clear, the Masri case was identified as a mistake by the US and he was released.

[Provost Harrison]

Oh well that's alright then

[Winston]

I have one case in mind specifically when thinking about the detainees. The only 'Danish' citizen known to have been interred at Guantanamo. After heavy domestic pressure, our State Department lobbyed for his release, during the summer of 2004, IIRC. It was at a time when several detainees with ties to European countries were released after various governments pleaded in their favour.

So, after much back and forth including a virtual sh*tstorm rising in the local media, the guy is let go and returns to Denmark. He promptly goes on national television and states that he's a holy warrior fighting for Allah and that the Prime Minister's office, the State Department and Ministry of Defense are all legitimate targets for his campaign. Furthermore that he fully supports the actions of al-Qaeda, past, present and future, and that he will now take time to decide his next course of action.

After a brief interlude a couple of days later in which he announced he would file a lawsuit against the U.S. for unrightful imprisonment, he finally shuts up and nothing is ever heard from him again.

The government is eventually informed by police intelligence that the bloke has left the country and is believed to be in Iraq taking up contact with the insurgents there.

Way to go, suckers. Not that I think the government actually had their heart in the efforts they put in for his release, but the media pressure was getting to be a nuisance so they asked, and the U.S. eventually obliged, since presumably they didn't have all that much incriminating the guy and they would of course listen to an ally.

I believe this to be the case for a number of detainees, authorities have strong causes for suspicion against certain people, but in some cases not enough directly incriminating material to put them away for good.

Now, as the above case illustrates, at least to me, there may be good reason to side with the initial determination by intelligence officers investigating terrorist groupings as to whether a person's actions merit detainment.

Specific cases of mistaken identities are a different matter, and I would be surprised if the detaining authority weren't themselves interested in sorting out those, without the interference of the oh-so concerned bleeding hearts that seem to pop up at the rate of one every minute.

[Provost Harrison]

Well of course Winston, that little story completely legitimises torturing people who 'look a bit foreign'...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Winston
Specific cases of mistaken identities are a different matter, and I would be surprised if the detaining authority weren't themselves interested in sorting out those, without the interference of the oh-so concerned bleeding hearts that seem to pop up at the rate of one every minute.

It's not out of bleedy-heart-ism that I am concerned. It's for my own safety.

In France, we just had a pedophilia case when a dozen of complete innocents have been jailed for three years on the basis of a suspicion. They have suffered from all kinds of pressure, because paedophiles are monsters and deserve it. It turned out that the only suspicion on these people were the lies of a compulsively lying abusive mother, and the lies of her children. Three years afterwards, they have come entirely clean, and the judiciary made an official apology for the ****-up (this is a first).

I'm talking about that matter because it could have happened to anybody. Someday, I could disappear from 'Poly without a trace, I could be tortured so that the interrogator gets the answers he wants. And this, despite the fact that I have done nothing even remotely related to what I'm accused of.
Maybe not with terrorism right now, since whiteys aren't targeted in the police profiling. But with matters related to pedophilia, definitely.

That case (called the Outreau case) made me see that even our democracies can have kafkaesque Trials. It was exactly that: innocent people who went through a process where the justice were sure of their guilt, where everything was out of their control. The Masri case is another kafkaesque situation. If we are complacent when it happens, it is bound to be generalized. And you, me, Donegeal, everybody will live in the fear of being arrested for a "suspicion".

[Winston]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well of course Winston, that little story completely legitimises torturing people who 'look a bit foreign'...

Which is clearly what I and countless others so far have vigorously advocated, aye.

[Provost Harrison]

Spiffor, you do appreciate, as I do, that in the future, our very outspoken political opinions could make us the victims of these laws. After all, they have been made to be so open-ended for that purpose...

[Winston]

Miscarriages of justice are not uncommon within the regular judicial system, not least in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse, that is true.

There are extensive safeguards in place to ensure against wrongful convictions in regular criminal proceedings, including freedom of speech and of the press, rights to a legal representative and so forth. Still, wrongful convictions occur; basically because every system with human involvement is prone to error.

But in my view, that's a different debate from what we're faced with wrt. to the terrorist detainees. Even if, in some far-fetched dream, we could somehow louse out all the pitfalls of normal judicial proceedings that lead to wrongful convictions, it wouldn't be useful for obtaining the same with the detainees. By the very nature of the investigation against these suspects, you can't apply the normal democratic safeguards, as it would defeat the original purpose of investigating them.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Winston
By the very nature of the investigation against these suspects, you can't apply the normal democratic safeguards, as it would defeat the original purpose of investigating them.

I don't understand what you mean.

The purpose of ordinary judiciary proceedings is to protect the population from outlaws, by punishing them or by removing them from society altogether (for the worst offenders). A terrorist bomber and a serial killer are similar threats to society. What is so different in the purpose of investigating either case?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Spiffor, you do appreciate, as I do, that in the future, our very outspoken political opinions could make us the victims of these laws. After all, they have been made to be so open-ended for that purpose...

Well, I think that I am already filed in the domestic intelligence agency, since I'm a political activist. Currently, it's not too bad, as my country doesn't punish political activists. However, life is long, and things could change.

But any person who knows my real name can know my political affilation by googling me, so I accept that my political engagement is now an info outside my control.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Oh well that's alright then

I was merely pointing out that the problem was corrected and we admitted the mistake, unlike what Admiral believed.

So suck it.

[Winston]

You can't publicize evidence, incriminating information or interrogation results on these detainees like you can in regular criminal proceedings. If you did, you'd be out of the intelligence business shortly - and a good deal of your confidential sources would likely be moving to a new residence six feet underground.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by DanS


I was merely pointing out that the problem was corrected and we admitted the mistake, unlike what Admiral believed.

So suck it.

Yes, it was corrected. But how long did it take for us to realize our mistake? My sense is that our troops in places like Guantanamo probably feel discouraged from looking for mistakes, when I feel that to justify a place like Guantanamo, questioning the evidence that placed people there has to be a top priority.