actually, in point of fact, Johnnone of us know jack shit about the detainees. 'cause the administration has kept that knowledge from us. Hell, we weren’t even ‘allowed’ to know how many of them there were for a long time, let alone, anything specific about them (like their names, ages, places of origin, circumstances of capture). They’ve semi recently identified their names and a few other details, but it seems that at least some of them weren’t actually picked up on teh battlefield, but were handed over by others.
The administration denied visits from teh fucking Red Cross fer fucks sake.
I mean, is membership in the Taliban an automatic disqualifier? Are they necessarily equivalent to al Qaeda in TWAT? Again, if I say you’re a terrorist, do I just get to declare you non-compliant with “laws and customs of war” by default, guilt by association perhaps? Couldn’t defining the status of a combattant become awfully circular unless there are clear and transparent standards applied to combattants? Do such standards exist in TWAT, and are they being applied faithfully?
I don’t know, but I’m confident that the following are not covered:
flying airplanes into buildings
blowing up cars in marketplaces
beheading people and showing the videotape of that beheading on the news.
Also, note that I make a distinction between al Qaeda and Taliban. I think that Taliban fighters would be considered POWs, although it’s not an open and shut case. You’ll note that many, if not most, of the Gitmo detainees are not Afghan, btw. And while I can’t be sure that foreign fighter = al Qeada, I would expect most of the al Qaeda captured to be non-Afghan.
Wrong. The Red Cross has been to Gtimo several times. I don’t understand why people have to make shit like that up to defend their case. The Red Cross don’t have much good to say about Gitmo, but they’ve been there:
Right, but he’s not the only person in GITMO. There are over 300 detainees. We don’t even know where most of them came from. What evidence do we have that they’re al Qaida? Or Taliban? And please answer my questions from post 29 & DtC’s second question in post 35.
I don’t assume that at all and it’s the government’s job to prove it. Even if they do (and I’m not so sure they can or else they wouldn’t have tried to stage a rigged tribunal instead of a legitimate trial), that’s one guy out of like 600 who were captured. My problem is that you seem to support the classification of these guys as “enemy combatants” (and the subsequent deprivation of rights that’s goes with it) but you’re willing to accept this classification on nothing more than W’s say-so. Shouldn’t he have to prove they ARE combatants before he TREATS them as combatants? How much time should he be given to put up or shut up?
It pisses me off when nomally intelligent posters like you go on about stuff that they don’t understand. This is exactly like the time, a few weeks ago, when you claimed that it was treason to leak Valerie Plame’s name to the press.
Do the conditions under which the Red Cross have been allowed access to the Guantanamo inmates comply to the GC? My understanding is they do not, in that they were too restricted, but I can’t find the cite that claimed this right away. Perhaps someone here can get a faster answer.
…not some of them: nearly all of them: Cite
Only 5% of detainees were captured on the battlefield by US forces. 83% were “gifted” by Pakistani or Northern Alliance Troops.
Here is the unclassified evidenceJohn Mace. Can you please point out anybody who has been accused of plotting to fly a plane into a building, anyone who is associated with beheading innocents, or anyone involved with blowing cars up at a market? Can you show me the evidence that compels you to believe Hamadam is a memeber of Al Quaeda?
No. I’ve never supported the administrations process of dispositioning detainees at Gitmo. I’m even on record as saying that at this point I think we’d be better off letting them all go. But all that the SCOTUS has said is that Article 3 applies to the detainees (and even then, I don’t think Kennedy concurred with that, making it only 4 justices). Article 3 is specifically in there for non-POWs.
I think you’re missing the important detail here. The things that aren’t covered are;
flying civilian planes into buildings also full of civilians with no military purpose.
blowing up cars in a civilian-populated area
After all, flying a fighter plane into a military complex is “respecting the rules of war”, as would be blowing up a vehicle in the middle of a military base (if you could arrange such a thing). It’s that civilians are the targets that make them not respecting the “rules”, not the actual activity.
I’m not compelled to believe it, I only said that I found it plausible. And, btw, it doesn’t matter if a member of al Qaeda didn’t specifically plot to do any of those things that violate the laws of war-- they’re members of an organization that doesn’t respect the law so war, and that’s all that matters. Now, it is up to the adminisration to disposition the detainees in a manner consistent with the GC. But there isn’t a lot of precedent as to how to do that, and that what is being hashed out in the courts. Frankly, I think Bush et al are being deliberately non-cooperative and are just trying to drag things out as much as possible. But that doesn’t change the fact that any captured member of al Qaeda need not be treated as a POW.
…you didn’t just say that the accusations against Hamadan were “plausible”, you said that you “could safely assume [he is a member of Al Queada]” Big difference. I agree that it is plausible he is, but I would never safely assume it. Now: can you show me the evidence that anyone at Guantanemo Bay are Al Queada? They’ve been locked up for over four years, we have access to the unclassified Combantant Status Tribunals, it can’t be that hard, can it?
it opened in January of 2002; to the best of my recollection, the administration was denying access (apparently not to the Red Cross, but they at first refused to allow their reports to be released) I misremembered that, thanks for the correction.
Uhm, no, it isn’t. Unlike a “normal” war in which it’s safe to hold captive any member of the opposing armed forces without having a specific attack to which they’re linked, you cannot simply hold a member of al Quaeda simply for being a member of al Quaeda. Being a member isn’t a crime, as far as i’m aware. Committing ad act of terrorism, or being suspected of committing an act of terrorism, is. Certainly being a member (or being suspected of being a member) raises the likelihood of someone having committed some attack, but it isn’t certain.
If a person in Guantanmo is tried, admits his membership of al Quaeda, but is found innocent of being involved in any attack, he’s going to be set free. He’s committed no crime.
To be honest I can’t be bothered to follow the convoluted statements and reasonings of a politician. So I honestly don’t know the full line of thought that has come out of the White House, and honestly I don’t care to know.
Me, personally, I think there has to be a system in place where we can recognize the difference between persons apprehended in battle who were legitimate soldiers obeying the rules of war, and people who are in effect criminals.
We tried soldiers after WWII in both Germany and Japan, because we had the notion that just because something happens during wartime doesn’t mean that the persons can’t be punished in some way.
And when someone is being detained based on their criminality, they shouldn’t be treated as POWs. POWs cannot be tried for crimes, nor can they be interrogated. And I do think there is good reason to make sure that persons who we believe to be criminals can be tried and interrogated like any other criminals.
I also however, think if we’re going to treat them like criminals they should have the same rights criminals do. Which means they can’t be held without charge, they can’t be denied access to a lawyer and etc.
The grey area would be persons held out of “intelligence” interests, and I think the best thing to have done with those types would be to keep their detention secret in the first place.
I’m fairly certain the war on terror is supposed to be metaphorical.
We have a war on drugs, too, and drug dealers aren’t kept as POWs.
As part of the larger metaphorical “war on terror” there have been “real” wars ala Afghanistan, and persons who were legitimately “soldiers” and not “criminals” should be held as POWs. Criminals should be held as criminals.
And it pisses me off when normally intelligent posters like you use sloppy stuff like this: