For my own understanding; do you believe Al Qaeda to be an actual physical and currently active organisation, one which people can join, pertain to hold membership and be a part of? One that perhaps has a ruling council and hierarchy to direct their actions / strategy and distribute funding for missions? Is this similar to what you perceive Al Qaeda to be? Or what?
I’m sure he does Aro as that’s the line being sold for the last few ears. Without actually investigating it for oneself it’s hard to find a true representation of AQ in the media. All this fear mongering leads to abuses like the ones talked about in the OP and the new stuff we’re still hearing about even now
I can’t access the link in the OP without registration, and I am not sure how reliable The Middle East Times is. Please note that I am not saying they are unreliable, just that I don’t know.
Are we talking about specific cases, or principles in general?
The Middle East Times quoted a Swedish TV program that the US handed some prisoners over to Egypt (if I understood them correctly). And then they were tortured in Eqypt. It seemed to be all “alleged” and no hard proof, so, again, I am not sure how much credence to put into it. Is this the sort of thing we are discussing?
Again, are we talking about Gitmo, or in general?
FWIW, I understand the situation with many Gitmo prisoners is that they are being held as non-traditional combatants. The “grievance” we have against many of them is that we don’t want them to go back and pick up the fight against the US soldiers in Afghanistan. So they aren’t really guilty of crimes that we need to charge them with, just that they are fighting against us. This is not so much illegal as undesirable, if that distinction makes any sense. I thought they were being held more as enemy ringleaders, who may have information or exercise control over those fighting against the US in Afghanistan. It seems more like holding combatants than criminal arrest.
To me, it makes a good deal of difference if they are citizens or not. And also, the circumstances under which they were arrested/taken into detention/call it what you like.
I understand the possibility of abuse inherent in the situation. But much of the description of what is going on would like me to believe that innocent Achmed Smith, minding his own business working at the 7-11, suddenly was spirited off in the dead of night by the jack-booted thugs of the Bush administration to Guantanomo Bay prison where he is being held without trial. And I don’t think that is exactly what is going on, in every case.
I think most, at least, of the prisoners held in Gitmo have the misfortune to fall between two stools. They were taken by the US while bearing arms against the US in Afghanistan. But they are not traditional combatants, so they aren’t treated either as POWs or as ordinary criminals. So, as far as I can tell, they are shit out of luck. But they are not US citizens, and/or were taken while bearing arms against the US. So, basically, boo hoo for them.
Suppose it’s 1944, and the ACLU announces that it wants the US to give German POWs the right to file for habeas corpus. I just don’t think it is a good idea, even if the German POWs never committed any war crimes. So I don’t think habeas corpus is an absolute human right.
It seems to be mostly a slippery slope argument. “The prisoners at Gitmo are having their rights violated, therefore the average citizen is next”. I find this neither more nor less compelling than most other slippery slopes.
As I say, it is possible that there can be abuses, just as there can be of anything. And I wouldn’t defend violations of absolute human rights, like torture or what-not. But abusus non tollit usum. There’s a war on, and the bad guys are going to be inconvenienced. If we do it right, that is.
FWIW.
Regards,
Shodan
You dismiss these abuses with a “boo hoo to them”.
How quickly would it take for me to get pitted I wonder if the next time some American gets killed by people who the US have taken up arms against I responded with “Boo Hoo”. Don’t expect empathy if you’re incapable of showing it.
If all the ‘inconvenienced’ people in this instance were all shown and proven to actually be “bad guys” then there would be little for most people to complain about. But that is obviously not the case in many instances. Or, at least, hasn’t been shown to be. You are assuming their guilt due to them having been arrested, and cheering their arrest on the assumption of their guilt.
Regarding Gitmo: a starter question for 10…
What hapens when you offer a sum of money in excess of hundreds or thousands of times the daily average wage to a bunch of non-uniformed militiamen called the Northern Alliance for every “Al Qaeda member” or “senior Taleban” they capture, and accept only their word that the goatherd they brought you was actually fighting?
Who said anything about getting killed? I thought we were talking about habeas corpus.
No, I am not thinking in terms of guilt or innocence at all.
As far as I know, most of them were taken while bearing arms against the US. Whether you think of that as a crime or not, it is something I would like to see prevented. I don’t want anyone fighting against the US invasion of Afghanistan, in other words. Thus the Gitmo prisoners are mostly being detained to prevent them from fighting against the US.
I don’t think we need to convict them all individually any more than we needed to convict every single German POW in 1944 of war crimes. We can lock them up and get them out of the way while the war is going on.
I think you are mistaking habeas corpus for an absolute right. I don’t think that it is.
Consider an example. Joe Blow is arrested for murder. He comes before the judge for a bail hearing, and the judge finds that he is a flight risk and denies bail. So Joe spends six months in prison awaiting trial.
Has Joe been convicted of a crime? Nope. Has he been deprived of his liberty? Certainly. Has he been denied his rights? Well, I suppose you could see it that way. The trouble is, there are other factors that outweigh Joe’s right to walk the streets, such as the interest in having people accused of serious crimes appear for trial.
I think many of the Gitmo prisoners are similar, if not identical. They have not been convicted of anything, and they are being denied their liberty. But it seems there are other factors that outweigh their right to scurry around Afghanistan toting an AK-47 and chanting “Allah-u-akbar - Death to the infidels!”
Certainly there can be abuses, just as there can be abuses of the ability of judges to deny bail. But I rather doubt you have conclusively established that the US is violating people’s rights everytime they lock up someone who shoots at our troops, just because Muhammed and the ACLU don’t care for the idea.
Regards,
Shodan
Jose Padilla is a US Citizen. He has been denied trial and access to legal representation since his arrest in Chicago in 2002 on charges of attempted terrorism. He’s the Chicago ‘Dirty Bomb’ suspect.
His right to habeas corpus has been suspended, and he has been declared an ‘enemy combatant’ and put in a military brig in Charleston SC, and has been denied access to any legal representation.
Note the critical words - suspect and attempted terrorism. This guy IS a US Citizen. How big of a gap is it between him and me?
Now imagine that I am not a US citizen - now the US can throw me in a deep dark hole for life and never charge me and never even have to admit that I exist. They don’t even need a reason.
Some freedom here.
Now - Aro, Priceguy, and Yojimbo:
Here is my cite. Al-Queda has been in existence since 1988, and has been actively plotting against US interests since 1996. After the bombings in Africa and the USS Cole, we fired cruise missiles at Al-Queda training facilities in Afghanistan (the Republican congressional leadership talked about it extensively at the time as in Clinton fired cruise missiles and killed some goats to distract from the Starr Investigation). I also have read this offline in Jane’s Defence Weekly (no cite, sorry) and in Time and Newsweek as recently as a month ago.
Perhaps you could direct me towards the legally mandated transcript of the “bail hearing”, tribunal or any other due process which established that they were fighting US troops? Or do we simply take the word of those who received hundreds of dollars for saying he was?
I hope I answered this in my latest post, towards the bottom, but just in case…
here
I think we should be extending habeas corpus to all US citizens, regardless of their status as ‘enemy combatants’ immediately, and should be moving as quickly as humanly possible to establish whether or not we can (or should) be holding some of these poor fools in Guantanimo or not, either through transparent military tribunals with press representation or through grand jury hearings. If they are footsoldiers, we should let them go. If they are commanders, we should interrogate (not torture!) them and let them go. If they are ringleaders, then we should hold on to them. But bearing arms against the US if you are not a US citizen is not a life in prison crime.
Interesting point, Shodan, and I have a few comments:
-
Habeas corpus in and of itself is not a fundamental right – it seems to be a primary element in “procedural rights,” under the Anglo-American legal system, of guaranteeing a more fundamental right – that of a fair trial. In short, person X who is alleged to have committed crime Y may very well be locked up for a term of years, for life, or even executed, for having committed crime Y – but under our system, what “entitles” him to that punishment is being convicted in a court of law, not the bare allegation, however well founded, of a prosecutor, law enforcement officer or agency, or even the U.S. Presidency and Department of Justice.
-
I think you mistake the idea of opposing the denial of habeas corpus for seeking to permit persons accused of crime to go free. Rather, what’s being asked is that they “receive a fair trial and a first-class hanging” if they are indeed guilty of the crimes for which they are accused. It’s the holding them incommunicato and without trial, not the idea that they may indeed be guilty of waging war against the U.S., that people object to.
-
The question of to what extent non-citizens are entitled to the protections of the American legal system is a good one, with some mutually contradictory case law. Rick, Dewey, minty, or one of the other Dopers-at-law can discuss this at more length. And by and large it is an issue that needs to be addressed in this thread.
But the underlying question is not, “should they be set free?” but rather “should they not receive a fair trial before being permanently incarcerated?” And that’s one that I’d hope patriotic liberals and conservatives could agree on.
A question:
Suppose my country invades the USA
can my country arrest and abduct to a similar prisoner camp like Gitmo
and hold in similar conditions
and deprive from any other right then breathing (and sometimes even not that when suffocating them as “interrogation tactic”, but that are little details, no?)
everyone in the USA
who is fighting my country’s army
or who is said to: be fighting it, wanting to fight it, planning to fight it
or who is suspected wanting to resist the invasion in any way
or who is simply walking a street where members of my country’s army think persons maybe involved in such activities were walking previously.
If your answer is yes, then I can understand why you think the USA can do all these tings to people of other nations the USA invades. (However does not explain why you think the USA could do such things to people of any nation worldwide.)
Salaam. A
For someone who “has been denied legal representation”, Padilla sure seems to fill a lot of legal pads.
Anyway, your allegation about how Padilla has been denied access to his lawyers is incorrect. His case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. And was denied.
Well, if you like, here is a reference to the legal authority under which at least one citizen was held. The decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, although with the caveat that prisoners could appeal.
And the cite mentions the US Department of Defense declaration of facts signed by a special advisor (a Mr. Michael Mobbs) finding that Hamdi was taken in combat against the US. The appeals court mentioned that it was “undisputed” that Hamdi had been captured in a war zone, while armed.
As far as I know, Padilla (whose case reached the Supreme Court), Hamdi (since released), and John Walker Lindh are the only US citizens detained under the circumstances of the Gitmo prisoners. (Lindh was convicted and is doing time.) All the others are being held under military authority, and habeas corpus does not apply.
Regards,
Shodan
If someone had the military might to take on the US (which is unrealistic to be fair) then I wouldn’t know but I would imagine that any country which is militarily superior to all others has a certain leeway in countries it invades in taking citizens o that country into detention facilities and doing whatever the hell it wants.
As to your specific example, I wouldn’t really know because I would be out in the streets throwing molotov cockatils and shooting at the invaders, just like the Iraqis are. And I would be trying to unify my friends and family into a fighting unit to do so more effectively.
Of course, I would not be doing so under the guise of religion but simple freedom… but that is just me.
Yes - it is utterly different from “bail” or whatever civil situation you were drawing a parallel with.
And how do we know that he had not simply come under fire and acted to defend himself? The Geneva Convention was written to try and prevent these situations and the legal black hole which the suspects in Cuba have fallen into. Their default status is PoW until a competent tribunal decides otherwise, no matter what they’re wearing (the Northern Alliance or even US Special Forces would similarly have fallen outside GC provisions given such absurdly strict stipulation for a uniform). US Army regulation 190-8 (PDF) is perfectly clear that this is the default. For six decades, no Western power has sought to weasel out of its own regulation in the way that the US is doing now.
I’m talking in general. Have I even mentioned Gitmo?
While I appreciate the problem, I must add: How many of them do you think really will start fighting if allowed to go back? And even if we assume they would, why do they have to be held under these kinds of conditions?
Why?
Of course. And the circumstances here is that the US invaded their country (if the invasion was justified or not doesn’t really enter into it, and for what it’s worth I think it probably was) and they fought back. Pretty much anybody would.
Of course not. But one case is one too many, don’t you agree?
This I don’t get. I understand that people in different parts of the world are born under different circumstances and have different rights in practice, but to actively want to give some people more rights based on where they were born… why?
That was a war. It was going to end some day. This isn’t a war and will go on for as long as the people in power want it to.
It does have that leeway in practice, yes. We’re discussing whether it should use it, thus making the world a less safe place.
Exactly.
Padilla had ‘next friend’ briefs filed on his behalf, without consultation with his attorney (a PD assigned in his original hearing in New York before Bush declared him an enemy combatant and whisked him out of the New York State jurisdiction).
As to his ‘legal council’ allowed to him, I believe it was a 15 minute consultation, one time only in Feb 2003, video and audio recorded, with a military lawyer. His assigned PD (Donna Newman) from New York State has been denied access to her client since his arrest and transportation to South Carolina. She, along with a host of civil rights organizations, filed the request for the Writ of Habeas Corpus on his behalf without his input.
The crux of the problem is that he is not a soldier, was not captured on a foreign battlefield but in Chicago Airport, and as far as can be determined has no significant ties to any foreign agency at war with the US, but is being held under military jurisdiction - why?
To quote your own source:
SCOTUS dodged talking about the issue, instead focusing on the inappropriate respondent named in the filing (Rumsfeld) rather than the proper respondent (the Navy Brig Commander, a Commander Marr). They dodged it, rather than ruling on this critical abuse of power and effective suspension of Habeas Corpus by the Executive. Two federal appeals courts upheld that the classification of Enemy Combatant was illegal and inappropriate, and one (New York) even ordered him released within 30 days. That is what caused the Government to appeal to SCOTUS.
I don’t think this means what you think it means, or why did the Government release Hamdi? This judgement means in effect that yes, the military can detain people, and until they are charged they have no rights. But US citizens have the trump card of Habeas Corpus which can force the government to either bring to trial or release those held.
Fair enough. but does that make it better or worse that only one US citizen is being held in the same legal black hole as hundreds of foreign citizens?
For further reading:
Padilla’s Case
Questions on Legality of Padilla Case
Further Questions of Legality of Padilla Case (old)
Correct - considering habeas corpus as a civilian legal concept. I believe the finding of the Supreme Court was that detaining illegal combatants is a matter for military justice, not civilian. And judicial review of actions such as detention under the military is not absent, but it is (in the words of the appeals court to which I linked) “highly deferential”.
Military and civilian justice are different, and have different priorities. It would be (in my view) inappropriate, or counter-productive, to try to apply the military system in civilian life, just as it would be equally counter-productive to apply civilians standards to the battlefield. Nobody expects soldiers to read the enemy their rights before opening fire. Nobody should expect a military interrogator to get a prisoner a lawyer before asking him, “How many people in your unit, son?”
That’s a fair point. Although I will say in my own defence that much of the anti-detention rhetoric tends towards the “either try them OR let them go free” position.
And, since I don’t think (in many instances) the prisoners are going to be or should be tried in a court of law, that point of view does not strike me as the only choices.
It seems to me that the ACLU and others would like to treat these Gitmo prisoners taken on the battlefield in the same way they would like to have treated some nineteen-year-old who robs a liquor store with a starter pistol. Which doesn’t quite (in my view) recognize the military aspects of the situation. There might, in other words, be more going on than would be evident to someone with an overweening concern solely for the legal niceties. As I said - there’s a war on.
Indeed. And it’s a question I am not legally qualified to answer. The ACLU seems to take it for granted that all the non-citizens are subject to every single stricture ever dreamed up. But it seems to be a point of view they are advocating, not a self-evident proposition.
The Gitmo prisoners, by and large, suffer from dual disadvantages. They aren’t conventional combatants, and thus aren’t subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention. But they aren’t quite criminals either (and usually aren’t US citizens either) so they aren’t protected by the Constitution either.
Which is not the same thing as saying they have no rights at all. Nobody is saying they can be tortured with impunity, or summarily executed, or whatever. But I also don’t necessarily agree with pounding the round peg of the ACLU’s notion of what the Constitution is all about into the square hole of the invasion of Afghanistan.
Regards,
Shodan
**Shodan ** - can I just say before I get a response to my earlier post (if you were going to, that is - not assuming anything here) that I am of the ‘either try them or release them’ school of thought myself.
The military tribunals promised some time ago to assess the guilt or innocence of the Gimo detainees that are non-US citizens have not materialized, and don’t even look like it is a priority for this administration. There is NO legal way or form of redress for these folks to get out of the hole, and some of them could very well be simple goatherds who pissed off the wrong warlord. I’m not saying all of them are, just that there’s no way to separate the wheat from the chaff. And you can’t even being to tell me that military necessity requires holding a 15 year old kid in conditions that is driving tough field-trained adult soldiers insane and suicidal.
If they are guilty, try them. If the government can’t prove their guilt, let them go.
Seems pretty honest, honorable and right to me. Just like the country I try to love and was once upon a time willing to die to defend.
Usually the best way to deal with being proven wrong is to admit it and move on. You claimed that he had no legal representation. He did. You are now claiming (I think) that this counsel was inadequate. It seems to have been adequate to the task of getting him before the Supreme Court, where he failed to prevail. When you lose before the highest court in the land, it seems to me that arguments that you have been railroaded sound a trifle tinny.
Cite - PDF.
So he was originally held as a material witness. He was then declared an enemy combatant. The Supreme Court and Congress have upheld the authority of the President to declare him an enemy combatant.
That’s why.
As far as your allegation that “as far as can be determined has no significant ties to any foreign agency at war with the US”, I direct you to your own cite:
Since the said citizen seems to have been fully availed of the appeal process, and his appeals have not convinced the court, I would say it is better.
Regards,
Shodan