Are the folk in Gitmo guilty or innocent?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by mactbone
LotM:
This is a little off the track, but I'm wondering if you have any examples of a case where degredations or other legally dubious means have gathered intel that my have potentially saved lives. From everything I've heard, extreme forms of interrogation don't yield results. In addition, I've never heard of an instance where a few minutes was the difference between life and death. I don't understand why these methods would be considered from a purely practical standpoint. If regular interrogation methods work just as well or better, then why use the legally dubious sorts?

I dont know what has been extracted from whom, how. Im not interrogator and dont know what works, but MY impression is that its not at allunanamous. I doubt very much that what we've gotten from the folks at Gitmo is worth the political cost. But to accept Spiffs argument as it stands, would require not just freeing the gitmo detainees, but folks like Khalid sheik mohammed. In fact one of the things that angers me about the admins policy, is that theyve brought into disrepute by overuse practices that in future MAY be needed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

While the gitmo guys aren't conscripts, I have the strong feeling that most of them are voluntary cannon-fodder of foreign origin. But without trial, of course, it's hard to have any actual knowledge of what they did.

Being cannon-fodder, even volunatily and from a foreign country, doesn't automatically turns you into a terrorist who blows up marketplaces.

Edit: clarity.

1. Are you saying that the Spanish Republic was ethically equivalent to the Taliban, and that the IB were ethically equivalent to Al Qaeeda? You do realize that it was Al Qaeeda which organized the foreigners who came to support the Taliban?

2. Are you saying that you would not apply the GC to someone who was clearly (though not proven in a law court) NOT cannon fodder, someone like Khalid Sheik Muhammed?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Are you saying that the Spanish Republic was ethically equivalent to the Taliban, and that the IB were ethically equivalent to Al Qaeeda? You do realize that it was Al Qaeeda which organized the foreigners who came to support the Taliban?

I have a strong preference for the International Brigades, obviously. However, I'm pretty sure there's a similarity in the thinking of someone who goes to spain to fight against the fascists, and the thinking of someone who goes to Afghanistan to fight against the crusaders.
Both are about taking up the arms to defend an ideal. Neither necessarily involves (or excludes) the use of terrorist tactics.

If you consider there is nothing inherently wrong with people from all countries taking up arms to fight against fascism, then you also have to agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with people taking up arms, and going abroad to the battlefield in order to defeat the army of the "crusader".

2. Are you saying that you would not apply the GC to someone who was clearly (though not proven in a law court) NOT cannon fodder, someone like Khalid Sheik Muhammed?

As an enemy leader, I'd put him in the hands of the secret services for interrogation. And once he's milked for what he's worth, I'd put him on trial, or I'd treat him as PoW, depending how the enemy is defined. Interrogating a few leaders is a matter of pragmatism. Detaining hundreds of "terrorists" with a complete lack of judicial process is a matter of criminal idiocy.

[lord of the mark]

I have a strong preference for the International Brigades, obviously. However, I'm pretty sure there's a similarity in the thinking of someone who goes to spain to fight against the fascists, and the thinking of someone who goes to Afghanistan to fight against the crusaders.
Both are about taking up the arms to defend an ideal. Neither necessarily involves (or excludes) the use of terrorist tactics.

If you consider there is nothing inherently wrong with people from all countries taking up arms to fight against fascism, then you also have to agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with people taking up arms, and going abroad to the battlefield in order to defeat the army of the "crusader".

Actually Im not as fond of the IB as you are - the ones from the US tended to be Stalinists. However in Afghanistan, there was a specific organization that trained and organized the foreign fighters who came in. It was called Al Qaeeda. In addition to organizing ground troops to support the Taliban against the Northern Alliance (the "crusaders" werent on the ground in afghan when most of the foreign fighters arrived) it perpetrated atrocities within Afghanistan, and organized terrorist acts abroad, including the destruction of the World Trade Center. It was a criminal organization, and we are talking about members of a criminal organization. The nearest analog is the Waffen SS, more than the International Brigades.

Except that AQ was small enough that even footsoldiers might have useful info on the AQ leaders, and the AQ leaders are still at large, unlike Himmler when the Waffen SS were captured.

I wouldnt Godwinize, but youve brought up an inapt analogy, and its necessary to correct it with the more apt one.

as an enemy leader, I'd put him in the hands of the secret services for interrogation. And once he's milked for what he's worth, I'd put him on trial, or I'd treat him as PoW, depending how the enemy is defined. Interrogating a few leaders is a matter of pragmatism. Detaining hundreds of "terrorists" with a complete lack of judicial process is a matter of criminal idiocy.

I am not speaking now to whether what was done was idiocy or not. I have already made clear repeatedly that I dont think what was actually done, for as long as it was done, was the best policy. And I headed my own first post saying its time to close Gitmo. I dont see anything in the legal argument youve made that would justify treating KSM differently from the foot soldiers. Since your ethical arguments revolve around your personal notion of whats civilized, it would seem possible to make the distinction (between leaders and foot soldiers) , and evidently you do. Im not sure everyone else does though.

This is important as we have KSM types in custody (not in Gitmo) and will probably have more in the future. This is an issue that will still be with us when the current admin is history.

[Drake Tungsten]

The French government has been plunged into embarrassment by the revelation that its intelligence agents interrogated six French citizens inside the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1162842.ece

"A symbol of America spitting on human values" indeed...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The French government has been plunged into embarrassment by the revelation that its intelligence agents interrogated six French citizens inside the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1162842.ece

orrible when it comes to the respect of human rights.
"A symbol of America spitting on human values" indeed...

Yes.

I'm not too vocal about it on 'Poly, because few people here care about French domestic politics, but I'm very wary about the attacks on human rights made by the French government. This government has a very bad record when it comes to human rights.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The French government has been plunged into embarrassment by the revelation that its intelligence agents interrogated six French citizens inside the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1162842.ece

"A symbol of America spitting on human values" indeed...

Whats the problem? Presumably they werent using any of the questionable interrogation procedures. Is it wrong to interrogate period? That seems absurd to me. Shows the extent to which the reaction to Gitmo is no longer rational.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I wouldnt Godwinize, but youve brought up an inapt analogy, and its necessary to correct it with the more apt one.

I don't think the SS thing its a good analogy. Yes, the SS (as other nazi orgs) where labeled criminal orgs during the Nuremberg trials. But first - IIUC there wasn't anything comparable to those Nuremberg trials yet with regard to those in Gitmo. And second, what was done in Nuremberg wasn't done as an act to throw out collective guilt - those who where accused of being a member of a criminal org as defined in Nuremberg had still their trials with the chance for defense and individual sentences (even when the trial often had groups of people).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro


I don't think the SS thing its a good analogy. Yes, the SS (as other nazi orgs) where labeled criminal orgs during the Nuremberg trials. But first - IIUC there wasn't anything comparable to those Nuremberg trials yet with regard to those in Gitmo. And second, what was done in Nuremberg wasn't done as an act to throw out collective guilt - those who where accused of being a member of a criminal org as defined in Nuremberg had still their trials with the chance for defense and individual sentences (even when the trial often had groups of people).

Suppose Hitler and Himmler had fled to a neighboring country, from which they continued to plot attacks on A. The allied forces in Germany B. Those Germans who cooperated with the occupation C. The allied homelands D. Jewish targets worldwide. Utilizing a global network. Suppose it was believed that the SS A. possesed info that would be useful against the Nazi network and B. were likely, if released, to rejoin the struggle. Is it not likely that trials would have been allowed them only at a time, and to the extent, that it did not interfere with intell gathering, or other ongoing operations?

Now we can argue whether the USCMJ trial procedures provide adequate safeguards to national security. Thats a practical, empirical question, about which reasonable people can disagree. That is in fact likely to be debated in Congress now, since SCOTUS has ruled that the Pres cant institute new trial procedures on his own authority.

[BeBMan]

re Hitler and his minions escape - it's hard to argue about hypothetical situations. I also think the entire situation with him being head of the state is a bit different, maybe more comparable (but even that may be a weak comparison given the historical circumstances) to the situation with Saddam now....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
re Hitler and his minions escape - it's hard to argue about hypothetical situations. I also think the entire situation with him being head of the state is a bit different, maybe more comparable (but even that may be a weak comparison given the historical circumstances) to the situation with Saddam now....

all historical comparisons have weaknesses (which is one of the reasons for Godwins law) I am NOT saying the gitmo prisoners are JUST like SS, and that we should follow either what was done to SS, or what would have been done in a hypothetical. Im saying this is a MORE apt comparison than Spiffs to the International Brigades.

IE these are NOT just guys who volunteered to help an ideologically friendly country. These are guys who became members of a criminal organization, one that was dedicated to the commision of atrocities, even if they were only foot soldiers. That does not necessarily justify ANY particular action wrt to them - it DOES mean that when justifications are discussed, the assertion "but they were only foot soldiers" is inapt.

[Drake Tungsten]

Whats the problem?

I don't have a problem with it. It's good to see that the French intelligence services are still making use of Gitmo, even if most of their countrymen have an illogical hatred for the place.