You know what each and every one of these kids did how? Because that’s what emerged from their hearings? Please.
Then, by your own argument, such as it is, what we have now is indeed no longer a war. Please.
The US was able to present no credible evidence that they had done that. Hence, they eventually released them.
No it is my contention that standards are clearly established for Prisonners of War. If people are Prisonners of War, these should be adhered to. If they are ‘illegal combatants’ then there is no need to hold them as you would Prisonners of War. They have committed crimes (hence illegal combatents, they should be charged with those crimes and given a trial that conforms to the standards that one would expect from a democratic country. It’s really not that hard.
Occham’s Razor. In order for there to be innocent prisoners captured in the “fog of war” and still held captive, after so many prisoners have been released, there would have to have been a series of events so unlikely, and involving so many people’s intentional malfeasance, that the American military could only be populated by Dickensian caracatures and the poor prisoners would have to be the unluckiest bastards in the history of the world.
I admit that it takes some small measure of faith in my government, but not much.
Having said that, I’m with Dick Lugar and Mr Moto in that I agree there needs to be some resolution to this situation. I just tend don’t particularly go in for conspiracy theories that would make the X Files look tame by comparison.
It’s not that difficult. It’s the same process by which you dare to impugn the American military without any evidence that they’ve committed wrongdoing.
Attaboy. If you don’t like what I say, just take one sentence out of context and call the matter settled. Because if you’d kept quoting, you’d have seen this:
Any particular reason you cut my quote off where you did? I mean, except intellectual dishonesty?
Speaking of which, I have above quoted ElvisL1ves arguing that the war in Iraq is over. And here is ElvisL1ves mocking the use of the phrase “Misson Accomplished” when the war clearly isn’t over:
Who needs consistency when you’re criticizing the Bush Administration?
You are joking right? The fact that they haven’t been released is ample evidence for you that they should not be released?
There is clear evidence that the American military has committed wrongdoing (actually the civilian command really, but hey ho). The existence of Guantanamo is a clear affront to normal standards of democracy and human rights. Even if everyone who was ever taken there was guilty, which appears extremely unlikely and, given the way the prisonners have been handled, there’s no way we will ever know now, that would still be the case.
I believe this is known as “the fallacy of improper transition”.
A great deal of faith in some quarters.
Nonsense. I have not in fact impugned the US military. I have not said that the US military is wrong or right in its suppositions; just that these suppositions are not proven.
There is no doubt that the US military is indeed the captor of the people in Guantanamo bay; but there is doubt that the captives are guilty; the burden of proof of guilt is therefore on the US military.
No, there’s a big difference between “not able to” present credible evidence, and “not willing to” present credible evidence. The US doesn’t think they’re required by international law or common sense to call soldiers out of battle to give each captured combatant a full-scale trial. I agree with the US on that point.
[Note Benet: this actually works in favor of your argument. The US hasn’t presented credible evidence of what any prisoners have done. So as far as I know, they haven’t released any prisoners for lack of evidence. But I find it hard to believe that they have kept in captivity any people that they think is innocent of wrongdoing and without any articulable and helpful intelligence. Again, I don’t believe the US military is populated with sadistic bastards. But maybe that’s just me.]
Moreover, despite the conentions of many in this thread, I don’t believe the articles linked say that the US is imprisoning these people without trial because the US can’t present evidence that they’ve committed crimes or violated the Geneva Conventions. The US is imprisoning these people at the same time that the US is acknowledging that it can’t or won’t present evidence of crimes these people committed. One does not necessarily cause the other, even when it would make for a wonderful argument.
But it doesn’t actually work that way. The punishment for violating the Geneva Conventions is that you’re not entitled to its protections.
Moreover, merely violating the Geneva Conventions is generally not a “crime” in the sense that it can be prosecuted by the US court system. The US Courts generally lack jurisdiction to prosecute foreigners for crimes committed during war in foreign lands. Moreover, even if the US Courts had jurisdiction over such crimes, there aren’t any laws on the books setting forth punishments for violations of the Geneva Conventions. So even then, US Courts couldn’t sentence anyone for their violation.
So the US lacks evidence to charge these prisoners with crimes because they haven’t committed any crimes punishable by the US. Which, in my opinion, is still a long ways away from saying that they should be set free.
No, not at all. All such persons who agree with you clearly have the correct point of view. Its only those persons who disagree with you who hold such obviously false and deplorable views.
I’m not sure how these people can be in violation of something that doesn’t apply to them.
That’s just plain wrong. The US government has proposed setting up military tribunals to try and sentence some of these people. Which, according to you, can’t possibly be done. Apparantly it can. Well, then, it could have been done years ago with proper standards of justice.
You know, really, I don’t see that I need to rebut that. So I’ll just quote it and let it speak for itself. Just because a person hasn’t committed a crime punishable by the US government doesn’t mean that the US government shouldn’t lock them up. Hey, Age Quod Agis, you just remember that if they come for you one day…
I hate to sound like a broken record – for those of you who can recall what that sounds like – but we’re not even talking about trials here. All we’re talking about is granting 5th Amendment habeas corpus rights to persons (non POWs) held under US jurisdiction.
The issue currently at hand does not involve giving these folks attorneys, making charges, and sentencing, but rather the executive having to pony up to someone other than itself and show that there is some shred of evidence that it is not abusing its power by detaining people unlawfully.
It is totally immaterial whether the people currently in custody actually should be detained. Let’s assume that each and every one of them still in custody was involved in a plot to cut the unborn babies from the wombs of cookie-baking soccer moms. The issue remains whether the executive should have the right to do as it pleases without anyone to look over its shoulder.
We’re talking about checks and balances against executive power (i.e., Justice and Defense).
The Bush regime is claiming the right to detain anyone anywhere in the world it can get its hands on, without granting them even the right to have a court look at the evidence and determine whether it is sufficient to classify them in the way the administration claims they should be classified.
If the executive is doing its job correctly, it should have no qualms with cooperating with the judiciary.
Don’t forget, if the Bush administration can do this today, then subsequent administrations can do it tomorrow. Bush et al are not claiming any special privilege due to circumstances, but rather that this is their right de facto.
Failure to provide a judicial review of the decisions of the executive (don’t forget that the US President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces as well as head of the executive branch of civil government) is an open invitation to tyranny.
Sorry, but this is one that I’ll have to think about. I don’t yet see how I have that fallacy fits. Could you please expand on your reasoning?
What I was trying to suggest (apparently rather inartfully) was that the US is keeping these prisoners for a couple of reasons: (1) they still have valuable intelligence; and (2) so they don’t return to battle and/or terrorist activities. After approximately 3 years of interrogation, I’m guessing that the interrogators will have some passing familiarity with the prisoners. If the prisoner was originally innocent of wrongdoing, was picked up in the “fog of war,” and has been interrogated for approximately three years, then I’m guessing his interrogators would have to be pretty malevolent to want to keep him around despite the fact that he doesn’t pose a threat or have any valuable intelligence.
It’s possible that I’m still guilty of the fallacy which you have ascribed to me, but I haven’t figured out how yet. If you could help me out, I’d appreciate it.
A fair point. But by that same analysis, I haven’t impugned the people imprisoned, but merely suggested that it hasn’t been proven yet that any of them deserve to be free of imprisonment.
What would you have them be proven guilty of? And by what means would you have the trial?
“Innocent until proven guilty.”
What a quaint notion.
Wait, you’re the one defending their detention. You’re the one who is sure that evidence must exist against them, otherwise they wouldn’t be in prison.
They should be charged (and proven guilty if that is indeed possible) of whatever it is they are supposed to have done.
The means of having the trial would be to appoint an impartial judge, allow the prosecution to present the evidence that you say exists, appoint a defence lawyer to provide the best defence possible and have the judge decide whether the case has been proven.
It is truly scary that we have reached the point where the concept of a fair trial has to be explained and justified.
You’re wrong. They have. Several times. Some of them detained for three years on no evidence whatsoever.
But the US’s own ruling on the GC says:
(My emphasis.) They’re enduring the punishment already. Where’s the trial?
What they think is irrelevant. You seem to be of the impression that the checks and balances required by the rest of the democratic world in civil and political life don’t need to be applied to the US military because… well because you have “some small measure of faith” in it.
Here it seems you’ve given up the rule of law. It scares me that so many people in the US are prepared to justify this travesty.
On preview:
Your entire post before this paragraph is assuming their guilt. You’re saying words to the effect of “the US military is so honourable that they don’t need anything to check the detention of these people”. Your entire argument is based on this. This is the “smoke without fire” fallacy.
Yes you bloody have. You said “Their childhood was gone when they took up arms against the United States and/or engaged in terrorist activities.” That’s pretty rude, isn’t it? Even when you’re not advocating unconvicted people being locked up indefinitely.
The alleged crimes for which they’re being locked up.
I’d rather have them tried by a judge and jury; but in the absence of this, how about what they’re promised by US law: “trial and punishment by military tribunals”.
Once again, I appear to have been unclear.
The Geneva Conventions apply to every combatant. However, in order to be entitled to the Geneva Conventions’ protections (POW status and all its benefits, etc.) you have to abide by the Geneva Conventions’ mandates (avoid intentionally targeting civilians, wear distinct clothing, etc.).
So the Geneva Conventions’s mandates apply, but when those mandates have been violated, the Geneva Conventions’ protections don’t apply.
Sorry, but that doesn’t logically follow for a couple of reasons.
First, what’s been suggested here are either trials or 5th Amendment habeas corpus proceedings. A military tribunal won’t satisfy the requirement of a trial, nor will it even satisfy a writ of habeas corpus. See e.g. Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) (finding that individuals designated enemy combatants were not entitled to habeas corpus hearing nor civil trial on guilt after they were sentenced to death by military tribunal).
Second, just because the US government has proposed setting up a military tribunal to try some of these folks doesn’t mean that they can set up a military tribunal to try all of these folks.
Third, just because the government proposed in the past to do it sometime in the future does not mean that they could have done it “years ago.” (I assume this was just harmless hyperbole, but I thought I should respond to it just in case.)
Will do.
The US government is allowed to kill people without finding them guilty of a crime. It’s called war. And the Executive’s authority to kill people under those circumstances seems pretty clear.
Similarly, the US government can detain people without finding them guilty of a crime. This power can be placed under the heading of espionage or intelligence, but I think it’s actually a sub-heading of the government’s war powers.
That’s what we’re dealing with here. Just because these people may not be guilty of a crime punishable in by US courts doesn’t mean that they their detention is not vital.
I’d be rehashing really if I posted anything further and there’s not a huge ammount of point trying to argue logically against an approach of ‘my government is doing it, so it must be right’.
One day, when you wonder where your freedoms went, remember these times.
But again – and now I’m starting to think that a broken record is in order – we’re not talking about trying these folks for crimes. We’re talking about judicial review of the evidence justifying their detention in the first place.
Y’all are getting way ahead of the game. And I repeat, the issue of the “guilt” or “innocence” of anyone currently under detention is completely irrelevant.
The current US administration is attempting to assert a right to detain anyone it can get its hands on without having to show that such detention is justified.
The issue here is the balance of powers – specifically, a check against abuse of executive power.
The supposed rules by which detention is lawful become effectively null and void if there is no mechanism to determine whether those rules have been followed. And that is the issue at stake in claiming the right to habeas corpus.
If the executive is allowed to deny habeas corpus (that is, a review of sufficiency – i.e., whether the guidelines, whatever they may be, have actually been met) then it is free to ignore any set of rules that are established.
This is the central issue being argued currently.
The military detains her, the military decides whether she stays in detention. No review.
That, my friends, is the issue.
None of the articles you’ve linked make any comment on the guilt, innocence, or the amount of evidence to establish the guilt or innocence of any of the prisoners. Nor do any of the articles suggest why the individuals were released.
The articles show that the prisoners were all against their own detention (which seems natural), but they don’t suggest that either innocence of wrongdoing or lack of evidence against them. In fact, in the 3rd article, even the lawyer for the individuals suing the government does not suggest that his clients were innocent. Please note that he has not filed suit for “wrongful imprisonment.” Instead, he suggests that the US should be held liable for torture, holding prisoners for indefinite periods without access to counsel, and violating international treaties.
Errrr, that doesn’t say what you seem to think it does. It says that enemy combatants are subject to military tribunals. It does not suggest that they have a right to military tribunals.
If the Supreme Court was suggesting that unlawful combatants have a right to military tribunals, then that sentence would also mean that they have a right to “capture and detention.” That wouldn’t make any sense.
That’s not what I’m trying to suggest. 
What I’m trying to suggest is that the realities of governing in the real world mean that you can’t realistically give everyone a trial. I don’t think the US is unique in this regard. In fact, I’m willing to bet that the "the rest of the democratic world " have engaged in their fair share of war, espionage, and custodial interrogation without trial.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify this. But I have to disagree.
What I’m suggesting is that there are valid reasons to believe that the individuals are guilty. So the entire post does not rely on the assumption of their guilt. Part of the post is intended to establish why I believe that we can assume they’re in custody for a valid reason (even if they’re not technically guilty of a crime).
Fair enough. I suppose I have asserted that they’re guilty. I concede the point.
Sorry. This should have gone in the post below. :smack:
But as I understand it, they aren’t being held captive because of crimes they’ve committed. As I said before they’re being held because they have valuable intelligence, and/or to keep them from returning to the battlefield and/or engaging in terrorist activities.
Engaging in terrorist activities may be a crime, but I doubt you can be charged with having valuable intelligence or possibly returning to the battlefield (after all, it’s not illegal for a foriegner to engage in war against the US).
This means you don’t understand what’s going on in the courts right now, as I explain above.
The guilt or innocence of anyone currently in custody is totally irrelevant, just as the guilt or innocence of a US citizen accused of a crime and held by the state is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether the state is required to justify the detention of that prisoner.
If no justification is required, if no review is allowed, then you grant the state the right to imprison people arbitrarily. Whether they’re doing it in this case, or in any case at the present time, matters not a bit.
Imagine that your worst enemy is elected President. Do you want this person to have the right to detain people on any grounds, no matter how strict, if there is no mechanism to determine whether they have actually followed the rule of law and not begun to use their power to imprison people they merely dislike?
If the executive is allowed to do this, it could then (in future administrations) imprison, say, supporters of foreign politicians vying for power against friends of the administration, or religious groups whose views clash with their goals.
Think about it.
Really think about it.
“Innocent until proven guilty” has never applied to the government’s actions against POWs and/or enemy combatants.
Once again, please see Ex parte Quirin.