Fuck you, Bush. Gitmo prisoners have rights!

The BBQ Pit
161

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Not directly on subject, my curiosity bone is aching.

Why Syria? If Arar was sent to Syria on the presumption that Syria would use more sincere methods of interview, why would it be reasonable to expect that Syria would share that information with us? Wasn’t that long ago we were rattling our sabers in their face and suggesting that maybe Saddam was hiding his pink unicorns of death there.

A public hostility that masks a covert cooperation between the US and Syria? Hard to believe, too clever by half, and whatever for?

And why would the US assume that harsh methods would even be applied in the first place? Don’t we actively assume that Syria is the bestest buddies with AlQ? That would be like catching a Communist spy and rendering him to Bulgaria for interrogation.

Anyway, so unless we could expect some cooperation from the (presumably) hostile regime of Syria, how could they have expected to benefit?

Not a big deal, I guess, nor remotely on thread, but anomalies bug me. If anybody can clarify, I’d appreciate it…
If the intention was simply to be rid of him, he could have been returned to Canada.
[/QUOTE]

Unless I’m just deaf to the whooshing sound…

Syria (and less so Iran) shared back-channel intelligence with the US in the months following 9/11. Remember the panicked yer-either-with-us-or-against-us zeitgeist – no Mid-eastern state wanted to be the next Afghanistan. We sweetened the deal by giving them relevant intelligence on their internal dissident groups. In exchange they did our dirty work for us.

That’s why I was surprised to learn that the CIA actually waterboarded anybody. The standard SOP is to ship them over there with a list of questions and let them get to work.

Maybe it’s just a Dennis Kucinich style wet dream, but we may yet see conspiracy to torture charges filed against those Americans responsible for this horror.

162

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, and the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1992

Me: There is a national security exception to the TVP
[/quote]

Sorry, I had the TVP confused with the statute cited earlier. The TVP offers no cause of action for the US officials involved in the Arar affair.

163

Nevertheless, that wasn’t the first time you mentioned national security, so my two-part question remains: what national security interest was served in sending Arar to Syria? Or can national security justify anything at any time?

164

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Nevertheless, that wasn’t the first time you mentioned national security, so my two-part question remains: what national security interest was served in sending Arar to Syria? Or can national security justify anything at any time?
[/QUOTE]

If you are going to claim that 8 U.S.C. 1231 was violated, the onus is on you present some evidence that there were not “reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.” This law may very well have been violated, but we need the evidence.

165

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Sorry, I had the TVP confused with the statute cited earlier. The TVP offers no cause of action for the US officials involved in the Arar affair.
[/QUOTE]

Against the US officials. Not for.

166

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
If you are going to claim that 8 U.S.C. 1231 was violated, the onus is on you present some evidence that there were not “reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.” This law may very well have been violated, but we need the evidence.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I don’t think the onus is on me to find why the law doesn’t apply, but on officials to demonstrate why it does, but a quick read leads me to (b)(1)(A) which says Arar should’ve been bounced back to Tunisia or, failing that, (b)(1)(C)(i) “The country of which the alien is a citizen”. Syria’s claim is unconvincing compared to Canada’s, despite the possibility of a mistake early on. (b)(1)(C)(ii) says “The country in which the alien was born” but (b)(1)(C)(iii) says “The country in which the alien has a residence”, so after doing the math, I figure Canada comes out ahead because Arar held a valid Canadian passport, as well as expressing the preference for Canada.

Then there’s (b)(3)(A): “…the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” There’s an exception in (b)(3)(B)(iv): “[if the Attorney General decides that] there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.”

So, were there such grounds, or is the Attorney General just dumb?

167

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, I don’t think the onus is on me to find why the law doesn’t apply, but on officials to demonstrate why it does, but a quick read leads me to (b)(1)(A) which says Arar should’ve been bounced back to Tunisia or, failing that, (b)(1)(C)(i) “The country of which the alien is a citizen”. Syria’s claim is unconvincing compared to Canada’s, despite the possibility of a mistake early on. (b)(1)(C)(ii) says “The country in which the alien was born” but (b)(1)(C)(iii) says “The country in which the alien has a residence”, so after doing the math, I figure Canada comes out ahead because Arar held a valid Canadian passport, as well as expressing the preference for Canada.

Then there’s (b)(3)(A): “…the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” There’s an exception in (b)(3)(B)(iv): “[if the Attorney General decides that] there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.”

So, were there such grounds, or is the Attorney General just dumb?
[/QUOTE]

The onus depends on what is being claimed. You are claiming the law was violated so the onus in on you to show that it was. I am only claiming there is no reason to conclude that the law was broken because there a lot of issues for which we do not have evidence. If this came to a trial the government may have to present that there were reasonable grounds, or maybe not because of the issues raised by Judge Trager.

168

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
The onus depends on what is being claimed. You are claiming the law was violated so the onus in on you to show that it was.
[/quote]

Well, more generally, I’m claiming that Arar was sent to Syria and tortured and U.S. officials knew this was going to happen and arranged it anyway. Surely it’s not too much of a stretch to wonder if this was a possibly illegal thing to do.

I’m looking forward to it, too.

169

Now Bush wants a do-over on the ‘evidence’:
The Bush administration wants to rewrite the official evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees, allowing it to shore up its cases before they come under scrutiny by civilian judges for the first time.

Habeas is a threat to these Republicans, not a threat to the nation.

170

I came in to add that link.

Interesting development. Now that these guys are going to get their day in a civilian court, the administration needs to scrub the evidence before a non-military judge gets to look at it.

I honestly don’t know whether to weep or piss myself laughing.

171

Why wouldn’t you expect the government to want more time to prepare for a new set of legal proceeding that are unprecedented?

172

Shut the fuck up, you fucking troll.

173

The defense doesn’t seem to have any difficulty adjusting to these wildly novel procedures. Did they get an advance copy?

174

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Why wouldn’t you expect the government to want more time to prepare for a new set of legal proceeding that are unprecedented?
[/QUOTE]
Um,

From the link above.

If the original returns were good enough to keep them prisoners, indefinitely and without charge, weren’t good enough to get convictions the day after the decision?

If the original returns aren’t good enough now, what does that suggest?

Yeah I know, noun, verb, 9/11. :rolleyes:

CMC +fnord!

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Shut the fuck up, you fucking troll.
[/QUOTE]
Oh please, at Two and a Half Inches* it ain’t fucking anything!

*WARNING: graphic, anatomically correct, nude troll pic

175

[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
Um,From the link above.

If the original returns were good enough to keep them prisoners, indefinitely and without charge, weren’t good enough to get convictions the day after the decision?

If the original returns aren’t good enough now, what does that suggest?

[/QUOTE]

Because now they are going to an new forum. The procedures at this forum will be unprecedented. Nobody knows exactly what form these procedures will take, or what rights the detainee possess.

176

Plus they might not have been actively updating the cases. They might need time to update the cases with new evidence.

177

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Why wouldn’t you expect the government to want more time to prepare for a new set of legal proceeding that are unprecedented?
[/QUOTE]

Meh, you got nothing. I’m done.

178

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Plus they might not have been actively updating the cases. They might need time to update the cases with new evidence.
[/QUOTE]

So, CSI Afghanistan has found some new forensic evidence? Ya think? Lots and lots of it, apparently. What an extraordinary development!

179

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Because now they are going to an new forum. The procedures at this forum will be unprecedented.
[/QUOTE]

Huh. You’re right. We need to invent a criminal justice system from scratch after doing without for all these years. I never thought of that.

180

[QUOTE=Frank]
Huh. You’re right. We need to invent a criminal justice system from scratch after doing without for all these years. I never thought of that.
[/QUOTE]

The Supreme Court has not decided that the detainees get the rights of an accused criminal or criminal trails or any access at all to the criminal justice system. The detainees get a habeas review (a civil procedure) to see if their rights have been violated; however, nobody knows exactly what rights the detainees possess. This is a new ballgame.