Innocents in Gitmo

[BigRob]

The federal judicary isn't packed with Reagan appointees, and one Reagan appointee, Anthony Kennedy, just voted on the USSC for habeas corpus for the islamofascists.

There are a lot of Reagan judges still in the judiciary. I am more talking about the lower courts.

 

[Libsmasher]

There are a lot of Reagan judges still in the judiciary. I am more talking about the lower courts.

Sorry, you don't know how it's done - libs simply go judge-shopping for a leftwing judge.

 

[BigRob]

Sorry, you don't know how it's done - libs simply go judge-shopping for a leftwing judge.

There is a bit more to it than that, but then it gets appealed to new judges etc etc... 1 judge is not going to decide anything.

 

[Libsmasher]

There is a bit more to it than that, but then it gets appealed to new judges etc etc... 1 judge is not going to decide anything.

So it can go all the way to the USSC - and we just saw how they'll rule - didn't we?

 

[PLC1]

While it is amusing to read about the mental gymnastics involved in supporting the torture and mistreatment of prisoners in US custody, there is more to the story, so let's continue.

It seems the prison in Gitmo has become a school for jihad.

GARDEZ, Afghanistan — Mohammed Naim Farouq was a thug in the lawless Zormat district of eastern Afghanistan. He ran a kidnapping and extortion racket, and he controlled his turf with a band of gunmen who rode around in trucks with AK-47 rifles.
U.S. troops detained him in 2002, although he had no clear ties to the Taliban or al Qaida. By the time Farouq was released from Guantanamo the next year, however — after more than 12 months of what he described as abuse and humiliation at the hands of American soldiers — he'd made connections to high-level militants.

In fact, he'd become a Taliban leader.

So, wile reading about the "terrorists" receiving harsh treatment at the hands of the US troops might somehow appeal to the emotions in a macho sort of way, the fact is that torture has been counter productive in the war on terror. Of course, if we compare the war on terror to the two other wars currently being waged by the government, the war on poverty and the war on drugs, it is painfully obvious that waging a "war" is the best way to promote something undesirable.

 

[Cookie Parker]

Nothing about Gitmo was legal...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/17/9687/

Last month, the Inspector General of the Justice Department released a report detailing the instances of abuse witnessed by FBI personnel at Guantanamo. According to this report, FBI officers personally observed deprivations of food, water, clothing, light and sensory input; prolonged shackling in painful positions, use of extreme temperatures and loud music, use of military dogs on or near prisoners; threats of injury to prisoners or their families, and even a materialization of such threats through extraordinary rendition (overseas transfer for the purpose of interrogation under torture). Things got to the point that FBI officers began to compile a “war crimes file” with their observations.

And forms of religious abuse, both coarse and refined, have been reported as well.

A military interpreter has reported that a female interrogator smeared a detainee with fake menstrual blood in order to render him unclean for prayer, thus preventing him from seeking strength and solace from his religion. And both Department of Defense investigations and FBI officers have reported offensive treatment of the Koran.

None of these practices are licensed by law, be it military, civilian, national, international, human or divine. In fact, the very point of Guantanamo was to create a prison law could not reach — a prison, that is, where law could be breached. It was somewhat ironic that Guantanamo was the place where trials by military commission were scheduled to take place this year.

The predecessors to the trials by military commission were the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. Forced on the Department of Defense by the Supreme Court, these were tribunals in which the prosecution gets to write the rules, appoint the judge, appoint the defense, place both under its military command, and remove either at its pleasure. A similar process has been taking place in the military commissions. The goal of these tribunals is to determine whether a prisoner was properly classified as an enemy combatant. But enemy combatancy is such a recent crime that it was not recognized as such until after it was committed — a case of retroactive application of the law. The evidence presented by the prosecution can be hearsay. It can be coerced. It can be secret. Even from the judge. The prisoner does not have the right of self-defense and may only call witnesses that the judge considers reasonably available. Only fellow prisoners have been considered as such — and then not all of them. The staff for the defense gets appointed by the prosecution. The defense can only appeal decisions on procedural grounds — when, for example, the prosecution failed to follow the rules it imposed on itself. The prosecution, on the other hand, may appeal the verdict, and may even order a new trial. With a different judge.

This is the biggest war crimes in our world's history....

 

[PLC1]

Nothing about Gitmo was legal...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/17/9687/



This is the biggest war crimes in our world's history....

It was and is not legal, nor moral, nor even productive. It is abundantly clear just who the lawbreakers are:

WASHINGTON — The framework under which detainees were imprisoned for years without charges at Guantanamo and in many cases abused in Afghanistan wasn't the product of American military policy or the fault of a few rogue soldiers.

It was largely the work of five White House, Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers who, following the orders of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, reinterpreted or tossed out the U.S. and international laws that govern the treatment of prisoners in wartime, according to former U.S. defense and Bush administration officials.

It was and is not just a few low level soldiers who ignored the law. It is a policy created in secret at the highest levels of our government.

 

[Cookie Parker]

It was and is not legal, nor moral, nor even productive. It is abundantly clear just who the lawbreakers are:



It was and is not just a few low level soldiers who ignored the law. It is a policy created in secret at the highest levels of our government.

FOLLOWING the edicts from Bush and cheney....

 

[Federal Farmer]

You need to read the whole thread. If they have HB hearings, the government will be asked to produce evidence. When it refuses because that would be revealing secrets, actually it would be against the law, then the IFs will be let go, and go back to the middle east to blow up women and children and kill american soldiers - just as previously released Gitmo IFs did.

Fear not! Any classified information against the detainees, that the government cannot reveal in open court, can be vetted through other sources, not available for release, or to the detainees, or their attorneys, and is this process is routinely accepted by the Courts, as it was in the Robert Hanssen case.

Judge orders secrets protected in spy case
March 6, 2001
Web posted at: 3:39 p.m. EST (2039 GMT)

From CNN Producer Terry Frieden at the Justice Department

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge issued Tuesday an order sharply limiting access to evidence and government documents in order to protect government secrets during the prosecution of accused FBI spy Robert Hanssen.

U.S. District Court Judge Claude Hilton in Alexandria, Virginia, issued the 17-page protective order requested by the government "to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or dissemination of classified national security information and documents which will be reviewed by or made available to, or are otherwise in the possession of" Hanssen and his lawyers.

 

[BigRob]

Nothing about Gitmo was legal...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/17/9687/



This is the biggest war crimes in our world's history....

Has to be illegal for it to be declared any kind of war crime, and I am sorry, but GTMO and the imprisonment of the people there is not illegal.

 

[Libsmasher]

While it is amusing to read about the mental gymnastics involved in supporting the torture and mistreatment of prisoners in US custody, there is more to the story, so let's continue.

It seems the prison in Gitmo has become a school for jihad.



So, wile reading about the "terrorists" receiving harsh treatment at the hands of the US troops might somehow appeal to the emotions in a macho sort of way, the fact is that torture has been counter productive in the war on terror. Of course, if we compare the war on terror to the two other wars currently being waged by the government, the war on poverty and the war on drugs, it is painfully obvious that waging a "war" is the best way to promote something undesirable.

You don't know if torture has been counterproductive in the war on terror, you're just flapping your gums. Like all appeasers, you just brush past the issue as to what constitutes torture.

 

[PLC1]

You don't know if torture has been counterproductive in the war on terror, you're just flapping your gums. Like all appeasers, you just brush past the issue as to what constitutes torture.

I've already shown that it has been counterproductive, and given examples of what constitutes torture.


Why should I keep repeating myself?

Here is more, for those who are paying attention:

Taliban ambassador wielded power within Guantanamo
KABUL, Afghanistan — When U.S. guards frog-marched Abdul Salam Zaeef through the cellblocks of Guantanamo, detainees would roar his name, "Mullah Zaeef! Mullah Zaeef!"

Zaeef, in shackles, looked at the guards and smiled.

"The soldiers told me, 'You are the king of this prison,' " he later recalled.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38888.html

Having a Taliban ambassador running the prison from within is a great way to produce even more extremists, don't you think?

 

[GenSeneca]

I've already shown that it has been counterproductive, and given examples of what constitutes torture.


Why should I keep repeating myself?

Instead of pointing out all the failures, how about you share with us the solution to our problem. Surely you have some idea of how we should be treating people we pick up on the battlefeild, where they go, what they should eat, who they should be allowed to see.... Please share with us what someone much wiser and more compassionate would do, just keep it realistic.

I'd like to compare your envisioned system to the Bipartisan rules our Government agreed to before and after going to war.

 

[PLC1]

Instead of pointing out all the failures, how about you share with us the solution to our problem. Surely you have some idea of how we should be treating people we pick up on the battlefeild, where they go, what they should eat, who they should be allowed to see.... Please share with us what someone much wiser and more compassionate would do, just keep it realistic.

I'd like to compare your envisioned system to the Bipartisan rules our Government agreed to before and after going to war.

I believe all of that was covered in the Geneva Convention, but, of course, the federal government bypassed that by not using the term POW.

And, of course, it is also covered in the Bill of Rights, but, then, the Bushistas say that doesn't cover foreign nationals, even the ones in our custody.

So, take your pick. Either they are POW, and are subject to the Geneva Convention, or they are not, and are subject to our laws when we take them into custody.

The solutions hammered out by wiser heads than us over many years may not be perfect, but they are certainly better than beating innocent people, then throwing them into prison with real militants, where the natural hatred they feel over the treatment they have received can be exploited to create yet more militants. Such a solution must be better than the spectacle of the United States torturing prisoners for the entire world to see.

The so called war on terror has become like the war on poverty, creating yet more of what it is supposed to be combating.

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe all of that was covered in the Geneva Convention, but, of course, the federal government bypassed that by not using the term POW.

And, of course, it is also covered in the Bill of Rights, but, then, the Bushistas say that doesn't cover foreign nationals, even the ones in our custody.

Please point out where Fighters out of Uniform - and not fighting for any particular flag or country - are listed in the Geneva convention.