Why is it, that the impression the media leaves me with, is that Hamdan is “just a driver” and a victim of circumstances? Just another tragic pawn and casualty in the illegal and immoral war instigated by the imperialistic, oil-grubbing, human-rights/U.S. Constitution-violating Bush regime?
Well, he’s been found guilty of supporting terrorism, but acquitted on charges of conspiracy to commit acts of terror.
Anyway…
Jonathan Mahler writing last Sunday for the NYTimes Magazine:
The men in the dock might very well be war criminals, the argument goes, but what about the policy makers and interrogators who violated their rights under the Geneva Conventions?
The perception pushed by so many on the anti-Bush side of the argument, is that the detainees held at Guantanamo deserve protection under the provisions provided by the Geneva Convention; and that subsequently, because the Administration had long argued against classifying enemy combatants captured on the Afghanistan battlefield- al Qaeda and Taliban fighters- as having “prisoner of war” status, protected by the 1949 codification of the laws of war (until July 7, 2006, after a Supreme Court ruling), that Bush & Co somehow do not respect the Geneva Convention. The reality, however, is just the opposite. It’s for the same reason that President Reagan decided not to ratify Protocol I, declaring that it, “would undermine humanitarian law and endanger civilians in war.”
Douglas Feith, called the Geneva Conventions “a high-water mark of civilization”. He absolutely supports it, even as he denies its provisions to be extended to non-uniformed combatants who endanger civilians by blending in, and being indistinguishable from civilians, putting innocent lives at risk. To grant them the same legal rights as prisoners of war, grants terrorism legitimacy.
From Douglas Feith’s War and Decision, pg 163,
It would be “highly dangerous if countries make application of Convention hinge on subjective or moral judgments as to the quality or decency of the enemy’s government”- and it would be dangerous, therefore, to claim that the Convention does not apply because the Taliban are “the illegitimate government of a ‘failed state.’ ” Countries typically view their enemies as gangs of criminals. If officials had to certify an enemy as a “legitimate government” to apply the Convention, few countries would ever do so.
“I contended that a “pro-Convention” position, on the other hand, would reinforce U.S. moral arguments in the war on terrorism:
- The essence of the Convention is the distinction between soldiers and civilians (i.e., between combatants and noncombatants).
- Terrorists are reprehensible precisely because they negate that distinction, by purposefully targeting civilians.
- The Convention aims to protect civilians by requiring soldiers to wear uniforms and otherwise distinguish themselves from civilians.
- The Convention creates an incentive system for good behavior. The key incentive is that soldiers who play by the rules get POW status if they are captured.
From Douglas Feith’s War and Decision, pg 38:
The Convention gave maximum protection to noncombatants- innocent bystanders- and gave the next level of protection to fighters who obey the laws of war. The least protection was given to fighters who did not obey the rules. In this regard, as in many others, the Geneva Conventions were humane and sensible: The Conventions’ drafters in the late 1940s had their priorities right. The Convention created an incentive system to encourage respect for the laws of war and especially to safeguard innocent bystanders. Civilians are endangered when fighters wear civilian clothes, for example, because that makes the fighters indistinguishable from bystanders. So the Conventions provided that captured fighters were entitled to the privileged status of “prisoners of war” only if they met certain conditions, including wearing uniforms and carrying their arms openly. The national liberation groups, whose fighters did not obey those laws, protested that the Geneva Conventions should be amended to entitle their fighters to POW status even if they concealed their status as fighters.
Philippe Sands, author of Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values, dismisses the relevancy of whether or not terrorists be granted POW status rights:
In his introductory statement at the hearing on July 15, Mr. Feith devoted a great deal of attention to the issue of P.O.W. status under Geneva. This is not a relevant issue: The rules reflected in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibit inhumane treatment and establish a distinct, minimum standard of protection for all detainees, not just those with P.O.W. status. Specifically, these rules prohibit a number of acts for detainees “at any time and in any place whatsoever,” including “violence to life and person,” “cruel treatment and torture,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” These protections are not dependent upon the detainee having P.O.W. status and, as the official commentary to Geneva makes clear, the scope of Common Article 3 “must be as wide as possible.” Judgments of the International Court of Justice and international criminal tribunals have long held that the rules reflected in Common Article 3 “constitute a minimum yardstick” for all armed conflicts.
Furthermore, Sands argues that Feith does not believe Common Article 3 should apply to Guantanamo detainees.
I have not been able to identify any document that reflects Mr. Feith’s “receptivity” to Common Article 3.
Well….obviously, Sands didn’t choose fit to shell out pound notes to purchase Feith’s War and Decision. Pg 163:
I recommend that our government stress “[h]umane treatment for all detainees,” and that al Qaida as well as Taliban personnel should receive the treatment they are entitled to under the Convention- or that they would be entitled to, if the Convention governed our conflict with them.
As none of the detainees qualified legally for prisoner-of-war status, I believed that humane treatment was the proper standard for all of them- whether or not they had been captured in a war governed by the Convention. Even if the President were unwilling to conclude that the Convention governed our fight against the Taliban, I recommended that he make the following declaration: Although U.S. officials have not yet resolved the question of whether we are legally required to do so, the United States would give all detainees the status that they would be entitled to under the Convention- in other words, humane treatment.
There’s more in the book. Anyone, left or right, interested in serious historical scholarship, should pick up Feith’s book; even if it’s for nothing more than to argue against the policies of the Bush Administration, at least you’ll be better informed in sharpening your criticism.
Previous related posts of interest:
Osama bin-Laden’s Driver Complains He Wasn’t Read Miranda Rights
Terrorist Crying During Interrogation At Gitmo Makes Liberals Sad
Rendition The Only Sane Choice Now
Terrorist Who Trained With AQ To Be Released
Sunday Funnies- “Can it Git Mo’ Crazy than This?”
Andy McCarthy – Congress Must Act To Fix Boumediene
SCOTUS opinion: The aftermath commences
The End Result Of The SCOTUS Gitmo Decision?
Fred On The GITMO Ruling
Walid Phares On The Coming GITMO Trials
McCain – “One of the Worst Decisions in the History of this Country.”
UPDATED – The Supremes: The road to today’s decision
“The Nation Will Live To Regret What The Court Has Done Today.”
Scalia Fumes on Gitmo Case: Today’s Opinion “Will Almost Certainly Cause More Americans To Be Killed.” [Reader Post]
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Word,
“Terrorists are reprehensible precisely because they negate that distinction, *by purposefully targeting civilians.*”
I agree.
What did the United States do in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki? By this definition we committed acts of terror.
The Bush Administration has not followed Mr. Feith’s recommendation to provide
“[h]umane treatment for all detainees” It has authorized inhumane treatment of detainees under the Orwellian rubric of “enhanced interrogation.”
For all our efforts to bend over backwards and give these murdering monsters the rights they are not entitled to by International Law I can’t find ONE example of where these murderers have reciprocated and respected the human rights of others.
We have been told that if we treat them better than they deserve that our U.S. soldiers might receive better treatement.
Was it “better” treatment when captured soliders had their genitals cut off and stuffed in their mouths as they choked on the blood until they died?
It’s this aburdly broken moral compass that assumes if we show these monsters a better way they will change.
They will not change. They must be defeated or killed.
Better to just shoot them on the battlefield than go to all this trouble.
Those were acts of conventional warfare. Nations go to war. Nations can surrender.
Do you not draw the distinction?
I know how much of a fan you are of Rumsfeld:
I do, however, agree, that subjecting detainees to Christina Aguilera music for even 1 minute, goes too far, as “cruel and unusual”.
We’re better than that, people….
Mike, I agree with you that the moral equivalence line is tiresome. But I think we only retain the moral high ground if we live up to higher standards of conduct, in spite of how the enemy may treat our soldiers. We should demand it of ourselves,and not predicate it upon the standard of behavior of terrorists.
Many (not all) of the so called “Blame America First” crowd do, in fact, hold America to the highest moral standard.
Habeas should be a cornerstone of any judical system, not just a right reserved for Americans. No one should ever have the right to to detain anyone indefinitely without a proper system of establishing just cause.
I do not believe there was widespread mistreatment of prisoners at GITMO. But I do believe the Bush adminstration took way too long to begin proper trials. As a result, we got a very bad Supreme court decision that we will be struggling to sort out for years to come.
The prisoners in Gitmo are like Pit Bulls that have been trained to fight. No amount of humane treatment is going to change their behavior. For all intents and purposes they have been lost to the human race.
I wouldn’t mind if all of them were simply hauled out and disposed of.
Chuck
“Habeas should be a cornerstone of any judical system”
Agreed, fit, but that is not the issue. The issue was whether this is a judicial problem in the first place.
Persons captured in wartime overseas were never a judicial problem, even if they were ‘illegal combatants’ – spies, traitors and saboteurs in the old days. They were generally put up against the wall and summarily shot, and the Geneva Conventions did very little to change that.
The only time it became a judicial matter was if the person is caught within your own country, when you had to try him for espionage or whatever.
The distinction is that 1) a crime was committed within your jurisdiction, and 2) within your country, the legal system has paramount authority.
So if an Al Qaeda raghead sneaks into the U.S. and sets a bomb off in Butte, Montana (if anyone notices), it is 100% a judicial matter.
But if he sets off the bomb in Iraq and a U.S. soldier captures him, the U.S. legal system has no jurisdiction. There is ZERO reason for U.S. civilian courts to get involved. It becomes a military matter, not a judicial one, unless the U.S. can find some country that wants to take him.
And in the military, you keep a captured person until hostilities are ended (this might take a long time in this case), unless you consider them to be illegal combatants, in which case international law is vague. The Geneva Conventions give protections to legal combatants and civilians, but is very vague on what to do with someone who does not fit the Convention’s definition of a legal combatant. You could shoot him on the spot, and a UN Prosecutor would have a very hard time proving that you violated the Geneva Convention.
Let’s face it, the U.S. was exceedingly kind to some of these prisoners. 3 squares a day, medical attention, Qurans in every cell (I would never have allowed that) etc. etc..
Remember that many of the people in Club Gitmo now are only there because no country, including their countries of origin, want them back. Yemen, Saudi and other Islamic countries don’t want to have to take these terrorists back and put them on trial, because that would anger the Islamist radicals in their country. And they don’t want to just repatriate them and let them go either, because they are after all terrorists. So they simply refuse to take them back and the U.S. is now stuck with them.
I would load them all up on on an old 747 cargo plane and somewhere above 40,000 feet, have a sudden cabin pressurization problem. What a shame…
DAVE NOBLE DISPENSES MORE OF HIS “WISDOM”
Dresden was a key city in Hitler’s war effort.
Hiroshima was an industrial area with a number of military installations.
Nagasaki was a major port with shipbuilding and marine repair facilities.
I.e., they were VALID MILITARY TARGETS! (I had to add this because otherwise there’s no chance he would have figured that out from the information above – and may still not.)
At least a 10 fold greater death toll would have resulted, not just for them, but for us if we hadn’t nuked Japan, unless the Leftists forced us to lose that war like they were trying to, even then. And if we had lost, Japan would have remained a military monarchy, and would have started trouble again once they rebuilt.
“Oh, but people died. You should be ashamed. Better we be conquered and/or killed than harm a hair on those who would destroy us.” — Idiot Leftists, trying to make us feel guilty in order to weaken our resolve to fight and win against them.
EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG
“Habeas should be a cornerstone of any judical system” FitFit
Habeas Corpus is a “civil right,” which means it applies to CITIZENS, not foreigners, and certainly not terrorists. Or, at least that’s always the way it’s worked in most of recorded history, until the Left started thinking they could revoke reality in favor of their fantasies.
And in case he didn’t know it, during wartime a president can suspend Habeas Corpus, if he has the stones and the support to do so. It is constitutionally valid, and has been done before, and, as usual, Lefties tie themselves up in knots trying to reconcile history with their own personal biases.
EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG
“Habeas Corpus is a “civil right,” which means it applies to CITIZENS, not foreigners,”
Not exactly. It applies to anyone within the jurisdiction of the law, which in the case of the USA, means not only U.S. citizens but anyone within the borders of the USA.
Kill them on the battle field. If they surrender, try them and shoot them on the battle field.
Take care of the terrorists and then start on the terrorist supporting democrats here in the U.S. Try them and shoot them, no battle field required. Say democrat, I say sleeze, slime, criminal, and traitor. Is there any other kind?
Scrapiron typed:
‘Kill them on the battle field. If they surrender, try them and shoot them on the battle field.
Take care of the terrorists and then start on the terrorist supporting democrats here in the U.S. Try them and shoot them, no battle field required. Say democrat, I say sleeze, slime, criminal, and traitor. Is there any other kind?’
You have my vote for the Flopping Aces post of the week. No one comes close to summing up the spirit, the generosity, the intellectual rigor and the geo-political acumen of this blog as you have done in this most excellent and pithy of posts.
You give clear voice to what most of your fellow posters merely hint at.
Mission Accomplished!
There’s the old wingnut attitude I know and love! The more I read of Scrapiron’s rantings, the more insane–and I mean clinically insane–I can tell he is.
You’re absolutely right! Except for the ones who aren’t guilty of anything, that is:
Thanks for that Dec 2006 update, DW. Duh…. Can you say “old news” and “changing conditions on the ground”?
Most have already been released… save for those who’s nations refused to take them back, They are still hanging around, getting their Micky-D’s happy meals on the US taxpayers dollar.
Burning question of the day… if DW, who obviously deplores FA… left for Daily KO’s fertile cyber grounds, would anyone notice he’s gone?
Not I….
Dreadnought#10
If you have any online references that would support that, I would like to see them. Thanks.
____________________________________________________________
“You give clear voice to what most of your fellow posters merely hint at.” — Stoner
Yeah, the Lefties would NEVER stoop to killing ANYONE…
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/11/sometimes-murdering-fetus-is-homicide.html
They are soooo …peaceful, after all.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/04/recurring-ties-between-obama-and.html
FARCing idiots, all of them!
yonason
The conventions are unfortunately pretty messy in terms of organization. You basically have to read the whole damned thing, which I did a couple years ago when this issue started getting serious. The conventions seem to have been written almost in stream-of-conciousness.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView
Dreadnought
Thanks, I was afraid of that. That’s probably why I couldn’t find anything readable in my search after reading your response. My refs on that are on my other computer, and it’s not on line, so it may take me a while to dig them out. Also, I found something about back in the 1800’s Congress passed a special law to allow a specific foreigner to be allowed Habeas Corpus (which then devolves to everyone else) but up until then there apparently wasn’t any, sort of. And I also found another link that said an alien who was accused of a crime, and believed guilty, could and would be held until he could be deported, without the benefit of Habeas Corpus, so I’m not exactly sure what the legal application actually is today. But, in general, “civil rights” (in theory, at least) are for citizens of a country, not aliens – with some exceptions, apparently.
But you guys are so much fun!
Just as I thought.
Not a peep from the regular, ‘real’ Americans regarding Scrapiron’s enthusiastic (and anonymous to be sure) call to kill Democrats.
As Mike hisself would point out in a situation more to his liking the idea of ‘moral equivalence’ does arise.
Oh well.
So much for civility and reasoned discourse.
When Scrapiron gets his caricature on the site I recommend Festus
No they can’t Mata. Dave Noble still wants to talk about how it was wrong for us to have gone into Iraq and blah blah blah… Apparently these guys are working on a time machine so they can go back and fix things.
Is there any reason to think that the situation has changed? What “changing conditions on the ground” have guaranteed that everyone at Guantanamo is guilty of what they’ve been accused of?
Sure wish the site pests would do their own homework…
As of late 2006, 310 detainees had been released to their original countries, and 450 approx left in detention. As of today, more have been released and there are approx 270 left at Gitmo. Some of those are free to go, but their countries of origin won’t take them back.
In Oct 2004, WaPo was pointing out that some of these detainees were rejoining the fight, despite being released as the “innocents” the progressives like to portray them as. As of May of last year, about 30 have been known to have returned to the battlefield.
We, of course, do not officially know how many have rejoined the ranks, now will we until we perhaps recapture or kill them. We have no idea how many may continue to aid or sympathize with AQ and the Taliban, providing shelter and other services. All detainees were either picked up on the battlefield, or turned in via intel… true, sometimes fabricated by others. Then again, just like in our own justice system, being innocent does not protect you from a lawsuit by one who is fabricating lies.
The progressive/liberals whine about the length of time of detention for those that were ultimately released. Fact is, the military trials were originally set up with an EO in Nov of 2001. But they could not go forward because of the legal quagmire of challenges. Without these legal challenges, many could have been released sooner as the tribunals could have gone forward more quickly.
Thus the delays and extended detention time may be laid squarely on the shoulders of the progressive/liberal lawyers who slowed the tribunal process. They did the majority of detainees little good, but they did manage to line line their own pockets with cash.
I disagree with the SCOTUS decision, and will do so until the day I die. It is all founded on a grey area of sovereignty of the base in Cuba – completely unique in status and such a legal view totally sans precedents that support the decision. They grant POW status and US citizen rights to stateless jihad gang members. Personally, if they are attacking our coalition forces on the battlefield, I’d rather they be shot with their weapons in hand rather than be captured. But then, we lose potential and very important intel.
Instead, as has been demonstrated even with the legally delayed tribunal process – releasing fighters who go right back to the battle fields – they have more opportunity than ever use our own western legal system – the very same they so despise – against us.
“Just as I thought.
Not a peep from the regular, ‘real’ Americans regarding Scrapiron’s enthusiastic (and anonymous to be sure) call to kill Democrats.”
Autherstone.
Scrap’s comment was an obvious attempt at over-the-top sarcasm, which you seem to have fallen for hook line and sinker. Lighten up – it will do your blood pressure good.
I would never agree to kill democrats. I would draw the limit at groundless torture 😉
Yon,
“*Hiroshima* was an industrial area with a number of military installations. *Nagasaki* was a major port with shipbuilding and marine repair facilities. In general, the participants in the decision to use multiple bombs considered that such employment would enhance the psychological effect on the Japanese government and would be conducive to ending the war without the need for an invasion, a paramount objective.”
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/abomb.htm
Surgical attacks on Hiroshima’s industrial areas and military installations, as well as Nagasaki’s shipbuilding and marine repair facilities would have achieved the directly military objective. As your own source points out, the paramount objective was based on the psychological effect, i.e., terror.
At best you are arguing justified terrorism.
Re: Dresden You correctly note that Dresden was a legitimate military target. However, there was also a direct attack on the civilian populace by way of the British night raid. After the British high explosives turned the wooden buildings to kindling, the British incendiary bombs created a firestorm that ravaged the city. As a matter of mission differentiation, the American planes bombed the militarily significant Marshalling Yards and the British bombed the city area. However, I don’t think that isolates the American forces from responsibility for what happened to the city area. It was a joint Allied operation.
“The night raid by the RAF Bomber Command was intended to devastate the city area itself and thereby choke communications within the city and disrupt the normal civilian life upon which the larger communications activities and the manufacturing enterprises of the city depended”
snip
“The British employed 1477.7 tons of high explosive bombs and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs–all aimed against the Dresden city area.”
snip
“Casualties among the Dresden populace were inevitably very heavy in consequence of the fires that swept over the city following the RAF area raid on the night of 13/14 February. In addition to its normal population, the city had experienced a heavy influx of refugees from the east and of evacuees from bombings in other areas, particularly from Berlin. The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established. Contemporary British estimates were that from 8,200 to 16,400 persons were killed and that similar numbers of persons may have been seriously injured. Most of the latest German post-war estimates are that about 25,000 persons were killed and about 30,000 were wounded, virtually all of these being casualties from the RAF incendiary attack of 13/14 February.
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm
MataHarley, your lengthy post does not answer my question–you seem to have been doing homework for the wrong chapter.
“Surgical attacks on Hiroshima’s industrial areas and military installations, as well as Nagasaki’s shipbuilding and marine repair facilities would have achieved the directly military objective. — Dave Noble
I thought I was talking to a donkey, but now I realize I’m talking to it’s posterior.
“Surgical attack?” In 1945??!!
….
I’ll finish this post when I stop laughing…
….
….
Ok, I …..
……
…just can’t stop….
whew! OK, then…
“Surgical strikes are generally carried out by precision guided munitions, and in particular by aircraft. However the term “surgical strike” may also be employed to describe an assassination by precise means, such as with a sniper rifle.
Maybe we can have Billy the Kinky send a few Cruise or Tomahawk missiles back in time.
Go back to your “Age of Mythology” game, Dave, and give reality a break.
Your original comment:
Then:
Again, reiterating the obvious to the obtuse.. The situation has changed as tribunals and/or fed hearings are at long last taking place after being delayed by lawyers, and unnessarily increasing detainees time for the original tribunals.
You demonstrate a striking naivety of even the US justice system. There is no guarantee of guilty or innocence status offered even to US citizens, who can be unjustly sued by individuals, corporation or govt. That you suggest suspected terrorists should enjoy such over and above US citizens is offensive.
You again demonstrate that you are not only are reading comprehensive challenged, but an utter waste of perfectly good air and cyber bandwidsth.
MataHarley opined:
‘You demonstrate a striking naivety of even the US justice system. There is no guarantee of guilty or innocence status offered even to US citizens, who can be unjustly sued by individuals, corporation or govt.’
I’m certain we all acknowledge your expertise in ‘naivety’ and ‘reading comprehensive (sic) challenged.
Are you suggesting imprisonment in GITMO or any of the other sites the US uses around the world to incarcerate ‘terrorists’ is the same as your being sued by your neighbor over a disputed property line?
I believe there is a difference between civil and criminal actions.
removed by author
They are hopeless Mata, I see AS wants you to flat out do his thinking for him. Maybe you could also research the cases of incarcerated innocents in the US that have been released due to DNA and then provide those examples. We can’t expect Arthur to use “his” brain.
Missy#31
It’s a recurring theme, apparently. He (and/or others) has/have pulled that on me before, as well. Useless is right. I think some of them do it just to distract us. Fortunately, since the ideas they push are so common that what they really provide is a great way of refuting their nonsense. And the reason it’s great, I think, is that those who still haven’t made up their minds can have an alternate, and more sensible, explanation in contrast to the lunicy of our Leftist “friends”.
yonason,
“It’s a recurring theme, apparently. He (and/or others) has/have pulled that on me before, as well. Useless is right.”
Even if I had precious, extra time, I couldn’t imagine wasting it for the purpose of habitually annoying people.
And you are right to soldier on, your time is well spent, many lurkers out there.
Your oh-so-withering contempt is based on something I didn’t say. Of course.
Absolute certainty in regards to detainees is your idea, not mine. You said that “changing conditions on the ground” made my position–that some of the Guantanamo detainees are not guilty–inoperative, and you said it as cover for Chuck’s assertion that they all need to be “hauled out and disposed of” because they’re “like Pit Bulls that have been trained to fight. No amount of humane treatment is going to change their behavior. For all intents and purposes they have been lost to the human race.” I’m just asking how you can possibly be that sure, and, of course, you can’t. In fact, you turn right around and admit that, of the people still at Guantanamo, “some of those are free to go.”
So what are these “changing conditions on the ground?” I said that some of the people who have been held at Guantanamo are not guilty–or at least not guilty enough for the U.S. to want to keep them. That’s still the case, as per your own description of the situation; nothing has changed.
Don’t project your ignorance onto me; it’s unbecoming.
Should have remembered the limited and anal thought processes with which I deal… One would have thought the criminal aspect of false arrest was so obvious as a parallel, and it was unnecessary to mention. But apparently you latch on to a notion, and are unable to move out of your little mental box.
I’ll repeat…
The civil system is widely used in conjunction with criminal… citizens may also be dragged into civil courts for reparations related to their criminal charges, despite the outcome of their criminal cases. i.e. OJ Simpson acquitted of criminal charges of the deaths of Nicole and Ron Goldman, but found guilty in civil courts as responsible for their deaths.
Perfect example of a man who was deemed “innocent” by criminal standards when he walked into the civil courtroom, yet that status held no standing there.
Thus my statement, no guarantees in our court system anywhere. Period. Accusations can be done by law enforcement, private individuals, corporations, etal…. criminal, civil, or both. No bloody guarantees.
And you’ll find terrorists who are granted federal hearings in the D of C circuit, will also be crossing over into our civil system, demanding reparations. Who knows, they may make a ton of cash off taxpayers to fund jihad. All thanks to the SCOTUS, making it up as they go along.
MataHarley typed:
‘The civil system is widely used in conjunction with criminal… citizens may also be dragged into civil courts for reparations related to their criminal charges, despite the outcome of their criminal cases. i.e. OJ Simpson acquitted of criminal charges of the deaths of Nicole and Ron Goldman, but found guilty in civil courts as responsible for their deaths.’
So being tied up in litigation is the same as being imprisoned indefinitely without charge? You’re the one who made the analogy between terrorism suspects (my word) and US citizens who can be ‘unjustly sued’.
She added:
“And you’ll find terrorists who are granted federal hearings in the D of C circuit, will also be crossing over into our civil system, demanding reparations.”
Bingo. Except for ‘terrorists’ the proper word would be suspects and they bloody well should make a noise. Part of the reason for keeping these poor saps locked up is to avoid the unplesantness of their talking about their experiences. Most of which have nothing to do with spreading terror.
Trippin’ again, DW? Your communication attempts, which consist of pathetic attempts at coy parsing of comments, and sad stabs at what you believe to be esoteric satire, remain convoluted. You take one person’s comments, and assume it came out of the mouth of another. What you know of me wouldn’t come close to fitting on a pin head. You have no idea of what my reaction is to other comments on FA unless I weigh in on them specifically.
So reserve your perceived human rights tirades for those with whom you have that beef.
I never predetermined the detainees innocence or guilt. And if you had a point to make, I suggest you work on your communication skills. For the impression is *you* have predetermined the detainees status as not guilty… and that we’ve got a bunch of guys still at Gitmo today that had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I suggest that those who are still there today, awaiting either tribunal or fed hearings, have more than enough probable cause to be there. The rest have been released. And could have been released earlier if it were not for lawyers, halting the process with litigation.
Your anal mentality never ceases to amaze.
Heh. Conceivably because there’s not much more than that to know.
Ba-dum-bum. Thank you, everybody! I’ll be here all week! Try the veal!
First, MH wrote this:
Then she wrote this:
Well, which is it? Are they “free to go” (i.e., we don’t have probable cause to hold them–that is, they didn’t really do anything), or are they there because we have probable cause to keep them?
She’s spinning and spinning, but she’s still not making sense.
You *are* dumber than a box of rocks, aren’t you? You do so earn your “Dim Wit” nickname by others.
Those who can’t go back to their countries of origin *are* free to go. They are not being detained, nor will face a tribunal nor trial. That they have no where to go is not our fault. Gee.. if they’re just innocents, in the wrong place at the wrong time, I wonder why don’t their countries of origin want them back?
But our benevolent govt is trying to help them get entry in some where that will work for them. And in the meantime, we taxpayers are paying for their room and board.
And obviously you, Mr. Know-it-All, didn’t have a clue to the specifics of their plight. Or perhaps, did not know some were in this postion of being without a country. I guess having a modicum of knowledge on subjects on is purely an option before you comment.
Good thing that audience of one … being yourself… so appreciates your amateur hour. Hint. Don’t quit your day job.
There is no greater compliment than to be personally insulted by you. If I thought we were kindred spirits in any form or fashion, I’d know I was off track for logic and common sense. So thank you kindly.
Let’s send those 270 remaining terror fiends to go and live in Dim Wit’s neighborhood.
And after Dim Wit has his head sawed off with a dull knife by the jihadis we can send them to stay with “Arthur.”
You have still not reconciled these two statements of yours:
Your tsunami of bile and namecalling and oh-you’re-so-stupiding does not add any facts that were not already present, nor does it disguise the fact that you made two mutually exclusive statements about the detainees, and that, for whatever asinine reason, you stand behind both of them. Either some of these guys are free to go because the U.S. doesn’t think that they rate a tribunal, or there’s “more than enough probable cause” for them to be there.
One of those statements is inoperative. Which is it?
Yon,
I am aware of the current meaning of that term. At one point in my career, I was responsible for maintaining the kits that turned iron bombs into precision munitions. I simply meant a strike that was directed at the military facilities in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even during WWII there was a strike capability short of total obliteration of the city. Relative to that, an attack on the military facilities (note the division of mission between the British and American raids at Dresden) would be a surgical strike.
Now if you’re done with your giggling fit, you might try actually responding to my post.
Red herring. Not the issue. The issue is whether or not there are some people detained at Guantanamo who are innocent of wrongdoing against the United States.
Gee..if they aren’t innocent, I wonder why our government doesn’t make them face a tribunal or trial? They already have them in custody.
Duh.
They let Dave Noble near munitions???!!! …and he’s still here to pester us???!!! That is SO hard to believe!
“Relative to that, an attack on the military facilities (note the division of mission between the British and American raids at Dresden) would be a surgical strike.” — Dave Noble
Funny, Dave, I don’t seem to see your references on that detail, or any other for that matter. As you said to Scott recently, …. “Substantiate that please.”
I found this on a quick google (not always the most reliable, so if you find any real (and I mean “real”) problems with it, I might do more work on it)…
OH, yeah, we should have been more like the Brits.
The decisions were made at the Allied Command level, i.e., ALL the allies were involved. Stop trying to blame one and exhonerate the other. (“Splitting” is a tactic used by manipulaters, people who often have moderate to severe mental pathology, ….Dave.)
What’s the likelyhood that any GITMO detainee doesn’t belong there? (…even those ultimately found technically “innocent” of anything they could still be held for, but when released often go back to fighting us?)
We don’t have enough to do but pick up some foreigner, schlepp him all the way over here and then spend tens of thousands of dollars on keeping him here? …and have nothing to show for it but his presence?
We’d be stupider than the Lefties who think we do.
The Geneva Convention (and the US Constitution) allow enemy combatants to be kept for the duration of any war. Since Islam has been at this for over 1300 years, their expected confinement, if properly executed, should be a long one.
Are there problems with GITMO? Yes, but not for the reasons the Lefties want us to believe, for example…
The point is that if we tried to “solve” the problems using Lefty “solutions” we would be wrong virtually all the time, because…
EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG!
Yon, there are some who are not being detained but remain there… by choice… (note: in bold for the extremely anal who lurk merely to agitate) for two reasons:
1: their countries of origin do not want them back
2: some do not want to return to their country of origin for fear of torture and imprisonment
The US is trying to make alternative arrangements for these. About a year ago, that number was about 80 out of 370 some odd, if memory serves correctly.
But some here – with whom I will waste no more time with their asinine and unworthy game playing – have their head so far up their butt, they can’t fathom the difference between those who are free to go, (and thereby not detained)but remaining by choice because of the alternatives, and those that are detained and awaiting trial or tribunal. Since the DNC is hot to trot to close Gitmo, and time will run short, many may have to take their chances on torture in their homeland anyway.
Sort of gives a whole new meaning to Limbaugh’s “Club Gitmo”, eh?
As to the degree of their associations, accusations specifics and how dangerous they are to be set free… dunno. But if they only give Hamdan this short of a sentence, and he was found with a missile in his car trunk, those they are releasing have most likely served whatever time they’d get.
MataHarley
Sorry, but I edited my post before yours was posted, so it shouldn’t look like you were responding to something that you should have known was there. Also, yes I know there have been some who have refused to leave, but my refs for that are on my other computer, so I’m glad you dealt with that.
And, thanks for that PDF on Saddam. I didn’t have it yet.
Have a great weekend.
Ironically, MH, that was my point to begin with–or didn’t you bother reading the posts before telling me that I was stupid and didn’t know what I was talking about? Chuck wrote, in essence, “Kill ’em all because they’re all animals,” and my response was along the lines of, “Hold on–some of these guys may not be the animals you’re talking about.”
It was then that you jumped in with your “duh” and your “changing conditions on the ground.”
Then, after reams of namecalling and contempt, you’re saying, “Like I told you, man–some of them are free to go!”
If I’m remembering correctly, and I know I am, that was my point, which you told me was no longer true.
Or something.
Your circular reasoning and flipflops–while somehow keeping up a steady stream of bile and abuse and maintaining that I’m the one who is misunderstanding–are truly masterful.
Head up one’s butt? Not being able to differentiate between dangerous and non-dangerous detainees? Chuck, she’s talking to you, buddy:
We’re not talking about abstract notions like the statistical likelihood of this occurring; we’re talking about the lives of individual human beings who may–and I stress may–be innocent of wrongdoing.
It has already happened. Innocent people have already been released.
You Righties are absolutely correct: this is a different kind of war. These guys aren’t in uniform. In the past, it was easy to tell whether someone was an enemy soldier because he wore the clothes. Now it will take some extra effort to differentiate the enemy from the hapless shmoe.
You can keep the bad guys and let the other ones free, but at least make an attempt to sort the two groups out.
HORROR OF HORRORS!!!
“Innocent people have already been released.” — WD-40
WHATEVER SHALL WE DO???!!!