Bush to build Guantanamo Death Camp

Great Debates
41

I figured that the Quirin case would come up. That case involved a party of German army personnel put ashore from a submarine with the assignment of blowing up shipyards, disrupting rail traffic and the like. They were a pretty standard raiding party of the sort the British were running into France at about the same time. The big difference was that the Germans were not in uniform. This is where they ran afoul of the customary law of war and is the reason they caught it in the neck.

Using Quirin as the base for the argument, you would think that step one on disposing of the men at Gitmo before a military tribunal would be some basis for a conclusion that there had been a violation of the customary law of war. There should not be much argument that highjacking a civilian airliner departing a civilian airport, filled with civilians and crashing it into a privately occupied building filled with civilians would count as a violation of the law of war.

I see some problems, however. The first and most obvious one is that someone is going to have to show that these particular people were some how complicit in 9/11. Not that he thought it was a good idea, but that the particular guy before the tribunal was some how an accomplice to the bad acts. While the facts on the people characterized as “unlawful combatants” are pretty scarce, I have not heard anything about them other than they are fervent supporters of the Taliban government. I’m not at all sure that turns them into accomplices.

As far as uniforms and not being members of the regular Afghan military establishment are concerned, as to the extent that is claimed to be a violation of the customary law of war, this seems like a pretty flexible rule when you apply it to a place like Afghanistan as it existed under the Taliban. The United States certainly didn’t have any trouble regarding Vietnamese guerillas as members of an organized armed force, the lack of a distinctive uniform notwithstanding. I would hate to see this sort of decision made based on the quality of military tailors used by the Taliban militia.

The point is this, in the WWII German saboteur cases there were members of a recognized armed force in the service of a recognized government. They violated the customary law of war by engaging in a military operation in an unlawful manner-by conceding their membership in the armed force. In the case of the people at Gitmo, the information is that they were members of an armed force that had a factual existence recognized by their own government and, like it or not, that government was in effective control of the country. So far as I know, none of those people were accomplices to the 9/11 outrages. The basis for denying POW status to those people seems to be based on (1) their government’s harboring the people who ran the 9/11 operation, and (2) they lack a spiffy uniform. That, if true, seems pretty feeble to me. I can’t think that serving a government that does bad things in an army that has no tradition of a distinctive uniform is a serious violation of the customary law of war, especially when there is no showing of a substantive violation of the customary law of war.

42

I’m sure that a compentent JAG Officer who came in with the intent of making sure that these guys were going to get the best legal service he could personnally provide, and then somehow through research found out that they were being held illegally or somehow got them all off would be treated as hero in the ranks.

He would immediately be promoted and his career path would be glorious. He would be hailed as a top notch performer who all others in the military legal system should emulate.

hmmmmm, probably not.

43

About a year and a half ago I started a thread stating my opposition to the military tribunals being authorized at that time http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101126 My position has not changed. Basically, for justice to be fair the process must meet the conditions I mentioned there:
1- Trials should be public so that the public can be informed as to their fairness. Only exceptionally, and for good reason, should some facts, identities, etc. be kept secret.

2- The accused should be allowed proper legal representation without undue restrictions.

3- The accused should be allowed to confront and question any and all witnesses and evidence presented against him and to present witnesses and evidence of his own.

4- The parties should have the option of appealing the ruling to a higher court.

5- Justice should be blind. This is crucial and it means justice should be administered without regard to who is the accused, whether he be powerful or not, rich or poor, black or white, citizen or alien.

Anything else is a mockery of justice and not acceptable in a civilized country. The communists had trials which were farces and the USA should not do the same thing.

44

sezyou: Try not to perpetuate ignorance. The military’s JAG corps doesn’t punish people for successful defense of their assigned clients.

sailor’s comments continue to be of the “let’s bash America and damn the facts” template.

45

As always.

46

Sailor,

Actually, it looks like steps are being taken to give the Guantanamo detainees access to defense counsel as well as to open trials. I do think that if the detainees are given defense counsel the lawyers that represent these detainees will defend them to the best of their ability. They are not gonna roll over for anyone. These people take their jobs very seriously.

However, whether or not Bush allows these detainees to have access to defense counsel remains to be seen. I believe Bush does not have (nor ever had) any intention of giving these people access to any kind of defense. He wants these people to be tried and sentenced without a trial or legal defense. Makes it pretty easy to punish the “badguys” doesn’t it? :rolleyes: Cite. What’s even more amazing is that alot of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Cite. These prisoners really are in legal limbo and are being denied basic rights that they should have like access to lawyers and family. Cite.

In response to the OP I think this “death camp” idea is despicable. I know you may be surprised by my opinion given some of my previous asanine posts. I thought I’d do a little research and be a little bit more constructive instead of just shooting off at the mouth. My position on Bush and on alot of topics has changed since I’ve been doing some research. I’m slowly but surely learning that Bush is just making up shit as he goes along. Oh well, some people learn faster than others. This is a little off topic but I did find an article I thought you’d find amusing. This happened quite awhile ago but it does show just how far American hypocrisy goes. Here it is.

Torben

47

Actually you’re mistaken. No one needs to raise facts capable of getting these guys within the definition of POW. The Convention explicitly states that POW is the default status, and that non-POW status has to be established by a competent tribunal on an individual level.

However, in this context, it’s not really that relevant, since in the absence of POW status, the Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians would be applicable, which also has provisions for spies and saboteurs. The premises are quite similar, with one exception: In the latter case, there can only be a case for acts punishable under local law, i.e. in theory, actual Taliban law would have to be applied, if I read the convention correctly. In any case, the trials would be questionable, since they are expected to be held in the occupied country, not somewhere in a legal limbo military base.

48

Well there are two ways Bush can try them:

  1. For crimes committed in America prior to the start of the war in Afghanistan.

  2. For war crimes committed in Afghanistan during the war.

Now surely if he is building cases on no. 1 then American law and procedure apply. On No 2. there is more flexibilty to the procedures that apply.

The point is though there have been no charges of yet which leads me to suspect that he hasn’t got any evidence yet to try them under 1 or 2 and when they were captured he had no reason to suspect that they had been involved in breaches of 1 or 2 so surey then he should of afforded them POW status?

49

My post asserted NO facts other than my opinion on what are the minimum requirements for a fair administration of justice which I listed in 5 points. The fact that you consider that to be “bashing America” is a reflection of your own bias. Or maybe you can point out what “facts” of my post are not true. I’d like to see you prove that post does not reflect my opinion.

50

Is that why some of the detainees have been released?

51

Does the Geneva Convention apply at all? The Taleban weren’t signatories, were they? For precedent look at the Germans’ treatment of Russian prisoners vs British and American prisoners. The Russians hadn’t signed the Geneva Convention so got treated very poorly.

52

The countries who the sign convention agree to it. Doesn’t matter if the other side has or not AFAIK

Germany had a “slight” issue with Russians and thus didn’t really give a crap about the rules when it came to them it had nothing to do with the GC.

53

Be careful. IIRC, even to think the violent overthrow of the gov is a crime.

54

The Convention explicitly states that this is not an issue. Perhaps reading them before commenting is in order?

55

I’m off the hook then, as I wasn’t actually thinking at the time.

56

Do you have a cite to support that “thinking” is a crime?

Advocating it is, IIRC, as well it should be. Do you think it should be OK for US residents to advocate the violent overthrow the US gov’t?

57

Not to hijack this thread, but IMO, if you want to lay claim to supporting “free speech,” then yeah, I think it should be okay to talk about overthrowing the government. It should be against the law to actually do such a thing, but to censor/forbid the discussion of the topic runs counter to the whole “free speech” thing.

When you tell folks “You can talk about anything you want – except X, Y, and Z”, the second half of the statement contradicts the first half.

58

IANAL. So, although I have read in the paper about obtrusive juror questionairs, I really didn’t know much about this. So, then I got called for the “pool” for a major gang murder. The juror questionaire asked those kinds of questions, and the Jdge sais we *had * to fully fill it out, under penalty of contempt. So I asked my lawyer frind, and he agreed, and he said it was all perfectly legal (altho he though maybe I could get away with a demur on a question or 2). So then I also asked a sorta freind I had- the then Presiding Justice of the County Superior Court- he confirmed it, and said this was the culmination of years of common law and Court rulings. So, AFAIK- it is not a “codified law” per se , but it is law none the less. I am sure one of our legalbeagles here will confirm this.

Sure Eva- but then you should know enough that you don’t know enough. Sure, the ICRC keeps much of that info confidential, but it isn’t as if everyhting is kept in the dark- if nothing else- the ICRC knws who the prisoners are, and where they come from, and are closely monitoring the situation & the conditions. And they are pretty damn neutral and unbaised, too.

Which is more than I can say for one (at least) of Torbens links. Let me see- the Int’l Red Cross says that they are giving the internees access to their families, and “islamonline” (and Torben)says that they are being denied this basic right. Hmm, who to belive, who to beleive.:dubious: :rolleyes: Then, in direct contridiction to the cites given (even in one of his own damn cites, mind you) Torben goes on to say that “He (Bush) wants these people to be sentanced without a trial or legal defense”. They are getting a trail- no one has disputed that. They are getting “legal defence”- and only the most ignorant have disputed that. The only thing they are not getting is a jury. And, like I said- they don’t deserve one, it is dangerous to give them one, and we can & do have fair trials without one.

OliverH- as to you last paragraph- did you read what the ICRC said about the US rights to try the internees? Assuming that they know what they are talking about (and they should, as they have the authority under the GC to inspect, etc) then you are completely wrong.

All this being said, I must state again that the title of this thread, equating Guantanamo Bay with Auschwitz is the most asinine & insensitive analogy I have seen here in GD since I started lurking. I am surprised the Mods let him get away with this. It is offensive & “being a jerk” in most peoples book. I doubt the OP will be ashamed of himself, but I am ashamed for him.

59

To say the ICRC endorses what the USA is doing is ludicrous because the ICRC does not issue reports to the public and so we really do not know what they are finding. We DO know they have said this:

So, it seems the ICRC does not condone the USA keeping all these people in limbo.

For a entity which hardly ever criticises countries this is quite revealing and hardly an endorsement of what the US government is doing.

60

No offense ,but usually trials are the result of charges that have been filed, not the other way around.

Peace-DESK