Just thought I would contribute this quote in the continuing debate.
source
I think it’s fair to say that the dramatic word choice may have contributed to the visibility of the debate and forced Bush and Co. to do damage control. Which, in my mind, is better than it being ignored.
Thats true…of uniformed soldiers (generally…see how the Japanese, Russians, Germans sometimes treated even uniformed prisoners. And least you think I’m biased, even the US and UK didn’t have a completely spotless record in handling even uniformed prisoners). IIRC though NON-uniformed soldiers (irregluars, 'spy’s, soldiers dressed as civilians, etc) were generally executed on the spot. I’m unsure how this would be a better solution than what we presently have, but I’m willing to hear the arguements that our soldiers should just execute non-uniformed combatants out of hand instead of detaining them. For myself I’d rather be stuck in a prison and unsure of my fate than have a bullet put through my head. YMMV though.
Or was that not what you were getting at with your historical analogy?
-XT
Some specific examples for New Iskander:
[ol][li]Nagem Sadun Hatab, from Nasiriya, Iraq. Arrested on June 3 2003 (died in custody 3 days later, so it’s possible in theory, at least, that he would have gotten a trial if he’d lived longer)[/li][li]Mohammed Munim al-Izmerly, from Baghdad, Iraq. On 25 April 2003, this prominent Iraqi scientist was taken, handcuffed and hooded, to an unknown location. He was held for the next nine months, possibly at the “high value detainees” section at Baghdad International Airport. (And then he died.)[/li][li]Jamil El Banna, Jordanian national, long-term UK resident. Kidnapped in Gambia by American civilians from the embassy. (I’m not sure of the date of this one, but as US isn’t at war with Gambia or Jordan it’s pretty obvious that he’s not a PoW.)[/li][li]Saifullah Paracha. Pakistan national seized in Thailand. (Se parenthesis above. I’m pretty sure US isn’t at war with Thailand or Pakistan either.)[/ol]Source: AI: Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power[/li]1 and 2 from appendix 1 which is based on various sources, see footnote 540 in the report for details.
3 and 4 from appendix 2, based on Combatant Status Review Tribunals, as per records filed in US District Court (in other words, these are based on the prisoners’ own testimonies)
furt, are you arguing seriously that the judicial system of 18th century is an ideal to strive for? Call me a bleeding-heart softie mozzarella, but I kind of think that the organisation which stated the following is onto something:
If you don’t have enough evidence to convict them, then maybe (I’m daring a radical guess here – brace yourself) just maybe, maybe they aren’t guilty?
OK, then the argument is that they are criminals. I guess “unlawful combatants” is the term that the the White House uses for those guys. Fine – then you do what is done with alleged criminals: bring them before an impartial tribunal or court, and have their guilt or innocence tested according to law.
No, I’m just saying that historically thats how ‘unlawful combatants’ were generally handled by all sides. Personally, as I said, I don’t think this would be wise for the US to do (and not just on humanitarian grounds). I agree with you…the military should hold a tribunal and determine their status (I suppose decide if they were swept up by accident or if they are indeed ‘unlawful combatants’ or whatever other lable) and decide whats to be done with them.
This limbo status that they currently, er, enjoy, is, IMHO, the crux of the problem. As I’ve said, I have no problem with trying them and even sentencing them to death or long imprisonment (if they are found guilty and their crimes warrent it)…what I have a problem with is leaving them hanging there with no determination of their final status and no idea how long they will be in this limbo. There really aren’t that many of them that it would be overly taxing to hold military trials, allow the prisoners their chance to defend themselves, and resolve this issue one way or the other.
I’m sure the legal beagle on the board will be by shorty to shred this plan as no feasible, but from my obviously non-legalistic mind it seems the best way to proceed.
-XT
One big problem is that if these guys were allegedly resisting the US invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, then the US military is not a sensible source for an impartial tribunal. If the US has the resources to take them to Cuba and keep them locked away for years, then it has the resources to take them to:
(1) a court established by the new Iraqi government.
(2) a court established by the United Nations.
(3) an American civilian court.
Then we are back to square one. I suppose that I am beginning to see why this issue will never be resolved. 
-XT
Well, there aren’t many at Gitmo, but if we count in other US facilities, there are about 12 000 of them. In addition, there are several thousand held by other governments at behest of USA. AI estimates the total number to around 70 000. (Source.)
Er…70,000?!? Looking at your cite (though I acknowledge it does say 70,000 at the bottom), I can’t see where they are getting that figure from:
Ok…so, lets do the math here (assuming for a moment I accept these figures, which I do for the sake of arguement only):
2+520+300+250+(‘scores’…er, say 40?)+6,300+3,500+110+1,300+40+(‘estimated at several thousand detainees’…um, say 2000 then)+(100 to 150)+4
Ok…by my calculations that is (aprox): 14,516 give or take a few. Now…how did they arrive at 70, 000 from that?
Looking at these numbers though, how many are in this limbo status? Afaik the ones in Iraq aren’t, so that cuts down quite a few right there (6,300+3,500). Even if they are all in limbo and disreguarding the 70,000 which frankly seems ridiculous to me and looking at the 14,000 aproximation, I still say that there aren’t too many to be processed through military tribunals. My guess is that the actual list of prisoners in complete limbo is MUCH smaller than that, but its only a guess.
-XT
Yes, that “several thousand” = almost 60 000 surprised me too. It’s getting late here, so I’m not going to look for more info on that right now.
That’s news to me. I see no reason to assume that the prisoners held by US in Iraq aren’t covered by the statement “Trials of foreign nationals held in US custody outside the USA: 0”
I think that’s a total figure for TWAT, including many we have captured and released.
Its almost certainly either an exaggeration or its skewing the data by looking at something else (like say ALL prisoners held by foreign nations on political grounds that are associate with the WoT and claiming them all). Its these kinds of exaggerations that make it so difficult to really trust either side in this debate…IMHO.
IIRC the prisoners in Iraq are under a different authority than those held at Gitmo (which is part of the reason we have prisoners AT Gitmo). In addition, there must be some kind of informal processing going on in Iraq because I know that prisoners are released regularly…in fact, your own cite acknowledges that prisoners are released in Iraq. Its probably not accurate for me to say that none of the prisoners in Iraq are in limbo…but then, not all the prisoners in Gitmo were either (as some were also released). My concern though is for those who don’t seem to be given any chance to challenge their status by trial and make a final determination…to me THAT is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
-XT
Not at all. But there is no argument about what they were doing, so no ‘presumption of innocence’ as accorded to civilians. PoWs are summrily assumed to be enemy combatants, summarily granted extenuating circumstances (such as following orders), summarily protected by Geneva convention, summarily detained without individual trials until the end of hostilities, sometimes exchanged, eventually returned to their country after the end of hostilities. Is that what you want for those people? Or you want them to be treated as civilians? Because you can’t have it both ways.
Creative linguistics.
During, get it? Simply means passed through the system. Which means that for every (1) person detained (5) persons were released.
You forgot Saddam (yes, still no trial).
So you cite just one report among many. With (540) footnotes refering to other documents. As many footnotes as GiTMO detainees.
Would you still insist on GULAG comparison?
Remember the most important thing about GULAG: Millions perished. Nobody knew. For decades.
I’m guessing AI’s tactic was this
Use a weighted word like ‘gulag’
Wait for US administration to offer condemnations about misuse of the term
AI says ‘if you don’t want us using the term, allow us and others to investigate the prisons to see if there really are serious abuses’
If the US refuses, then they are essentially saying AI is not exaggerating and that they’d rather be called a gulag and not be investigated for it.
If the US refuses to allow independent observers at the behest of AI, it’ll paint the US administration in a much worse light than they currently look. All in all, good tactic. Kudos AI.
Meanwhile, WaPo editors join the dark side.
I beg your pardon. It is the Bush Admin that wants to have it both ways. That is why it is holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, a place which is supposedly American territory but not governed by the U.S. Constitution; and that is why it has designated the detainees as “illegal enemy combatants,” a classification which purportedly enjoys neither the protections of criminal suspects under American law nor the protections of prisoners of war under international law.
Not at all; I’m pointimng out that the POWs-or-else-criminals binary is foolish, and that there are other historical precedents.
And so when troops who have been under fire come across a guy with a recently-used rifle, a Koran and a “death to America” T-shirt they’re supposed to put him under arrest, read his rights and appoint a public defender for him? That is simply not a serious alternative.
Nothing new here. The Post was a major cheeleader for Bush’s Iraq adventure.
Here’s their attempt at apologizing for hyping WMD’s. It’s not very convincing. Neither is their latest bullshit.