Casting Terrorists as Defenders of the Constitution (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/06/casting_terrorists_as_defender.html)
By J.R. Dunn

>Snip<

At Guantanamo on June 4, a pair of military judges threw out the cases against two active members of Al-Qaeda. These were not trivial figures. Salim Ahmed Hamdan served as no less than Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard, apart from his role in planning and carrying out attacks against civilians. The second defendant, Omar Khadr, is of an altogether different order. The junior member of Canada's "Al-Qaeda family", a clan in which every adult male member was a made mujahadin, Khadr was picked up while fighting against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The soldier he killed there was a medic in the process of treating the injured. You will look and hard to find that fact mentioned in any current coverage, though they have no trouble making the space to point out that Khadr was fifteen at the time.

You'd think that the flaws in the government's case would have to be pretty egregious for such a pair of high-profile defendants to be so abruptly freed. But in truth, they're closer to textbook examples of misplaced-comma nitpicking. The case against Khadr is void, claims Army Col. Peter Brownback, because the military review board labeled him only an "enemy combatant", not an "unlawful enemy combatant". The same logic (if that's the word I'm groping for) was echoed by Navy Capt. Keith Allred in the decision on Hamdan. Because "unlawful" was left out, he is "not subject to this commission". It has to say "unlawful". They're not kidding. Presumably, it also has to be highlighted, underlined, and italicized as well. Every last usage. The court clerks will check.

>snip<

On May 30, in a decision of which the Guantanamo judges were no doubt well aware, a U.S. District court ordered the release of a Palestinian named Majed Talat Hajbeh. In Jordan, Hajbeh had been convicted of terrorism for, among other things, bombing an American school. (Which didn't stop him from running to the U.S. to hide out.) Picked up on an immigration charge, Hajbeh was held for four years while the U.S. searched for somebody willing to take him off our hands.

For some obscure reason, no state, including the Israelis, was interested in providing a home for a hardened Palestinian terrorist. (I assume he could have been sent back to Jordan but for rules forbidding this.) And there things stood until the last days of May, when Judge Jerome B. Friedman revealed that international terrorists who cannot be dumped elsewhere must be turned loose without further ado.

And on June 11, the umpire called, "strike three!" in the form of Al-Marri v. Wright. Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is an easy match for Khadr and Hajbeh, a Qatari who trained at an Al-Qaeda camp, actually met 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and was sent to the U.S. to establish a sleeper cell to be activated for later terrorist strikes. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals argued with none of that. Nor did they dispute the fact that Al-Marri is an enemy combatant, unlawful or otherwise. What they found was that, despite those unquestioned facts, the United States "lacks the authority" to hold Al-Marri, and, by extension, any other active terrorist.

So in under two weeks time, the judiciary of the United States has established that known international terrorists, bent on causing as much destruction within this country's borders as humanly possible, cannot be held at Guantanamo, cannot be held in U.S. prisons, and cannot be returned to the only countries that will accept them. Needless to say, the media, the academy, and the Democratic Party - collapsed institutions all - view this as a triumph.

>snip<

Originally law represented the interests of society as a whole. The goal of legal proceedings was to repair breaches in the social fabric brought about by torts or criminal activity. Law was a balanced entity which (at least in the English system, and in the ideal sense) represented the interests of no party more than any other.

This classical paradigm underwent deep and massive changes during America's cultural revolution beginning in mid-century. Thanks to a serious misinterpretation of psychology by criminologists and other academics, the law began to shift its focus from the general to the particular, from society at large to the criminal. Psychologists such as Karl Menninger and criminologists beginning with the Chicago School of Social Science promoted a belief that rehabilitation of the offender must become the central pillar of the justice system, with all other factors, including punishment and restitution set aside. This way of thinking soon spread into the law schools and legal journals, becoming the consensus view of the legal profession (and beyond them the public at large, through such legacy media outlets as The New York Times, The New Yorker, and the Big Three broadcast networks.)

>snip<

Of course, it ended in disaster. The sanctification of the offender was a key element in the great crime explosion that wracked the country from the mid-60s until the late 90s. Hundreds of thousands of murders, robberies, and rapes (the exact number is unknown and never will be known) occurred as a direct result of the "procedural revolution". Criminals, it seemed, were not interested in any role as paladins of the Constitution as much as they were in getting away with the crime, and wound up using the procedural reforms as get-out-of-jail-free-cards. Over the following three decades, the new rights were slowly trimmed back by the courts, but never completely. In the past few years, the entire thesis has undergone a revival in legal circles, with the classic-comics psychology replaced by new findings in neuroscience.

The same attitude now serves as a template for the current legal view of domestic terrorists.

The entire campaign against terrorism has been depicted as a vast conspiracy against the public. (Not so incidentally, this has been the most successful campaign of its type ever carried out - not a single successful strike has occurred in America since 9/11. Compare that to Northern Ireland or the campaign against Basque terrorists.) All the failed institutions -- the media, academics, Democratic politicians - are in full agreement on the point that the public is in jeopardy from the campaign against terror, never mind the diminishing memory of the meaning of a terror attack in concrete and human terms. Federal telephone tapping, in their view, is not designed to track down potential terrorist plots, but to discover who's speaking out against Big Brother. Surveillance of overseas banking is not intended to trace funds that could be used to finance a terrorist strike, but to gather information about the citizenry. Library surveillance isn't meant to track down individuals searching for targeting information or bomb recipes but to compile lists of people reading Cindy Sheehan's books, and so on.

So if the War on Terror is a fraud, no more than a grotesque conspiracy designed to implement some kind of garrison state, what does that make the "terrorists"? What else but victims? Victims suffering horribly amid the abuses of Guantanamo and the rendition prisons. Victims standing alone against the full power of the state, victims deserving all the assistance they can get...

And in fact, the rhetoric we're hearing from the bench today closely echoes what was said about criminals during the 60s. Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, in her decision on the Al-Marri case:


"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the president calls them 'enemy combatants, would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution - and the country."
There we have it - the terrorist as protector of the Constitution. The first line of defense of the Bill of Rights.

These American judges are trapped in their own mentalities. They are prisoners of the legal history of the past fifty years. They can't think of terrorists in any other way than as Mirandas and Escobedos of slightly different order. They can't conceive of the current terrorism prosecutions as anything other than echoes of those cases. They can't dispose of them in any way other than the way their predecessors dealt with Miranda and Escobedo and all the others.

>Snip<

Those enemies are well aware of all this. How couldn't they be? And they will take advantage of it. Wouldn't you?

POWs should not be treated as criminals. They should not be given trials because they are POWs and not criminals. POWs have never been given trials. The Geneva Conventions actually prevent POWs from being tried for their actions as soldiers (unless their actions were war crimes). They could be tried from crimes committed AFTER they were POWs, but not for their actions as fighters.

Our criminal justice system is not set up for the rules that apply to POWs. We need to stop trying to make the square peg fit the round hole. It doesn't work.

Elliot

Hello El:

When the Convention was written, unending war was inconceivable. It's still inconceivable to me, but not to your guy, George W. Bush. When the Convention says that POW's can't be tried, it was anticipated that wars had conclusions where POW's would be liberated. This war, however, is not going to end, and your guy plans to hold them forever. Huh?

That's kind of like the Cheney argument about him not being a member of the government….. But I digress.

I'll bet the Geneva Convention you so liberally cite doesn't mention unending war. Indeed, if unending war would have thought to have been possible when the Convention was written, it wouldn't say what it does. Even to your off the wall right wing thinking, you couldn't possibly believe that it would - although you've shocked me in the past.

Nope El, cherry picking stuff to make your point ain't going to work as long as I'm around.

excon

If terrorists on the battle field have standing in US Courts do they also have standing to take civil action against the troops on the field ? Do we need lawyers on the field advising the terrorists of their Miranda rights ?

What the convention did envision was war between nations that agreed amongst themselves on the conduct of war between themselves . It was never intended for non-signatories . What it did not envision was non-state organizations having the capability to attack and inflict casualties on a single day to a nation larger then any attack it had ever suffered .

Yes ;we had non-state organizations that waged war before . They were called pirates and were dispatched without the customary protocol that a criminal was allowed .

As I understand it the fact that no other nation wants their terrorist nationals returned to them has become a growing problem . Are we supposed to take them in as refugees once the idiots in our justice system releases them ?

Are we supposed to take them in as refugees once the idiots in our justice system releases them ?Hello again, tom:

Nahhh, we can just render 'em. You know, fly 'em in, drop 'em off on the street. Like we do now. I don't think we care much what other countries think about that. Do you?

excon

Hello El:

When the Convention was written, unending war was inconceivable. It’s still inconceivable to me, but not to your guy, George W. Bush. When the Convention says that POW’s can’t be tried, it was anticipated that wars had conclusions where POW's would be liberated. This war, however, is not going to end, and your guy plans to hold them forever. Huh?

You are making an assumption... that the war will never end. I don't buy into that assumption. But whether it is true or not is beyond the point. The point is that the criminal justice system isn't designed to deal with POWs and the option of simply letting enemy combatants go and letting them attack us again isn't a viable option. The GC allows us to keep them without trial. It sets forth rules and conditions under which we may keep them INDEFINITELY until the end of hostilities. So why not abide by the rules set forth instead of making up new ones as we go along.


That’s kind of like the Cheney argument about him not being a member of the government….. But I digress.

When don't you digress.

And Cheney isn't arguing that he's not part of the government. He's simply arguing that he's part of the legislative branch rather than the executive branch. And he's wrong.


I'll bet the Geneva Convention you so liberally cite doesn't mention unending war. Indeed, if unending war would have thought to have been possible when the Convention was written, it wouldn't say what it does. Even to your off the wall right wing thinking, you couldn’t possibly believe that it would - although you’ve shocked me in the past.


Prepare to be shocked again:

It doesn't matter that the GC doesn't mention "unending war". Please keep in mind that the final parts of the GC were written in the 1970s, during the height of the Cold War... what seemed at that point to be an unending war. Also, please keep in mind that the GC was written with wars such as the 100-Years War and the 30-Years War in mind. The authors knew of the possibility of a multi-decade and multi-generational wars. And they didn't set up a sepparate set of rules for long wars and short wars because they realized that there shouldn't be any difference in the rules.


Nope El, cherry picking stuff to make your point ain't going to work as long as I'm around.

I'm not the one ignoring the historical context of the GC and when it was written, you are. Which of us is cherry-picking the facts, ex?

Elliot

How can a "terrorist" be identified? Is it a person who commits a "terrorist" act, one who advocates and incites others to commit "terrorist" acts, or does it also include those who hold "terrorist" opinions or beliefs?

How can a "terrorist act" be distinguished from a criminal act or an act of war? Can a soldier in battle commit a "terrorist act"? Can a civilian commit an act of war? Is a civilian who carries out hostile acts against an occupying army a terrorist, a criminal, or an unlawful enemy combatant?

Timothy MacVeigh was tried and convicted in a court of law so he was, by definition, a criminal. Was he also a terrorist? Should he have been treated as a POW or an unlawful enemy combatant instead of as a criminal?

Should unlawful enemy combatants have all the rights afforded to POW's under the Geneva Conventions?

How can a "terrorist" be identified? Is it a person who commits a "terrorist" act, one who advocates and incites others to commit "terrorist" acts, or does it also include those who hold "terrorist" opinions or beliefs?

One who committs a terrorist act is definitely a terrorist. One who plans, finances, gives aid and support to those commit terrorist acts are terrorists. Belief alone is not enough to call someone a terrorist, though belief is certainly an indicator that such a person needs to be watched. And if that entails "profiling" then so be it.


How can a "terrorist act" be distinguished from a criminal act or an act of war?

Some terrorist acts are crimes... in fact, most are. But what makes them terrorism rather than criminal acts is context. In what context was the act committed? Was the civilian taken hostage during the commission of a ban robery (a crime) or was it done as a political statement and an act of aggression against a political power (terrorism).


Can a soldier in battle commit a "terrorist act"?

Absolutely. Deliberately attacking civillians with no intention of attacking military targets is a terrorist act, and one that is committed by people in uniform all the time around the world.


Can a civilian commit an act of war?

Certainly. Any act of terrorism is an act of war. 9/11 was an act of war committed by civillians. It was also terrorism. And it was criminal acts. And since it was done in the context of committing an act of war against the United States of America, it falls under the category of TERRORISM not criminal activity.


Is a civilian who carries out hostile acts against an occupying army a terrorist, a criminal, or an unlawful enemy combatant?

If the attack is against military targets, it isn't terrorism. Military targets are legal in times of war. However, if the civilian is not wearing a uniform, or if the perpetrator is a soldier who is not wearing a uniform, then he is an unlawful combatant, as per the GC.


Timothy MacVeigh was tried and convicted in a court of law so he was, by definition, a criminal. Was he also a terrorist? Should he have been treated as a POW or an unlawful enemy combatant instead of as a criminal?

He was a criminal. He was also a terrorist. And had he blown up the Oklahoma City government office building during a time of war, then he should have been handled as a POW and a terorist, not in the ciminal courts. However, since we were NOT in a declared war at the time, treating him as a criminal was the only option. That is NOT true today. We ARE at war.


Should unlawful enemy combatants have all the rights afforded to POW's under the Geneva Conventions?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!! In fact, the Geneva Conventions specifically state that unlawful enemy combatants are NOT protected by the CG.

These aren't tough questions to answer, ordinaryguy. They are actually rather simple to answer. But one has to be able to get past all the junk about moral equivalence, political corectness, and liberal pablum, and start using their brain in a discriminating manner... discriminating between right and wrong, good and evil, and yes, even us and them.


As a side note:
The whole idea that "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" or "a soldier is just a terrorist in uniform" is false... an attempt at moral equivocation. That's fine and good during a time of peace, when we don't have enemies at our doorstep trying to kill us. I disagree with it even then, but I accept people's rights to go with that idea. But not during wartime, when we have to respond to a direct threat from an enemy that uses that sort of moral equivocation as a shield.

Nor do I believe that "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Because in order to be a "freedom fighter", one must, of necessity, be fighting for freedom. The Islamofascist terrorists aren't fighting for freedom. Quite the opposite; they are fighting for religious intolerance and the death and destruction of anyone who doesn't follow their religion.

I bring this up, because your questions about who is a terrorist vs. who is a criminal, vs. who is a civilian defending his country smack of trying to make them the same, morally and legally. They are not, nor should they be seen as such. And the differences between them are easy to see, if you are willing to open your eyes to see the differences. But it takes getting past the PC crap to the real issues of how to defend ourselves against an enemy bent on our destruction.

Elliot

Putting someone in jail without charging them, is profiling at its worst and given this administrations history and record to detain, someone forever because of what could be profiling, or false intelligence has got to be wrong. In a nation of laws, and checks and balances, then it is only correct to treat so called terrorists, as criminals put 'em in jail, and charged with a crime, and then punish them.

German agents landed on US soil at the time of our entry into WWII . They preceded to execute a campaign of sabotage ,with Americans of German decent , entitled "Operation Pastorius" .Operation Pastorius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius)

They were captured . They were treated as unlawful enemy combatants as defined by the GC because they were un-uniformed .

They were
put on trial before a seven-member military commission on specific instructions from President Franklin D. Roosevelt. They were charged with 1) violating the law of war; 2) violating Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of corresponding with or giving intelligence to the enemy; 3) violating Article 82 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of spying; and 4) conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in the first three charges.

Lawyers for the accused attempted to have the case tried in a civilian court, but were rebuffed by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin. FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1) The trial was held in the Department of Justice building in Washington. All eight defendants were found guilty and sentenced to death.

All but 2 were executed .

When enemy combatants are found behind enemy lines in civilian clothing, as they were, it is a serious violation of the laws of war ;as the GC clearly says . Why was military tribunal chosen? A civilian court proceeding might have resulted in acquittal - or a judge's decision to dismiss charges.

In ordering military tribunals President Bush has followed precedence from previous Commanders in Chief going as far back as George Washington. The fact that those indictments have not taken place is an indictment of Congressional and judicial stalling . The process of justice has been legally established by the President .

Talaniman,


Putting someone in jail without charging them, is profiling at its worst and given this administrations history and record to detain, someone forever because of what could be profiling, or false intelligence has got to be wrong. In a nation of laws, and checks and balances, then it is only correct to treat so called terrorists, as criminals put 'em in jail, and charged with a crime, and then punish them.

First of all, jailing people isn't profiling. Profiling is when you target a specific group for a specific activity... such as checking all cars driven by black men for drugs. Profiling in criminal justice is seen as a terrible thing by liberals, but guess what--- it works.

And do you truthfully believe that people other than law enfocement don't profile all the time?

Who is Telemundo targeting with their programing? Is it blue-haired little old ladies from Long Island, or is it the Hispanic crowd? That is profiling.

Afternoon cartoons target a specific audience, children 6-12 years old. THat is profiling.

When a commercial for Viagra appears on TV, is it targeting teenage girls? Probably not. That is profiling.

Profiling, or targeting a specific demographic for a specific activity, is the best way to make sure that you cover your desired target and don't waste time and effort on people you aren't interested in. And it works. It works for businesses, and it works for law enforcement.

Consider this: Almost 95% of all terrorist attacks performed by Islamic radicals worldwide have been performed by Middle Eastern men aged 18-35. The few that were not performed by that demographic were performed by Middle Eastern WOMEN aged 18-35. So who should law enforcement and anti-terrorist agencies be looking at in order to prevent terrorism? Blue-haired old ladies from Long Island?

Jailing people without a trial isn't profiling. Depending on whether there is a reason to justify jailing them or not, it might be false improsonment, violation of civil rights, or it might just be taking POWs in time of war... which is perfectly legal. Usually the jailing takes place AFTER the profiling. And false imprisonment need not necessarily be a product of profiling.

Now... ask yourself these question. And be honest in your answer, with yourself if not with me. If you knew that a Middle Eastern man was coming to kill you, but couldn't identify him until after he attacks you, wouldn't you want the cops to check out all the Middle Eastern men coming near you before they attack you? And if they find someone that they suspect of being your attacker, don't you think that person should be put behind bars? Especially if he had a history of such attacks in the past?

We are talking about that exact scenario, but on a global scale. Middle Eastern men are coming to attack us. We can either look for suspicious activities among Middle Eastern men and jail the most probable suspects, or we can worry about profiling, wring our hands about the abuse of human rights of Middle Eastern men, and die in stupidity when the next attack gets through.

I just read a novel in which this exact topic was brought up as part of the storyline. The book is called "A Deeper Blue" by John Ringo. It is part of the "Chooser of the Slain" series.

Mrs. Meier is a security guard and bag-checker at Disney's Magic Kingdom. Disney has been informed that a terrorist attack using VX gas is imminent. She is a Jewish woman who feels that racial profiling is wrong. The scene goes like this:


Fisher had gotten a new security guard for Booth Four and went over to the checker.

"Mrs. Meier," Fisher said as the entry supervisor hurried over. "You didn't check a spray can."

"I'm sorry, Mr. Fisher," the woman said angrily. "But this is all so stupid! Nobody is going to put anything in a can of OFF."

"Let the security guard do the checking on this one," Mike said. "I think that Mrs. Meier could do with a little demonstration."

"Okay," Fisher said. "Mrs. Meier, if you could accompany us?"

The threesome walked over to the door and went through. On the other side was a section sealed off with plastic sheeting. Inside the plastic sheeting, two of the Keldara were fitted with poison gas gear.

The Middle Easterner was standing by nervously as the security guard, gingerly, removed the spray can. The two large Keldara still flanked the potential terrorist. The security guard put the can on a tray and slid it into the sealed area through an air lock.

"Sir, if you would step in there," Mike said, politely. "And demonstrate that that is normal OFF in the can, I'd be very grateful."

"I will not!" the man shouted. "You are picking on me because I am Arab! You will stop this now! I will protest to CAIR!"

"Fine," Mike said with a sigh. He drew the Desert Eagle and pointed it at the man's head. "Once upon a time the .44 Magnum was the largest and most powerful handgun in the world. It was subsequently replaced by this one, the Desert Eagle .50 caliber, which can kill an elephant at short range. Admittedly, subsequent to that other more powerful handguns such as the Casull .454 have been developed but that is not entirely germane to our discussion since I am not currently pointing one of those at your head. I will, however, add that I'm having a very bad day. I've gotten shot at, gassed and done a rather nasty swim. My harem manager has been kidnapped and is being tortured at the moment. I'm tired and cranky and I haven't gotten laid recently. So. You can demonstrate that there is not VX in that can or you can be shot by a gun normally used to kill elephants. Your choice. I'm good either way."

"You wouldn't shoot me," the man said, shaking his head. "Not in cold blood. Not with everyone watching."

"Bets?" Mike asked, cocking the pistol. "This is a hollow point round. When it hits your head this entire room will be covered in blood and brains, but I've got spare clothes and I've been covered in blood and brains before."

"I will not spray that on myself," the man said, shaking his head. He was clearly terrified, but it could have just been the massive gun sitting on his occipital bone. "No."

"Georgi," Mike said, raising his voice. "Try it on one of the gerbils."

The Keldara reached into a cage and removed a gerbil, then placed it in a different cage. First he sealed the cage, then inserted the can and his hand through a rubber seal. He shook the can and sprayed a very small quantity into the cage. The gerbil began spasming immediately.

The Middle Easterner tried to run but the two Keldara wrestled him easily to the floor and slid cuffs on his hands and feet and a hood over his head.

"Now, Mrs. Meier," Mike said, decocking the weapon and putting it away. "You just let VX gas into the Magic Kingdom and that really pisses me off. How many other cans did you fail to check?"

"I . . . I don't know," the woman said, her eyes wide and fixed on the dead gerbil that could be seen through the clear plastic. "A . . . a few."

"Any carried by men of Middle Eastern extraction?" Mike asked.

"I try not to look," the woman said, angrily. "That's profiling. I refuse to treat people differently just because of the color of their skin. If you were from my people you would understand that."

"This wants to wipe every Jew off the face of the earth," Mike said, kicking the terrorist in the side. "Jews are, after all, descendants of apes and pigs. So I don't find you noble or honest or good or anything. I find you to be a f@$%ing idiot. The sort of f@$%ing idiot that thought that Hitler couldn't possibly be 'serious.' But, congratulations, you've probably killed quite a few people today, no matter what I f@$%ing do. Because we can't weed them all out, now. Congratu-f@$%ing-lations. I hope you enjoy your moral superiority."

That is what we are talking about... you are trying to hold your moral superiority over and above the safety and security of the American people. That's a dangerous stance. Your moral superiority won't do you or anyone else a damn bit of good in the grave.

I have a wife and kids to think about. I work in New York, a prime target for terrorism. I am an Orthodox Jew as is my family, which makes us a prime target for terrorism. I don't have the luxury of your moral superiority. I'm much more concerned with keeping my family alive during a global war in which we are targets of an enemy that profiles its targets by race and religion. So you'll pardon me if I think your morally superior stance of ethnic diversity and kumbaya-love-everyone-all-the-time anti-profiling is a load of crap.

Remember, if you aren't a Muslim, you're a target for Muslim terrorists. THAT IS PROFILING OF THE WORST KIND. Not what Bush is doing to POWs.

Elliot

Some terrorist acts are crimes... in fact, most are.
Can you give an example of a terrorist act that is NOT a crime?


But what makes them terrorism rather than criminal acts is context. In what context was the act committed? Was the civillian taken hostage during the commission of a ban robery (a crime) or was it done as a political statement and an act of aggression against a political power (terrorism).
Are you saying that a political motive rather than a personal one is what defines an act of terrorism?

Can you give an example of a terrorist act that is NOT a crime?

How about when OBL sends his video or audio tapes to al Jazeera. No specific crime there, but the videotapes are an implied threat to the USA... and thus constitutes terrorism.


Are you saying that a political motive rather than a personal one is what defines an act of terrorism?

No. I am saying that context determines whether it is terrorism or not. I'm sure that MacVeigh had all sorts of "personal" reasons for wanting to overthrow the US government. It's still terrorism.

How shall I put this?

When someone attacks an individual for the purpose of stealing that person's money, that is a crime. It is not terrorism, however.

On the other hand, if that same person attacks an individual for the purpose of making a personal or political statement against a government or a group of people (ei: I hate the USA or I hate Jews), that is terrorism. The attacks may be exactly the same. But the context in which the attacks are performed determines whether it is terrorism or not.

If that same attack is performed to send a personal or political message to the government or as an attempt to overthrow the government when that government is at war, that perpetrator is an unlawful combatant.

If the person he attacked is a civilian rather than a military of political official, that perpetrator is technically guilty of war crimes as well.

It is the context that determines the nature of the attack.

Elliot

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Can you give an example of a terrorist act that is NOT a crime?


How about when OBL sends his video or audio tapes to al Jazeera. No specific crime there, but the videotapes are an implied threat to the USA... and thus constitutes terrorism.
So in your view, is anyone who makes a speech or other communication that contains "an implied threat to the USA" a terrorist?

No. I am saying that context determines whether it is terrorism or not. I'm sure that MacVeigh had all sorts of "personal" reasons for wanting to overthrow the US government. It's still terrorism.

How shall I put this?

When someone attacks an individual for the purpose of stealing that person's money, that is a crime. It is not terrorism, however.

On the other hand, if that same person attacks an individual for the purpose of making a personal or political statement against a government or a group of people (ei: I hate the USA or I hate Jews), that is terrorism. The attacks may be exactly the same. But the context in which the attacks are performed determines whether it is terrorism or not.

If that same attack is performed to send a personal or political message to the government or as an attempt to overthrow the government when that government is at war, that perpetrator is an unlawful combatant.

If the person he attacked is a civillian rather than a military of political official, that perpetrator is technically guilty of war crimes as well.

It is the context that determines the nature of the attack.

Elliot
How does what you call "context" differ from "motive"? You use the phrases "for the purpose of" and "to send a...message to", which explicitly refer to the perpetrator's reason for carrying out an attack, i.e. his motive. "Context", as I understand it, would refer to external events and circumstances that surround the attack.

Ordinaryguy,


How does what you call "context" differ from "motive"? You use the phrases "for the purpose of" and "to send a...message to", which explicitly refer to the perpetrator's reason for carrying out an attack, i.e., his motive. "Context", as I understand it, would refer to external events and circumstances that surround the attack.

Part of context is indeed motive. WHY did the person commit this act? Were they doing it for money, or were they acting against a government, agency or group?

Part of context is who was the target. Was the target random or was the target chosen based on a political agenda?

Part of context is also what is going on in the rest of the world at the time. Are we in a state of war against the people that the perpetrator supports? Or was this an isolated incident not related to an organized enemy's attempts to attack us with military force.

Part of context is the nature of the event itself. Was it an attack against a government or agency or group that intentially targeted civillians as a tool to "send a message"? Or was this a random act of violence? Was it planned or was it an attack of opportunity?

Part of context is association. Is this perpetrator known to be part of a group that associates with or supports terrorism, or is he just a street thug or gang-banger?

And there are other factors that define "context" too. To put things into context means to open your eyes, look at all the facts at the MACRO level, and put them together to come to a conclusion as to whether it was terrorism or just a crime. You can't just look at the act by itself and make the determination of "terrorism" or "crime". You need to look at the entire picture to make that determination.

But looking at that big picture, it becomes fairly easy in most cases whether an act is a crime or terrorism.

Now, let me turn the question back on you. How do you determine what is a terrorist act, vs. what is simple crime? Or do you even make that distinction? Because if you don't, I think there's a huge problem with the way you view terrorism... and thus the steps you are willing to take to prevent terrorism.

Elliot

Any act of terrorism is an act of war. 9/11 was an act of war committed by civillians. It was also terrorism. And it was criminal acts. And since it was done in the context of committing an act of war against the United States of America, it falls under the category of TERRORISM not criminal activity.


He was a criminal. He was also a terrorist. And had he blown up the Oklahoma City government office building during a time of war, then he should have been handled as a POW and a terorist, not in the ciminal courts. However, since we were NOT in a declared war at the time, treating him as a criminal was the only option. That is NOT true today. We ARE at war.
If any act of terrorism is an act of war, and if MacVeigh committed a terrorist act, then why wasn't it an act of war? We are not in a declared war now, any more than we were then. The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war and it has not done so. Was MacVeigh's trial, conviction and sentence somehow defective or deficient because he was tried as a criminal and not as an unlawful combatant?


Should unlawful enemy combatants have all the rights afforded to POW's under the Geneva Conventions?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!! In fact, the Geneva Conventions specifically state that unlawful enemy combatants are NOT protected by the CG.
I asked the question because in your original post you seem to use the term POW to mean terrorist. You do the same in your answer about MacVeigh above. The term "terrorist" has no specific definition within the Constitution, US law, or the Geneva conventions. As for the term "unlawful combatant" or "unlawful enemy combatant",

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).[1] However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status and there are other international treaties which deny lawful combat status for mercenaries and children. In the United States, the Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. However the assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists contradicts the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, that every person in enemy hands must either be a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, and that "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law" (The comment was written before the more recent treaty provisions on mercenaries and children had been drafted).[5]
unlawful combatant: Information from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/unlawful-combatant)

German agents landed on US soil at the time of our entry into WWII .
...

They were captured . They were treated as unlawful enemy combatants as defined by the GC because they were un-uniformed .
...

When enemy combatants are found behind enemy lines in civilian clothing, as they were, it is a serious violation of the laws of war ;as the GC clearly says . Why was military tribunal chosen? A civilian court proceeding might have resulted in acquittal - or a judge's decision to dismiss charges.

In ordering military tribunals President Bush has followed precedence from previous Commanders in Chief going as far back as George Washington. The fact that those indictments have not taken place is an indictment of Congressional and judicial stalling . The process of justice has been legally established by the President .
Well, not exactly. The case of the German saboteurs (ex parte Quirin) is different from what is going on now with the Guantanamo detainees and other "unlawful enemy combatants" in fundamental ways.

In Quirin the defendants had their status as “unlawful combatants” determined by a properly formed military commission expressly authorized by statute. The defendants had access to counsel throughout the proceedings and were ultimately able to seek judicial review of the findings of the commission. Quirin thus stands for the proposition that civilian courts should not, at the very least, categorically decline to review habeas cases where the government alleges that a person is an “unlawful” or “enemy” combatant.
“Unlawful Combatants” in the United States - Human Rights Magazine, Winter 2003 (http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter03/unlawful.html)


As applied specifically to the cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, US citizens, detained within the US, held for an indeterminate period in solitary confinement without legal process, disclosure of evidence, access to counsel, family visitation, or judicial review,


The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, “The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission... is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States. “ Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin,11 that right could hardly be denied to U. S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all
unlawful combatant: Information from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/unlawful-combatant#wp-_note-16)

Now, let me turn the question back on you. How do you determine what is a terrorist act, vs. what is simple crime? Or do you even make that distinction? Because if you don't, I think there's a huge problem with the way you view terrorism... and thus the steps you are willing to take to prevent terrorism.
What matters is not whether you or I make that distinction, but whether the distinction is valid and relevant as a matter of law, and whether an alternative legal regime that depends upon it it is effective in deterring and punishing those who use terrorisim as a tactic in achieving their aims. Neither US law, the laws of war, nor the Geneva Conventions define or recognize a class of persons called "terrorists". Terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tactic, one that has been used by adherents to a variety of ideologies and causes over hundreds of years. Radical Islamists are not the first to use it, and they will probably not be the last.

The heart of the question before the world, and the US in particular, at this point in history is whether the use of terrorist tactics by radical Islamists constitutes a threat that is sufficiently grave to justify sacrificing the rule of law, the rights of due process, and the safeguards to human rights that have been developed over the course of several hundred years. These rights and processes have been developed to protect the individual from the abuse of power by the state, with its police powers and military might. Time and again these powers have been used by those in power to crush dissent and eliminate any threat or opposition to their rule. The writers of the US Constitution were acutely aware of the danger posed by unchecked state power and deliberately set about to design a system of government that prevented all power from being concentrated in the hands of one or a few.

The Military Commissions Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President late last year defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as follows:

"an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant."
A "lawful enemy combatant" is defined in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions, namely, being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; carrying arms openly; and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The term "hostilities" is not defined in the Act.

This means that any person who engages in "hostilities" against the United States who is not a soldier in the service of a foreign government or militia, is an unlawful enemy combatant.

Notice what is NOT required:
You do not have to be an "alien", so US citizens may be so designated.
You do not have to be part of a terrorist organization.
Your "hostilities" do not have to be done to aid such an organization.
You do not have to have supported such organizations.
Your "hostilities" do not have to take place on a battlefield.
You do not have to be in violation of the "law of war".

Since the term "hostilities" has been left undefined, it is unknown what sorts of activities might qualify. For example, is a person who speaks or writes critically of the Government an unlawful enemy combatant? What about a journalist who publishes leaked information damaging to the Government? The definition is broad (and vague) enough to include anyone, anywhere in the world, US citizen or not, who is acting in a way the President deems "hostile" to the United States.

If you are declared to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" you may be detained indefinitely, in solitary confinement, without access to a lawyer, without contact with family, without contact by the International Committee of the Red cross or other human rights organizations. You may not petition the Courts for a writ of Habeas Corpus, which means that the Government does not have to say why it is holding you, or even to admit that it IS holding you. In other words, you can be effectively disappeared. If you die in custody for any reason, the Government does not have to disclose this fact or explain why you died. You may be subjected to cruel, inhumane, humiliating and degrading treatment. You may be subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" which may or may not include treatment that the Geneva Conventions define as torture, because the Government has refused to say what these are, or how it defines torture. All of this without ever even being CHARGED, much less convicted of a crime.

I do not think that the Islamist threat is so great that I am willing to vest this kind of unchecked and absolute power in the Government. Time and again, powers that governments acquire for one purpose are eventually used for other purposes. Enemies come and go, wars and conflicts come and go, but the power of government to trample on the rights, liberties and freedoms of individuals remains a continuing and constant threat. The rule of law and the recognition of universal human rights by governments has come at great cost over many generations, and I am not willing to sacrifice these hard-won gains on the altar of the "War on Terror".

Just yesterday, the Supreme Court reversed itself and agreed to hear a challenge to the Military Commissions Act. I am so thankful that the framers of the Constitution had the foresight to balance the powers of the three branches of government so that each restrains the others, because in this case, the Executive and Legislative branches failed miserably to protect individual rights. If the Judicial branch fails as well, we are in for a long hot century I'm afraid.

One thing about it if we change what we are because of them, they win. Another thing is they are criminals in my mind, so give 'em there day in court and lawfully lock 'em up, or better yet, execute them.

British police have a "crystal clear" picture of the man who drove the bomb-rigged silver Mercedes outside a London nightclub, and officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com he bears "a close resemblance" to a man arrested by police in connection with another bomb plot but released for lack of evidence.


The Blotter (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/terror-plot-inv.html)

The cameras work(I can hear the screams from the ACLU already ) but the system that treats these as law enforcement events is what is broken. Thankfully this attack did not result in mass casualties . It was more a matter of luck that saved the Brits. From themsleves.

One thing about it if we change what we are because of them, they win.

Does that include changing what we are to become more forgiving of them than we ever have been of any other enemy in our history? Because that is what is happening.

Nobody talked about the rights of POWs during WWII, WWI, The Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, or any other war we have been involved in. Trying to become more liberal than we have ever been to POWs is just as wrong as what you are suggesting. And probably more dangerous to our nation's survival in this global war of lifestyles.


Another thing is they are criminals in my mind, so give 'em there day in court and lawfully lock 'em up, or better yet, execute them.

The fact that they are "criminals in your mind" doesn't make that true. The laws of war state that POWs are NOT criminals and cannot and should not be treated as criminals. The fact that "in your mind" they are criminals doesn't make it so. They are enemy soldiers operating in a manner that is illegal under the laws of war. They are operatives of an enemy force bent on our destruction. And if they have information that can be used to defeat the enemy, then it is the RESPONSIBILITY (not the right... the responsibility) of our government to obtain that information. That cannot be done if the POWs are treated as criminals and put through the justice system. And by law, we are not allowed to treat them as criminals, beause it is prohibitted to do so by the rules of war, lest all soldiers and POWs captured by the enemy be given sham trials and put to death or torture as "criminals" for doing their jobs.

Think about the effect of charging POWs as criminals in contravention of the rules of war before you go around advocating it. Remember that the enemy's "justice system" isn't as forgiving as ours. If we treat POWs as criminals, so will the enemy and any future enemies we might face... and our soldiers will suffer for it.

Elliot

So in your view, is anyone who makes a speech or other communication that contains "an implied threat to the USA" a terrorist?

Again... it depends on the context. In the case of OBL, where he was the planner and executioner of several attacks on the USA (9/11, the USS Cole attack, the bombings of the Marine barracks, several attacks on US embassies around the world, the first WTC bombing, etc.) then yes, his threat messages should be viewed as terrorist acts.

If some Joe Schmoe in Canada with no criminal record and no association with terrorists sends an e-mail message to his friend that says that he wishes the "USA would go to hell" because the US government's decisions are affecting the price of oranges in Ontario, it is probably not a credible threat, and can be ignored as a terrorist act.

If the threat is made by someone who is known to associate with terrorists, is known to be involved in terrorists activity, is known to support terrorism, and agrees to the philosophy of the terrorists, a message stating that "no American will be safe from the wrath of Allah/Buddah/Jehovah/insert diety or philosophical cause here" should be seen as a terrorist act.

Again, context, context, context. In the proper context, it is easy to see what constitutes terrorism and what does not.

Elliot

If you are declared to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" you may be detained indefinitely, in solitary confinement, without access to a lawyer, without contact with family, without contact by the International Committee of the Red cross or other human rights organizations. You may not petition the Courts for a writ of Habeas Corpus, which means that the Government does not have to say why it is holding you, or even to admit that it IS holding you. In other words, you can be effectively disappeared. If you die in custody for any reason, the Government does not have to disclose this fact or explain why you died. You may be subjected to cruel, inhumane, humiliating and degrading treatment. You may be subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" which may or may not include treatment that the Geneva Conventions define as torture, because the Government has refused to say what these are, or how it defines torture. All of this without ever even being CHARGED, much less convicted of a crime.

You seem to have difficulty with this. Sorry, but I don't. This is how enemy combatants have been treated through most of history. People conscripted to fight against their government's enemies were subject to all manner of torture and terrible treatment. In today's world where the US military is an all volunteer force and the terrorists are an all volunteer force, where both sides know exactly what they are getting into and choose to do so anyway, and where there is no evidence that our government has actually tortured anyone, I don't think we are in a position to change 5,000 years of recorded history just to assuage your overly-civilized sensibilities. As I said to Taliniman "you are trying to hold your moral superiority over and above the safety and security of the American people. That's a dangerous stance. Your moral superiority won't do you or anyone else a damn bit of good in the grave."

If that is what it takes to destroy an enemy that has targeted us for destruction and exhibitted the ability to destroy THOUSANDS of us in a single blow, then I'm all for it. The question that I have is why are you not?

Also, keep in mind that if we treat POWs as "criminals", our enemies will do the same. They will create sham trials to justify jailing, torturing and execution of enemy "criminals"... meaning our soldiers. Keep in mind that if you believe that POWs should be put through the criminal justice system, the enemy will do the same... and their criminal justice systems aren't as forgiving as ours. That is the reason that rules against treating POWs as criminals were put in place in the first place. You eliminate those rules at the peril of our soldiers.

We cannot and must not treat POWs as "criminals"... because the criminal justice system isn't set up for handling POWs, and because doing so is detrimental to any of our own troops who are captured by the enemy.

Elliot

ETWolverine, Does that include changing what we are to become more forgiving of them than we ever have been of any other enemy in our history? Because that is what is happening.
Forgiving them is your words not mine, and prosecution and punishment is hardly forgiveness, so this forgiveness argument doesn't apply at all here.

Nobody talked about the rights of POWs during WWII, WWI, The Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, or any other war we have been involved in.
Maybe its time to talk about what we do to our enemy, as if your saying what was good enough then is good enough now.


Trying to become more liberal than we have ever been to POWs is just as wrong as what you are suggesting.

Liberal?? What happened to due process??? Spoken like a true right wing soldier, we are a nation of laws and we prosecute criminals, since there is no war, just crazies trying and succeeding in killing the innocent, and should be treated just like McVeigh was treated.


And probably more dangerous to our nation's survival in this global war of lifestyles.

Wow! you have a great sense of humor with this line, as its either funny or plain ridiculous. If it was a war on life styles, we can get Paris Hilton signed up ASAP! LOL!





The fact that they are "criminals in your mind" doesn't make that true. The laws of war state that POWs are NOT criminals and cannot and should not be treated as criminals. The fact that "in your mind" they are criminals doesn't make it so. They are enemy soldiers operating in a manner that is illegal under the laws of war. They are operatives of an enemy force bent on our destruction. And if they have information that can be used to defeat the enemy, then it is the RESPONSIBILITY (not the right... the responsibility) of our government to obtain that information. That cannot be done if the POWs are treated as criminals and put through the justice system. And by law, we are not allowed to treat them as criminals, beause it is prohibitted to do so by the rules of war, lest all soldiers and POWs captured by the enemy be given sham trials and put to death or torture as "criminals" for doing their jobs.

This argument is moot, given the actions of YOUR president. And since you have no control of what the enemy does, it makes the argument even more bogus, and emotionally contrived, as it accomplishes NOTHING.


Think about the effect of charging POWs as criminals in contravention of the rules of war before you go around advocating it. Remember that the enemy's "justice system" isn't as forgiving as ours. If we treat POWs as criminals, so will the enemy and any future enemies we might face... and our soldiers will suffer for it.

I hate to break this to you but they already suffer as when our boys are captured they rarely come back. Your argument comparing our justice to theirs, is irrelevant. We don't behead people in this country.:eek:

Elliot--

You have a lot to say about the difference between POWs and criminals, but nothing at all to say about the difference between POWs and "unlawful enemy combatants". Is that because you don't know that there is a difference, or because you think the difference doesn't matter?

Ordinaryguy,

It is because unlawful combatants aren't under the protections of the GC. Therefore, they lie outside of what you can legally do to a regular POW. And if POWs cannot be legally put through the criminal justice system, then how much more so is that true of unlawful enemy combatants. Unlawful enemy combatants are entitled to fewer protections than regular POWs, not more. And yet we have made it our policy to give them the same protections as regular POWs anyway. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me to now argue that they should have even MORE protections than the GC provides for.

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
If you are declared to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" you may be detained indefinitely, in solitary confinement, without access to a lawyer, without contact with family, without contact by the International Committee of the Red cross or other human rights organizations. You may not petition the Courts for a writ of Habeas Corpus, which means that the Government does not have to say why it is holding you, or even to admit that it IS holding you. In other words, you can be effectively disappeared. If you die in custody for any reason, the Government does not have to disclose this fact or explain why you died. You may be subjected to cruel, inhumane, humiliating and degrading treatment. You may be subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" which may or may not include treatment that the Geneva Conventions define as torture, because the Government has refused to say what these are, or how it defines torture. All of this without ever even being CHARGED, much less convicted of a crime.

You seem to have difficulty with this. Sorry, but I don't.
Do you not have difficulty with captured US soldiers being treated this way? Do you not have difficulty with children being treated this way? Do you not have difficulty with innocent people being treated this way? If you do have difficulty with any of these things, you should have difficulty with giving the government unchecked and absolute power to treat anyone that it deems "hostile" this way.

This is how enemy combatants have been treated through most of history. People conscripted to fight against their government's enemies were subject to all manner of torture and terrible treatment. In today's world where the US military is an all volunteer force and the terrorists are an all volunteer force, where both sides know exactly what they are getting into and choose to do so anyway, and where there is no evidence that our government has actually tortured anyone, I don't think we are in a position to change 5,000 years of recorded history just to assuage your overly-civilized sensibilities.
Just how far are you willing to go down this path? Should US troops, police and secret agents be allowed and encouraged to use torture and summary executions by beheading? Are you willing accept any and all techniques of terrorism, torture or degradation that an enemy might use as legitimate for use by our forces?

If that is what it takes to destroy an enemy that has targeted us for destruction and exhibitted the ability to destroy THOUSANDS of us in a single blow, then I'm all for it. The question that I have is why are you not?
Well, one reason I'm not for it is that it doesn't work. The use of these methods by the US has only made it easier for the radical Islamists to recruit new converts and convince them to sacrifice themselves in the killing of both military personnel and civilians. Another reason is that I think it's destructive of the progress that the rule of law and the norms of civilized behavior have made over the last thousand years or so. Another reason is that giving the government unchecked power to deprive individuals of life, liberty and property without due process of law is a recipe for tyranny.

Liberal? What happened to due process??

DUE PROCESS is the process of following the law, rather than one's personal feelings. What we are doing with the POWs IS the due process for POWs. What you wan't is to change that due process to something else, something that has never existed before. Sorry, that doesn't qualify as following due process.


Spoken like a true right wing soldier, we are a nation of laws and we prosecute criminals, since there is no war, just crazies trying and succeeding in killing the innocent, and should be treated just like McVeigh was treated.

Yes, we prosecute CRIMINALS, not POWs.

Furthermore, I suggest that you read the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq. We are at war, whether you want to admitt it or not. You may not like it. You may not want to recognize it. But Congress did recognize it, and we are indeed at war in the legal and moral sense. Wars have POWs, and they are not criminals.


Wow! You have a great sense of humor with this line, as its either funny or plain ridiculous. If it was a war on life styles, we can get Paris Hilton signed up ASAP! LOL

Glad you think its funny. The 3000 dead people at the WTC and their families probably fail to see the humor in it. I would be willing to guess that the 56 dead people from the July 2005 underground bombings in London fail to see the humor as well. Or the 202 dead from the Bali bombing in 2002, the 120 dead Moskovites from the Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis in 2002, the 191 dead from the commuter train bombings in Spain in 2004, the 344 dead children in the Breslan school hostage crisis in 2004, the 60 dead from the November 2005 bombings of hotels in Amman, Jordan, the 209 dead from the bombing of commuter trains in Mumbai, India in 2006. I get the feeling they don't find this topic to be quite as funny as you do.

We are up against a fanatical enemy thaqt wants to destroy anything that isn't Muslim. They don't care whether it is communist or capitalist, democratic or dictatorship. They just want to destroy or forcibly convert everything and everyone to Islam. This is a fight of our way of life vs. theirs. And if you can't see that, then you deserve what comes of it.


This argument is moot, given the actions of YOUR president.

Like it or not, he's OUR president. He is the duly elected, constitutionally empowered commander-in-chief and executive of the USA. As long as you are a citizen of this country, he's YOUR president as well, whether you voted for him or not. Just as Clinton and Carter were my presidents even theough I didn't vote for them.


And since you have no control of what the enemy does, it makes the argument even more bogus, and emotionally contrived, as it accomplishes NOTHING.

Emotionally contrived? I think not. Every argument I have made is mased on law, logic and analystical thinking. That's what I do... I'm an analyst by profession. I take information and analyze it. I don't make haphazard, emotional decisions. You, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about.


I hate to break this to you but they already suffer as when our boys are captured they rarely come back. [quote]

Yes, that's the point. The enemy treats our POWs like animals to be slaughtered. We treat theirs like POWs, with basic human respect. Giving them additional rights that they neither deserve nor expect is just plain stupid. So why are you arguing for the POWs to be given more rights?

[quote]Your argument comparing our justice to theirs, is irrelevant. We don't behead people in this country.:eek:

Actually, I'm not trying to compare our justice system with theirs. I'm arguing that POWs do not belong in the justice system at all. They aren't criminals. They are POWs.

Elliot

Do you not have difficulty with captured US soldiers being treated this way? Do you not have difficulty with children being treated this way? Do you not have difficulty with innocent people being treated this way? If you do have difficulty with any of these things, you should have difficulty with giving the government unchecked and absolute power to treat anyone that it deems "hostile" this way.

You are asking me if I have difficulty with POWs being treated as POWs? NO!! That's the way they are supposed to be treated. Non-combatants are a different story. Children, innocent bystanders, etc. should be treated as the GC requires governments to treat non-combatants. But POWs should be treated as POWs, not as something more than that, with greater freedoms and rights than POWs are allowed.




Just how far are you willing to go down this path? Should US troops, police and secret agents be allowed and encouraged to use torture and summary executions by beheading?

Are any of those allowed by the GC? Not that I have seen.


Are you willing accept any and all techniques of terrorism, torture or degradation that an enemy might use as legitimate for use by our forces?[quote]

There's no such things as "techniques of terrorism'. There are techniques of guerrila warfare. When those techniques are used against civillians, it is terrorism. When it is used against other soldiers, it is called war. But there is no such thing as a technique of terrorism.

And just so you know, US soldiers are indeed trained in guerilla warfare. Especially our special forces. They are taught these techniques both so that they can learn to counter them, and so that they can use them against the enemy.

But leaving that point aside, you are arguing the slippery slope argument. To which I respond with the words of Admiral Sir John A. Fisher. "The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imecility." There is no such thing as fighting war halfway. You use everything at your disposal. You can argue about slippery slopes when the war is over. Till then the job of the soldier is to kill the enemy using whatever means necessary, the job of the government is to beat the enemy using whatever means necessary. And from practicality, if that means using torture to get information on the imminent terrorist attack, then I say go for it. I'll worry about the philosophical arguments about tainiting my soul at some later point when the war is over. Still, I have yet to hear of a single case of actual torture in this war.

[quote]Well, one reason I'm not for it is that it doesn't work. The use of these methods by the US has only made it easier for the radical Islamists to recruit new converts and convince them to sacrifice themselves in the killing of both military personnel and civilians.

Really? Have you read the late Zarqawi's letter about how difficult it was to recruit new terrorists to his cause? Have you read the various intelligence intercepts that have been made public about failing recruitment efforst by the terrorists? Have you read about how the number of leads coming from Sunni sources about terrorists in their areas are increasing? Have you read the commentaries about how the terrorists are losing the support of the Sunni "street"? Have you read about the fact that civilian deaths from terrorism in Iraq is down 36% for June?

Where do you get the idea that anything the USA has done has increased recruitment for the terrorists? Your information is just wrong... or else you are just reciting the anti-Bush talking points without proof to back it up.


Another reason is that I think it's destructive of the progress that the rule of law and the norms of civilized behavior have made over the last thousand years or so. Another reason is that giving the government unchecked power to deprive individuals of life, liberty and property without due process of law is a recipe for tyranny.

War isn't governed by the rule of law. Nor should it be. Especially when your enemy doesn't care about the progress civilization has made over the past thousand years. They want to destroy that civilization, remember?

If you want to show how civilized you are, the best thing you can do is destroy the enemy utterly by overwhelming him as fast as you can. Fighting with an eye on being "civilized" only draws out the war, making it last longer, which increases innocent civilian casualties. Wars that are fought with overwhelming force and with utter ruthlessness end quickly, minimizing casualties on both sides in the long run. Your very ideas for fighting a "civilized" war are counterproductive to your stated goal of saving innocent lives. And if the war will end more quickly by gaining the information to destroy the enemy via waterboarding, then go for it. Because in the cold, hard analysis of war, winning is all that counts. Civilized behavior is for peacetime.

Elliot

I suggest that you read the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq.
You don't mean the BS and phony excuses to invade a country, instead of go after the real terrorists in Afganistain/Pakistain??

War isn't governed by the rule of law. Nor should it be. Especially when your enemy doesn't care about the progress civilization has made over the past thousand years. They want to destroy that civilization, remember?

If you want to show how civilized you are, the best thing you can do is destroy the enemy utterly by overwhelming him as fast as you can. Fighting with an eye on being "civilized" only draws out the war, making it last longer, which increases innocent civilian casualties. Wars that are fought with overwhelming force and with utter ruthlessness end quickly, minimizing casualties on both sides in the long run. Your very ideas for fighting a "civilized" war are counterproductive to your stated goal of saving innocent lives. And if the war will end more quickly by gaining the information to destroy the enemy via waterboarding, then go for it. Because in the cold, hard analysis of war, winning is all that counts. Civilized behavior is for peacetime.

So nuke the suckers and get it over with.

You are asking me if I have difficulty with POWs being treated as POWs? NO!!! That's the way they are supposed to be treated.
No, that's not even close to what I'm asking. Article III of the Geneva Conventions clearly PROHIBITS treating POWs as I described, and POWs are not being treated that way as far as I know. The issue is not how POWs are being treated, or whether they're being given too few or too many rights. It has NOTHING TO DO with properly designated Prisoners of War.

The problem is that the Government has invented a whole new class of persons that is not recognized in the Geneva Conventions AT ALL, a class called "unlawful enemy combatants" that are emphatically NOT Prisoners of War, a class that the Government asserts have NO rights whatsoever--not the rights of POWs, not the rights of civilian criminals, not the rights of non-combatant civilians, no "human rights", no rights of due process, none of the rights enumerated in the Magna Carta, English Common Law, the US Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. And the ONLY qualification for being included in this class is that the President deems you to be "hostile" to the US.


War isn't governed by the rule of law. Nor should it be. Especially when your enemy doesn't care about the progress civilization has made over the past thousand years. They want to destroy that civilization, remember?
And if we become like them in order to defeat them, they will have succeeded.

Civilized behavior is for peacetime.
If enough people come to believe this, we will have neither peace nor civilization.

Unlawful enemy combatants are entitled to fewer protections than regular POWs, not more. And yet we have made it our policy to give them the same protections as regular POWs anyway.
This is simply not true. The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) enumerates the rights that must be afforded to prisoners of war. Unlawful enemy combatants are being deprived of many of these rights, including but not limited to:

Article 12. Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention.

Article 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. No prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind.
Prisoners of war must be protected against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 70. Prisoners of war may communicate directly with their families and may inform them of their capture and their state of health.

Article 84. In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality.

Article 99. No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.

Article 102. A prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power.

Article 103. Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible.

Article 106. Every prisoner of war shall have, in the same manner as the members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power, the right of appeal or petition from any sentence pronounced upon him.

The Geneva Conventions have specific definition of what an unlawful or illegal combatant should be. And an unlawful combatant does not get the protections of the Geneva convention since, the whole purpose of the Geneva convention is to limit civilian casualties by forcing combatants to declare and distinguish themselves as such.

So, anyone who's determined to be an unlawful combatant should be shot.End of problem.
I still maintain that the best solution would be to play “De Guello” before any action .That way we would not need a corp of lawyers following the troops to read Miranda rights to captured enemy.

Ordinaryguy,

Article 4 of the GC defines prisoners of war.


Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Since the terrorists do not wear a "sign distinctly recognizable at a distance" (uniform), do not carry arms openly, and do not follow the recognized laws and customs of war (deliberate targeting of civillians), they are NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTIONS OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS. Thus, my statement that "Unlawful enemy combatants are entitled to fewer protections than regular POWs, not more. And yet we have made it our policy to give them the same protections as regular POWs anyway" is true.


Article 12. Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention.

As far as I can tell, all the countries that POWs have been transferred to have publicly stated their willingness and ability to apply the rules of the Convention. Do you have any proof that this is not the case?


Article 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. No prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind. Prisoners of war must be protected against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Can you name any prisoners in Gitmo? The only ones I can name are the ones who made themselves famous by taking their "cases" to the Supreme Court. The POWs are not being publicly intimidated or insulted. Nor is there any proof of any form of torture despite numerous allegations.


Article 70. Prisoners of war may communicate directly with their families and may inform them of their capture and their state of health.

Communication with families is permitted under the GC, but communication with other terrorists or enemies of the USA is not. Do you know of any cases where families have tried to communicate with POWs and been denied such contact? Can you name any such case?


Article 84. In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality.

Article 99. No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.

Article 102. A prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power.

Article 103. Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible.

Article 106. Every prisoner of war shall have, in the same manner as the members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power, the right of appeal or petition from any sentence pronounced upon him.

These would seem to apply in cases where the POWs are being accused of crimes and being tried for criminal activity. That is not the case with the majority of the POWs. In cases where POWs have appeared before the courts, they have been ganted appropriate representation. But if they aren't being charged with any sort of crime and aren't appearing in court, there is no need for attorney representation or guarantees of court impartiality, is there?

So I maintain that my statement that the USA treats the POWs properly under the GC even though the GC doesn't apply to them is 100% true and correct.

Elliot

Talaniman,


You don't mean the BS and phony excuses to invade a country, instead of go after the real terrorists in Afganistain/Pakistain??

Again, you are spouting stuff that you have heard from others but don't really understand yourself. The Authorization for Use of Military Force isn't the excuse to go to war in Iraq. It is the authorization to do so. The so-called "excuses" can be found in the various speeches of George Bush and this document (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraqdecade.pdf). You need to get your terminology straight. And your facts.


So nuke the suckers and get it over with.

Exactly my point. In the final analysis, that would end the war more quickly than the way we are going now, which would result in fewer casualties in the long run. We SHOULD nuke the suckers.

Or barring that, we should beat the living crap out of them with everything we have in our conventional arsenal rather than playing tag with them. Boot them in the head, don't piss on them. That will bring a quick end to the war and save more lives in the long run.

Elliot

the Geneva Conventions have specific definition of what an unlawful or illegal combatant should be.
The terms "unlawful combatant", "illegal combatant", "unlawful/illegal enemy combatant", or "non-privileged combatant" do not even appear in the Conventions, much less being specifically defined.


So, anyone who's determined to be an unlawful combatant should be shot.End of problem.
Summary execution of anyone suspected or accused (not charged or convicted) of "hostilities" against the US would most certainly NOT be the "end of problem". Think it through.

Since the terrorists do not wear a "sign distinctly recognizable at a distance" (uniform), do not carry arms openly, and do not follow the recognized laws and customs of war (deliberate targeting of civillians), they are NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTIONS OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.
I agree that not all detainees qualify for POW status. I do not agree that they may therefore be detained indefinitely without charge, denied right to counsel, denied visits by the ICRC or other humanitarian organizations, and subjected humiliating and degrading treatment. Which detainees have been denied which rights or subjected to what treatment is unknown, but what is known is that the Government has asserted that it is under no obligation, by treaty, law, custom or Convention to extend any such rights to any of them. What is even more indefensible is that the Government claims sole, absolute, and unreviewable authority to determine who shall be designated as an "unlawful combatant" and may therefore be deprived of any and all rights that the Government chooses to withhold.


Thus, my statement that "Unlawful enemy combatants are entitled to fewer protections than regular POWs, not more. And yet we have made it our policy to give them the same protections as regular POWs anyway" is true.
If you can find an official policy statement to the effect that unlawful combatants are to be afforded the same protections as POWs, please provide a citation.


The United States has labeled all persons in its custody captured in Afghanistan as "unlawful combatants," "battlefield detainees," or "illegal combatants," and has indicated that while they may be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, there is no obligation that the United States so treat them. For instance, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated on January 11, 2001 that those held were "unlawful combatants" and that "unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention. We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Conventions, to the extent they are appropriate."

The U.S. position is inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions on several counts. First, the U.S. may not classify as a group all detainees from the Afghan conflict as not being entitled to POW status; such a determination must be made on an individual basis by a competent tribunal. Second, there is a presumption that a captured combatant is a POW unless determined otherwise. Third, it is incorrect to assert that only POWs are protected by the Geneva Conventions-all persons apprehended in the context of an international armed conflict, including the types of prisoners the U.S. has labeled as "unlawful combatants," receive some level of protection under the Geneva Conventions. Background Paper on Geneva Conventions and Persons Held by U.S. Forces - Human Rights Watch Press Backgrounder, January 29, 2002 (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm)

If you can find an official policy statement to the effect that unlawful combatants are to be afforded the same protections as POWs, please provide a citation.

Here you go.


For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 7, 2002

Fact Sheet
Status of Detainees at Guantanamo (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-13.html)
United States Policy.


The United States is treating and will continue to treat all of the individuals detained at Guantanamo humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees.

Al-Qaida is not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW status.

Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the Convention. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, however, the Taliban detainees do not qualify as POWs.

Therefore, neither the Taliban nor al-Qaida detainees are entitled to POW status.

Even though the detainees are not entitled to POW privileges, they will be provided many POW privileges as a matter of policy.
All detainees at Guantanamo are being provided:

-three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws
-water
-medical care
-clothing and shoes
-shelter
-showers
-soap and toilet articles
-foam sleeping pads and blankets
-towels and washcloths
-the opportunity to worship
-correspondence materials, and the means to send mail
-the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, subject to security screening

The detainees will not be subjected to physical or mental abuse or cruel treatment. The International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to be able to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.

Housing. We are building facilities in Guantanamo more appropriate for housing the detainees on a long-term basis. The detainees now at Guantanamo are being housed in temporary open-air shelters until these more long-term facilities can be arranged. Their current shelters are reasonable in light of the serious security risk posed by these detainees and the mild climate of Cuba.

POW Privileges the Detainees will not receive. The detainees will receive much of the treatment normally afforded to POWs by the Third Geneva Convention. However, the detainees will not receive some of the specific privileges afforded to POWs, including:

-access to a canteen to purchase food, soap, and tobacco
-a monthly advance of pay
-the ability to have and consult personal financial accounts
-the ability to receive scientific equipment, musical instruments, or sports outfits

Many detainees at Guantanamo pose a severe security risk to those responsible for guarding them and to each other. Some of these individuals demonstrated how dangerous they are in uprisings at Mazar-e-Sharif and in Pakistan. The United States must take into account the need for security in establishing the conditions for detention at Guantanamo.

Background on Geneva Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 is an international treaty designed to protect prisoners of war from inhumane treatment at the hands of their captors in conflicts covered by the Convention. It is among four treaties concluded in the wake of WWII to reduce the human suffering caused by war. These four treaties provide protections for four different classes of people: the military wounded and sick in land conflicts; the military wounded, sick and shipwrecked in conflicts at sea; military persons and civilians accompanying the armed forces in the field who are captured and qualify as prisoners of war; and civilian non-combatants who are interned or otherwise found in the hands of a party (e.g. in a military occupation) during an armed conflict.

Please note that this policy has been in place since 2002, long before questions of the status of terrorist POWs ever hit the media. You might argue that there have been violations of this policy (I happen to disagree), but you cannot argue as to what the official policy actually is.

Elliot

You might argue that there have been violations of this policy (I happen to disagree),
Report on the Treatment by Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and other Protected Persons in Iraq (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/iraq/ICRC_Report.pdf)
Excerpt from the Executive Summary:

The main violations which are described in the ICRC report and presented confidentially to the CF [Coalition Forces], include

Brutality against protected persons upon capture and initial custody, sometimes causing death or serious injury,
Absence of notification of arrest of persons deprived of their liberty to their families....
Physical or psychological coercion during interrogation to secure information,
Prolonged solitary confinement in cells devoid of daylight,
Excessive and disproportionate use of force against persons deprived of their liberty resulting in death or injury during their internment


but you cannot argue as to what the official policy actually is.
It doesn't say that all detainees will be given "the same protections as regular POWs". It says that they will be given whatever "privileges" that the Government decides to give them, and no more. In particular, the Government continues to detain them indefinitely without charge.

Ordinaryguy,

First of all, we were talking about government policy. The policy is exactly as I have stated. Whether that policy is violated or not, the policy is to grant the POWs the protections of the GC. The GC does not call for POWs to be released until THE END OF HOSTILITIES. Thus, the idea that they are being held "indefinitely without charge" is within the guidelines of the GC.

Second, I don't take anything that ICRC says seriously anymore. This is the same organization that has been bashing the USA and Israel for years with no real cause, while at the same time completely ignoring REAL human rights violations in Africa, the Middle East, South America and Asia for years. And in fact, by their wonderful ability to look the other way at violations of their own charter, the ICRC has directly contributed to human rights violations and terrorism. Please keep in mind the fact that the ICRC ignored violations by the Palestinian Red Crescent in which the RC used ambulances to transport weapons for use against Israel... a direct violation of the ICRC charter that was ignored by the ICRC. Please also note that despite these violations, the Red Crescent was admitted to the ICRC while Magen David Edom, the Israeli version of the Red Cross, was rejected for decades. The ICRC is an unbiased body, and they have clearly proven that time and time again.

But, even assuming that their report is correct, let's read the report itself and break it down:


Treatement During Arrest

Protected persons interviewed by ICRC delegates have described a fairly consistent pattern with respect to times and places of brutality by members of the CF arresting them.

Gee, what a shock. Prisoners are claiming that they have been brutalized and abused... like that is never claimed by prisoners and criminals no matter where they are. I used to be an Auxiliary Police Officer. I have yet to meet a prisoner who didn't claim brutality by the cops. Plus, please also keep in mind that the terrorists are INSTRUCTED on how to claim brutality and abuse, regardless of the reality.


Arrests as described in these allegations tended to follow a patterns. Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property. They arrested suspects, tying their hands in the back with flexi-cuffs, hooding them, and taking them away. Sometimes they arrested all adult males in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people. Treatment included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles. Individuals were often led away in whatever they happened to be wearing at the time of arrest - sometimes in pyjamas or underwear - and were denied the opportunity to gather a few essential belongings such as clothing, hygene items, medicine or eyeglasses. Those who surrendered with a suitcase often had their belongings confiscated. In many cases personal belongings were seized during the arrest with no receipt being issued.

Uh... in the real world we call that a raid. There's nothing illegal or particularly brutal about any of it. In fact, it is exactly how cops around the world are trained to capture criminals in their strongholds. And I love the part about suitcases being confiscated... the ICRC is aware of the fact that terrorists have been using suitcases to hide bombs for the bette part of a century, aren't they? Why in the hell would any soldier in their right mind allow a terror suspect to carry a suitcase... or allow them "the opportunity to gather essential items"... like a bomb or a weapon. I think the ICRC is grasping at straws in order to prove brutality where none exists.

Now lets talk about the "lack of notification of families"... which is the next subject discussed in the report. We should keep in mind that terrorist groups are often clan-based and family-based associations. Thus, informing the family that a particular terorist has been captured is the same as informing the terrorist cell that their group has been compromised. The GC specifically states that informing the families of POWs must take place when such is militarily feasible. Warning the terrorists that one of their number has been captured and is being interrogated for information about them is NOT militarily feasible.

Moving along...


Treatment during transfer and initial custody

The ICRC collected several allegations indicating that following arrest persons deprived of their liberty were ill-treated, sometimes during transfer from their place of arrest to their initial internment facility. This ill treatment would normally stop by the time the persons reached a regular internment facility, such as Camp Cropper, Camp Bucca or Abu Ghraib.

Gee... that's convenient... no witnesses to corroborate the accusations of brutality. Of course that also means no witnesses to any brutality if it actually to place as well. So to that accusation I say, "prove it."

And the one case of death that is discussed in the report stated clearly that the commander of unit in question was conducting an investigation into that death and promissed the punishment of the responsible parties. Seems to me that a system to prevent and investigate such brutality is in place.

Let's move on to interrogations, shall we?


The ill treatment by the CF personnel during interrogation was not systematic, except with regard to persons arrested in connection with suspected security offenses or deemed to have an intelligence value.

Not systematic... hmmm. That must have been a hard admission for the ICRC. I'm sure they would have rather reported wholesale brutality of all prisoners. But you can't have everything, can you.


In these cases, persons deprived of their liberty, supervised by the military, were subjected to a variety of ill treatments ranging from insults and humiliation...

Boo hoo...


... to both physical and psychological coercion that in some cases MIGHT amount to torture, in order to force them to cooperate with their interrogators. In certain cases, such as in Abu Ghraib military intelligence section, methods of physical and psychological coercion used by the interrogators appeared to be part of the standard operating procedures by military intelligence personnel to obtain confessions and extract information. Several military intelligence officers confirmed to the ICRC that it was part of the military intelligence process to hold a person deprived of his liberty naked in a completely dark and empty cell for a prolonged period to use inhumane and degrading treatment, including physical and psychological coercion, against persons deprived of their liberty to secure their cooperation.

There's a lesson here... if a military intelligence officer asks a prisoner a question, that prisoner should answer the question. But nothing here constitutes torture. Intimidation isn't torture. Being naked isn't torture... in fact under the right circumstances, it can be downright fun. Even causing discomfort doesn't constitute torture in the legal sense. It isn't even brutality under the laws of war or the GC.

This post is getting long... so I will just state that the "methods of ill treatment" discussed next do not constitute torture in the legal sense.

Frankly, given the biased nature of the ICRC itself, and the fact that the report itself doesn't highlight anything that violates the rules of war, the GC, or the normal activities that can be expected during wartime vis-à-vis treatment of prisoners, I tend to take the report with a grain of salt. I think you should as well.

Elliot

First of all, we were talking about government policy. The policy is exactly as I have stated. Whether that policy is violated or not, the policy is to grant the POWs the protections of the GC.
No, the policy is not as you have stated. The policy is that NONE of the detainees are entitled to POW status (yet you continue to refer to them as POWs), and that the Government may, at its sole option and discretion, grant them some, but not all of the rights that the GC requires.


The GC does not call for POWs to be released until THE END OF HOSTILITIES. Thus, the idea that they are being held "indefinitely without charge" is within the guidelines of the GC.
And how will we know that hostilities have ended? Oh, of course, the Government will tell us. Your childlike faith in the benevolence, fairness and competence of the Government is touching. Will you be as comfortable with the unlimited government power that you advocate when the political pendulum swings the other way and these powers are in the hands of people who believe all the "PC crap" that you revile so? If you wouldn't want a government you despise to have these powers, you better not give them to one you admire.

Second, I don't take anything that ICRC says seriously anymore. This is the same organization that has been bashing the USA and Israel for years with no real cause, while at the same time completely ignoring REAL human rights violations in Africa, the Middle East, South America and Asia for years.
And how do you define "REAL human rights violations"?


Gee, what a shock. Prisoners are claiming that they have been brutalized and abused... like that is never claimed by prisoners and criminals no matter where they are. I used to be an Auxiliary Police Officer. I have yet to meet a prisoner who didn't claim brutality by the cops. Plus, please also keep in mind that the terrorists are INSTRUCTED on how to claim brutality and abuse, regardless of the reality.
So because prisoners always allege brutality, it is never true. Impeccable logic.


Uh... in the real world we call that a raid. There's nothing illegal or particularly brutal about any of it. In fact, it is exactly how cops around the world are trained to capture criminals in their strongholds.
Criminals in their strongholds, civilians in their homes... a trivial difference to you, apparently.


Now lets talk about the "lack of notification of families"... Warning the terrorists that one of their number has been captured and is being interrogated for information about them is NOT militarily feasable.
All of your objections are predicated on the assumption that all suspects are already known to be guilty. If that were true, then of course there would be no need for a presumption of innocence, or due process of law to determine guilt.


Gee... that's convenient... no witnesses to corroborate the accusations of brutality. Of course that also means no witnesses to any brutality if it actually to place as well. So to that accusation I say, "prove it."
By your standards, what would constitute proof?


There's a lesson here... if a military intelligence officer asks a prisoner a question, that prisoner should answer the question.
Not only that, but it better be the answer the officer wants to hear.


But nothing here constitutes torture. Intimidation isn't torture. Being naked isn't torture... in fact under the right circumstances, it can be downright fun. Even causing discomfort doesn't constitute torture in the legal sense. It isn't even brutality under the laws of war or the GC.

This post is getting long... so I will just state that the "methods of ill treatment" discussed next do not constitute torture in the legal sense.
Thank you for your legal opinion. I feel so much better about all this now.

As a side note:
The whole idea that "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" or "a soldier is just a terrorist in uniform" is false... an attempt at moral equivocation. That's fine and good during a time of peace, when we don't have enemies at our doorstep trying to kill us. I disagree with it even then, but I accept people's rights to go with that idea. But not during wartime, when we have to respond to a direct threat from an enemy that uses that sort of moral equivocation as a shield.

Nor do I believe that "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Because in order to be a "freedom fighter", one must, of necessity, be fighting for freedom. The Islamofascist terrorists aren't fighting for freedom. Quite the opposite; they are fighting for religious intolerance and the death and destruction of anyone who doesn't follow their religion.

I bring this up, because your questions about who is a terrorist vs. who is a criminal, vs. who is a civillian defending his country smack of trying to make them the same, morally and legally. They are not, nor should they be seen as such. And the differences between them are easy to see, if you are willing to open your eyes to see the differences. But it takes getting past the PC crap to the real issues of how to defend ourselves against an enemy bent on our destruction.

Elliot

This shouldn't be read as a "side note." This is quite remarkable!