It’s a transparent attempt to paint himself as impartial and sympathetic. There isn’t any other reason to bring that up in the talk. Note also that it is irrelevant, can’t be substantiated, but is distracting because it hints at underlying motivations that will not be communicated. Maybe he’s a softy, and he sympathizes with the detainees. Maybe he’s so hard-line that they didn’t trust him to be anything other than prosecution. Or maybe it’s just another gently tugging strand in a web of lies.
Does this not remind you of some deeply unpleasant regimes?
Is this what the US stands for nowadays?
Gosh - he could have also shown the Kennedy assassination, the San Francisco earthquake and the massacre at Wounded Knee.
Is this what the US stands for nowadays?
So convenient to have a handy war. Perhaps the US could claim Guantanamo prisoners are drug dealers.
I presume this is the modern translation of “I was only following orders.”
This particularly makes me sick.
careful,now. Some of the paid trolls here are two-way conduits. In addition to parroting the government line, they are taking names and kicking ass, as it were. Remember that we just cut a guy loose from Gitmo whose only crime was a satirical bounty of 5 million afs for Bill Clinton…http://www.wonkette.com/politics/guantanamo/one-mans-satire-is-anothers-openended-detainment-without-charges-140962.php
And this is the real purpose of Gitmo: make some examples of people; torture them for a few years, then release them so they can tell stories. Torture isn’t a means of acquiring information. These people have been out of the loop for too long to have information. Torture is terrorism.
Or so they think. Which is why they let them go. What point are you trying to make?
- Torture is terrorism.*
only when committed by arabic speaking perps…Torture by english speakers is “aggressive interrogation”. Don’t thank me, I’m happy to have clarified this for you…
Um, but we’re not at war with Afghanistan now. So, if they are POW’s, they need to be released, or plausibly categorized as suspects or material witnesses or soemthing.
In fact, I’m pretty sure we never declared war on Afghanistan. Does that make our forces in Afghanistan unlawful combatants?
Um, this isn’t France? Look, I can understand where the military is coming from. They want to detain people that are potential threats, rather than just try determine & punish guilt. But their approach is simplistic (the years of incarceration incommunicado have an effect not only on the detainee, but on public perception of the US gov’t); prone to abuse (Afghans & Pakis working with the US fobbed their enemies, even those working against al-Qaeda, on the US, & the US kept some for years), & oh yeah, so far outside the American constitutional tradition as to be offensive.
Yeah, it’s fairer than trial by immersion, but it’s a long way from legitimate in many Americans’ eyes.
naive Q … has war been officially declared? … I am pretty sure you have to declare war first in order to refer to it as such for any subsequent rights/obligations…
anybody know?
I’m having a difficult time understanding this, so I’m noit sure if or how it explains your post #7. I don’t mena to be snarky, seriously, but maybe it’s the way that is worded and or typos.
Well, not to mention that some detainees are U.S. citizens, so for those cases, we’d have to declare war on ourselves. But I suppose we’ve done that in a manner of speaking, since our government is violating the Constitution and national law with impunity.
Too late. You’ll be seriously underbid by several posters, here. I’ve even seen some working for free.
Hmmm, not the best choice of analogy
…we really don’t know that at all. If you want to see what sort of evidence we have on the detainees here are the Combatant Status Review Tribunal and Administrative Review Board transcripts. It is a big read, and I’m not even half-way through it, but they paint a less than rosy picture of the evidence against the detainees and the likelyhood of their guilt. Do you happen to own this brand of watch? For some detainees, this was the sum total of the physical evidence against them.
Go read the Review Transcripts posted above. Read the Denbeaux Report. I doubt it will change your mind much, but from everything I’ve read it would be reasonable to conclude that there would be no more than 30 people locked up at Guantanemo Bay at the moment deserve to be there. Only 5% of detainees were captured by US forces. The rest were “gifted” to them, many of them in response to bounty payment promises of “millions of dollars”. Most were never caught on the battlefields, and most of those that were only “defined” that way by the detaining authorities:
My previous Guantanemo related threads with multiple citations.
Here is the list of the Taliban leadership. See how many are locked up at Guantanemo? With the exception of David Hicks, none of them. One of them is even studying at Yale. There are no high-value detainees at Guantanemo at all: but they do have Bin Ladens driver locked up, what a relief!
WIth all due respect to this forum, I find Col. Morris D. Davis to be a disgraceful contemptible lying worm. But every time I think of scum like him representing the US army, I’m reminded of people like Major Michael Mori, Samuel Provance and Sgt Joseph Darby In light of the release of the transcripts, Davis’s mention of the Geneva Conventions feels like a tired strawman. Not only were 95% of the detainees not captured out-of-uniform bearing arms against US troops, they weren’t captured by US troops at all.
Well, that’s not so bad. As a prosecutor, he does not have to be prepared to define that in the first instance. If opposing counsel should move to have evidence excluded on those grounds, he need only be prepared to frame an argument that that particular evidence, in that particular instance, was not obtained through “undue coercion.”
Oh, wait . . .
There’s something missing here . . .
Thanks, everybody, for all of the responses since my OP. I’ll try to answer all of the questions raised as best I can.
Revenant Threshold, Col. Davis seemed sincere to me, without being a fanatic “true believer.” As noted above, he conceded where the United States’s case was not the strongest (which was pretty often).
Jawdirk, the issue of force-feeding the detainees who are on hunger strikes didn’t come up. Good point; wish someone had asked about that during Q&A.
Hamlet, the 10 detainees who are proceeding to trial are charged with different offenses, including (IIRC) conspiracy, terrorism and waging unlawful warfare.
Foolsguinea, Davis insisted the trials would be open… unless classified materials needed to be introduced, in which case they would be closed only long enough for that to be discussed. And no, we never declared war on Afghanistan. I don’t think we’ve actually declared war on anyone since the Axis powers in WWII.
Waenara, I agree completely about the ultimately counterproductive nature of most - if not all - of the Gitmo internments.
John Mace, for most of the detainees the military is just deciding year by year whether or not they should be kept in custody. Davis specifically said it could be “centuries” before all of them are actually given trials - by which time, of course, they will all have died of old age.
Terrifel, Davis said he volunteered to serve as defense counsel because he thought there would be very few JAGs or private attorneys who would want to do so, and he thought the detainees should receive counsel. Jawdirk, I agree that this might easily be seen as spin, but as I wrote before, Davis seemed sincere, and I believe him on this point.
Banquet Bear, thanks for the links.
Well, that’s just about the scariest thing I’ve heard about all year. This guy actually felt comfortable admitting this in front of a college audience, while simultaneously claiming that the system would be “full, fair and open, and produce a just result?” Perhaps I’m overlooking something, but that idea seems entirely insane.
Jesus Christ. Could we please go back to the version of America that didn’t accomodate the possibility of keeping government detainees incarcerated for “centuries” without trial?
I have to agree with Malodorous’ observation: I believe I’d have thought twice before using the railroad analogy.
Just a nitpick: this was a law school audience, and included about equal numbers of law students, law profs and lawyers (and yours truly, a muni court magistrate).
Well, if he said he thought there would be very few private attorneys who would want to defend detainees, he’s either in the dark (and therefore grossly incompetent), or spinning like a top.
The Bush administration even went to the trouble to get congress to pass this:
And George Bush attached a personal note to that amendment that said “the executive branch shall construe Section 1005 to preclude the federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in Section 1005.”
That’s because there are human rights lawyers trying every legal means to represent these people. In fact, my sister knows some of these lawyers personally, and has worked for them.
But really, even without this information, isn’t the bent of his statement obvious? He was essentially saying that he wanted to represent these people, because if he didn’t he thought no one would want to. As I said, that makes him seem soft and kind in the face of the implied world where nobody cares that people are detained indefinitely without representation. The only thing is, that world doesn’t exist. It’s a figment of his spin. In reality, he is a lawyer allied with people who want to maintain this state of injustice indefinitely. It’s his job to know that there are human rights lawyers who want to represent these people, and that there are legal arguments that they should not be allowed to.
It’s not surprising that he seems sincere. That’s his job.
I am by no means condoning the current situation at Gitmo, however a number of those captured were captured in acts of ‘combat’ without Internationally recognized uniforms (according the Hague Accords, Geneva Convention, and the UN charter); and by definition are terrorists. Is it a majority of those captured? That I do not know, but the number is not zero (as some of the evidence you posted shows).