Interesting, thank you.
The Supreme Court excerpt that you quoted used plain clothed spies and saboteurs as examples of unlawful combatants…were guerrillas treated the same way? How were captured Viet Cong treated by the US for example – from my little knowledge they sometime had uniforms and sometimes not – or are / were they quite different to the Afghan situation?
I suppose there are other intrepretations to these, assuming one has a polished set of parsing tweezers. And a semantic confabulator in working order.
But OK, fair enough. The degree to which those terms are distinct is precisely the degree to which I am less pissed.
“The United States Military Assistance Command (MACV) first issued a directive pertaining to the determination of POW status in 1966.158 Under the MACV directive, the captured North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong fighters were accorded POW status upon capture.159 “Irregulars” were divided into three groups: guerrillas, self-defense force, and secret self-defense force. Members of these groups could qualify for POW status if captured in regular combat, but were denied such status if caught in an act of “terrorism, sabotage or spying.”160 Those not treated as POWs were treated as civil defendants, and were accorded the substantive and procedural protections of the GC.161 This approach met with the approval of the ICRC.162”
.
You mean this eighty fucking page .pdf? About hiring a psychiatrist? Somewhere within that there is something that proves your point? If you know its there, why not just tell us where, and what it says? Too much work? I do it, I’m lazier than any man I know, but I’ll give you the relevent quotes and the cites to back it. Whatzamatta you?
You’re not being all slippery and lawyerlike, are you? Trying to pull a slow one?
Now, here I may take a point. If you mean to suggest that the Defense already knew all about it, peachy. Can you show that? That in itself, that is. Be that as it may, such contradictions in testimony are germane to the most central topic here, whether or not Kadr ever threw a hand grenade. If the defense didn’t know they sure should have, but if you can cite that they did, good enough. Just not a three hundred page .pdf dump, if you don’t mind…
Dimples.
I need more than one? Why? Suck one little cock, just once…
Sneered upon, but not answered.
Have to read my own cites, or hound you for yours.
And the legitimate, perfectly reasonable, ethically unchallengeable motive for that foot-dragging would be what, exactly? I’m assuming that what they wanted to ask him about was the firefight, not his tastes in Chinese food or his favorite color.
Khadr’s capture was “in regular combat” (from what I read), although if there is evidence of setting IEDs that could fall into the terrorism or sabotage categories I guess.
So, was this treatment of Irregulars the standard (for the US) until the laws passed after Khadr’s capture?
No. Those standards were only for the Vietnam war. If you had read the rest of the linked article, it talks about Army Regulations since then. It also briefly discusses detainees taken in places like Somalia, Haiti, and Nicaragua (some ofwhich were not considered POWs, some which were).
I hate doing the work for other people, unless they’re paying me a nice hourly rate. Especially people who insist on asking for cites when they have no reason to doubt it.
Nah, I actually expected you to do just a bit of work. It’s on page 2. I kinda figured you might have enough wherewithal to make it to page 2, or, and here’s an idea, using the search function to find the references to OC-1. If you still can’t find it (and, again, why would you doubt it’s there?) it’s under the heading FACTS d.iii.
Riddle me this. How could the defense counsel reference the report from OC-1, with details about what it contained, without having it? I also provided you a news article showing knowledge of details of OC-1’s report back in 2007.
I’ll take that as a No. You found nothing but that single admonishment.
The general rules derive (and have since 1949) from the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (PDF), Art. 4 of which which established the basic rules for division into “privileged” and “unprivileged” combatants. 4(A)(2) discusses when local militias, volunteer corps, or other organized resistance movement members are privileged combatants:
Persons not falling into that category may be tried, criminally, for armed attacks against the occupying power. (See Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War:
US law had recognized that standard prior to the adoption of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and, indeed, prior to Khadr’s act in 2002, which means that this was in no way an ex post facto prosecution.
I think the Starving Artist scale starts at $20/cite.
There is some confusion here. Apparently, I am expected to reel away in stunned consternation at the revelation that yes, indeed, the defense knew about OC-1. But that really isn’t quite the point.
Evidence doctored to implicate Khadr: Lawyer
(as previously cited)
(Emphasis added)
This would be LTC-W. Now, TG, IANAL, but I was under the naive impression that altering evidence after the fact was not strictly kosher. I await a reply drenched in condescension.
And this report may shed some light on the whole “glacial pace” magilla.
Doubts raised about Khadr’s role in firefight
OF course, this may entirely accord with strict ethical rules and fully accord with an unstinting and unbiased pursuit of justice and truth. In my naiveté, I had always thought that any effort to prevent exculpatory evidence or witnesses to be presented was not strictly kosher.
So, yes, it appears that the defense was fully informed about the witness OC-1, just as friend Hamlet avers, and there is little likelihood that the testimony of OC-1 contradicts the testimony of OC-1. With all my rhetorical skills, I can’t wriggle away from identity.
But it appears from all of this that the identity of OC-1 and the awareness of the defense as to his existence is really rather small potatoes, even given the massive documentation that proves it so.
I wasn’t aware there was a magic threshold of relevance, that one doesn’t count. How many do I need, and where is this rule written? (OMG! I hope its not a ten thousand page .pdf!)
Riddle me this, then, given the above, why should I have ever cared?
About this. This is totally lame.
When you are asked for a cite, no one is asking you to do their work for them, you are being asked to do you own damn work! Now, if I were to ask you to go and find reference and citations that would prove my point, that would certainly be true, and you would have every right, Hamlet, not to Dane to do so. (I slay me!)
As for being insulted by someone who “insists” on asking for a cite because it implies doubt about one’s statements, tough titty. None of us gets a pass, regardless of the apparent truthiness of our positions, we are expected to back them up. Alternatively, we can brew a nice big cup of STFU.
There are differences, of course, mostly a matter of tone.
For instance, the following example:
[QUOTE=Hamlet]
Aargle-bargle, pot of tea, pot of tea, peas and carrots, peas and carrots, blah blah blah
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Moi]
Cite?
[/QUOTE]
Note the polite and decorous tone and manner of the request, as one who sincerely seeks further data and an expansion of one’s universe of information. Compare and contrast with:
[QUOTE=Moi]
Aargle-bargle, pot of tea, pot of tea, peas and carrots, peas and carrots, blah blah blah
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Hamlet]
Cite?
[/QUOTE]
Note the snide condescension and ridicule in the second example! Clearly, this is an attack on the posters character, intelligence, and sexual preferences, and all right thinking Dopers will scorn such an outrage!
I hope this clarifies the matter for you.
We’re covering the same old ground here, luci.
To keep me interested, I’ll try a little experiment. I’ll only respond to your latest post with things that have already been said in this thread.
elucidator: “And, of course, there is the little matter of the evidential testimony that seems to have wandered away and gotten lost. Well, darn! Kind of a shame about that, the defense might have found that useful, but everybody knows he’s guilty, why obscure the issue?”
Hamlet: This is simply false. The OC-1 report was given to defense team with the rest of discovery.
Hamlet: “LTC W’s report and the changes to it are clearly relevant, and important. That’s why they had him testify via video about the changes.”
Hamlet: “There has not been, as far as I could find, anything close to a finding of prosecutorial misconduct by the judge. And, since then, Khadr has had his opportunity to go to trial. Instead he pled guilty to the charges.”
Hamlet: And had you simply confined yourself to raising valid questions based on the evidence about the prosecution, we could have avoided much of this animosity.
But you didn’t.
Wow, it worked.
Here is the problem. You asked me for cites, not to prove your point, but to prove your point was wrong. You had no problem whatsoever not knowing the facts, yet spouting off. When I provided you information about how and why you were wrong, you didn’ go out and do your own research to support your point, you simply shouted: “Cite!” And then you pretend that somehow the burden was on me, rather than yourself.
But you didn’t. You made a false statement, I corrected you, you shouted: Cite!! Had you gotten your facts right and cited in the first place, we could have avoided them.
But, in addition, I kinda liked you. I figured that, over lo these many years on this board, you wouldn’t be the kind of jerk who demands cites from me unless you had an actual reason to disbelieve what I said. I expect it from newbies, or certain other … unpalatable … posters here, but I didn’t from you. Live and learn.
Cutting to the chase, this is wrong. A call for a cite is not inherently or intrinsically an accusation of dishonesty.
(It can be couched in such terms, sure. “I think you are wrong” is not an insult. “I think you are lying” is most assuredly an insult.)
The call for a cite is neutral, it is as innocent as a newborn lamb frolicking in field of axolotyls. You cannot reasonably expect to deliver bald statements of fact upon your own authority and then feel insulted if one asks for some further authority. With all due awe, none of us deserve that, save for He Who Does Not Post.
How about this: just go back and every where I said “Cite?”, replace it with “This unworthy one would approach, cringe, and beseech for further sources of enlightenment”. If that will make you feel better.
Too busy to cite that too? Understandable, .027 Googleunits shot to hell…
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/01/93270/changes-to-key-guantanamo-evidence.html
So, investigators arrive " a few years later", and it was at that opportune moment that he realized his mistake. Jogging one’s memory, I suppose.
But that’s troublesome on a couple of counts, no? First of all, “his” report? Sure this was official business, so changing “his” report on his own computer doesn’t count for much. Its changing the report in the record that matters.
One has to wonder about the astonishing mechanisms of the human mind. Surely, the incident in question must have come to his attention fairly often in the “few years” between point a and point b. And yet, oddly, this spasm of retrieved memory never fired a sequence of neurons, never occurred to him. Maybe it never even crossed his mind that such a recovered memory would be smiled upon by his superiors. Maybe he’s the dumbest light colonel in armed forces history, and entirely oblivious to the preferences of his superior officers. Sure, that could happen!
You buy that? OK, you buy it. I invite Gentle Reader to the cite, in case I missed any important details, and to make up their own minds. 'Cause that’s how I roll.
It wasn’t a “retrieved memory”, LTC W testified that he didn’t know that Khadr had survived his wounds, he thought he was dead. According to him, he didn’t know Khadr was alive until the investigators told him.
Hamlet: “More strawmen. It’s like you think that, since I contradicted one of your baseless assertions, I must now defend everything the government did in the entirety of its handling of Khadr.”
Hamlet: “LTC W’s report and the changes to it are clearly relevant, and important.”
Hamlet: “Note: This does not mean there aren’t issues that could be raised (the changing of LTC W’s report, the possibility that another person was alive to throw the grenade), just that I don’t find them enough to reject his guilty plea, the confession, and the videotape.”
Indeed. Nothing extraordinary about that? No way he might have known, with such an obscure incident that received no attention, no news reports, no “scuttlebutt”? Never discussed it with anyone who might have advised him otherwise? No qualms about that, perfectly accords with your expectations?
Well, then, lets remove a last little speck of ambiguity. Because you allow two entirely different, equally plausible interpretations.
One, that the military and the prosecution in this case conducted themselves according to the very finest principles of truth, justice and the American way. Utterly unbiased, with a relentless dedication to fairness. Providing the defense with every possibly useful piece of intelligence in a timely manner, in a fully cooperative spirit of truth-seeking.
Or. none of the above, but the kid was guilty anyway, so it doesn’t matter if a few little corners were cut, if a wee bit of legalistic gameplay were employed, here and there. That my concerns, and the concerns of others, about the conduct of the prosecution is just so much kumbaya idealism, of no consequence to a hard-headed realist, to be brushed aside like so much trivia?
Should we be proud of this, then? This sterling example of unbiased justice, we can show this to a skeptical world without hesitation, without doubts?
Look me right in the monitor and tell me you believe that, and I will believe you. I won’t think you are lying, nor will I think you are “bullshitting”, in any of the unfortunate parsings of that word. I will most likely still think you are wrong. But if you tell me that you can look at the record of these proceedings with pride and approval, that you would happily sign your name in endorsement, I will believe you.
Heck, you can even deploy your new and simply adorable rhetorical device of repeating your own words, as if repetition and veracity are somehow equivalent.
Well?
Hamlet: “More strawmen. It’s like you think that, since I contradicted one of your baseless assertions, I must now defend everything the government did in the entirety of its handling of Khadr.”
Oh for fuck’s sake, luci, I thought you were better than this. Bored with building strawmen, so you had to switch gears to creating false dilemmas? Wanna run the whole gamut of unthinking fallacies in one thread?
It’s not either “One, that the military and the prosecution in this case conducted themselves according to the very finest principles of truth, justice and the American way” or “That my concerns, and the concerns of others, about the conduct of the prosecution is just so much kumbaya idealism, of no consequence to a hard-headed realist, to be brushed aside like so much trivia?”
That’s the kind of pathetic crap I’d expect from SA or Shodan, not you.
Its true, those are the kind of guys who would launch an assault on my character or my rhetorical style, if faced with an uncomfortable question. Unlike you or I, who would answer such a queston directly, without equivocation, and without trying to change the subject.
Well, OK, if this is about what an awful, awful person I am, if someone else asks the same question, you will answer? Someone who can meet your strict standards of character and honesty? Someone who doesn’t bullshit?
Why does it matter, beyond my fuzzy-minded kumbaya idealism? Because we have real enemies, and our enemies are working feverishly to recruit new enemies. And they will use stuff like this, though it may have already paled next to Abu Graib and bombed wedding parties. We should not offer them comfort, we should not offer them our assistance. When they argue that we shot a fifteen year old boy and then tried to twist things about so that we could assure ourselves that he was a hardened terrorist. We should be able to drop the record on to the table, the complete record, the whole truth and nothing but, and say “No. It is not so, we are the Americans, and we don’t do stuff like that.” So that they don’t have a leg to stand upon, that any reasonable person could look at all the facts…all of the facts…and say without hesitation “This was done honestly, fairly, and without bias, without a predetermined or desired result, this is justice, this was fair.”
Can we say that, friend Hamlet? Could we open every record of this, open it to any inquiring eye without hesitation or evasion?
Never mind what I think, or Eric Holder thinks, or Noam Chomsky. What does Hamlet think?
No matter who asked it, it would still be a false dilemma. Whether it came from you, or SA, or Noam Chomsky, it would still be a bullshit question. The question wasn’t just “uncomfortable”, it was fallacious.