Land Of The Free? Imprisonment Without Trial

[lynx]

Originally posted by j2k4@14 August 2003 - 14:30
I am sure no circumstance, including suspician of terrorist activity, would prove sufficient to warrant or justify any special/exceptional/extraordinary treatment of the Gitmo detainees to the U.S.'s critics.

I'm a bit tired of being subject to the "sensibilities" of others on this subject, and other than due-process complaints (typical when comparing civilian/military detention), these people are not being starved or tortured, I don't think, but that is also a problem:

Nobody believes what the U.S. says about their treatment.

Everybody assumes we are Saddam incarnate, behind closed doors, for which misperception there is no solution.

Just another non-answer I'm afraid.

[j2k4]

Lynx-

I'm a bit baffled as to what might constitute an answer-I'll check back later when I have more time.

[j2k4]

I have re-examined the question of those being detained at Guantanamo.

The only firm and consistent claim I hear or see is of imprisonment without trial, but I don't believe the right to a speedy trial extends to military detainees; that is a civilian right.

Although there has been some hair-splitting about P.O.W./non-P.O.W./enemy combatant status, that is a relative non-issue, as all detainees are being treated humanely (per U.S. State Dept.):

-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

To those who would require the media be allowed to verify the treatment of the detainees:

Media "visits" to military detention centers are not "par for the course"; they would not be allowed by any nation under these circumstances.

Detainees are slowly being released as time passes; those who remain are judged to be of further use to the investigatory process or are deemed to literally be too dangerous to release.

It is entirely possible, I suppose, that some of them may die of old age before they get out; such is the case in war.

One exceptional circumstance should be pointed out, here:

In a more "usual" situation (i.e., a declared war with another country) the release of the detainees (whatever their status) would coincide with the end of hostilities and the signing of a cease-fire or peace agreement.

The war on terror will not be over at any arbitrary point in time, as with the capture or death of Osama bin Laden; the nature of the Arab-based terror organizations (specifically Al Qaeda) is such that they don't "sign" non-aggression pacts, cease-fires, or anything else.

Who does a multi-faceted organization such as Al Qaeda empower to speak for them in "diplomatic" matters?

We see the worth of dealing/negotiating with terrorists in the latest incidents arising in Israel.

The war on terrorism will, I think, be over when the U.S. deems it so, absent extraordinary developments.

I must note that I personally don't have a problem with the situation in Guantanamo; I believe the continued detention of these people is justified for the above-stated reasons.

I'm sure that will do wonders for the members' opinion of me; so be it.

I'm used to people disagreeing with me here.

[lynx]

It was not my intention that it should necessarily be you, j2, who should answer my challenge to justify the US position, indeed I phrased my post very carefully in the hope that someone else would take it up, but alas this did not happen and we find ourselves in opposition once again.

Although there has been some hair-splitting about P.O.W./non-P.O.W./enemy combatant status, that is a relative non-issue

It is on this very point that the rest of your argument hangs, and is the precise bone of contention between the US and the rest of the world.

If these abducted persons (and without due process that is exactly what they are) were allowed POW status, any trials against them would have to be conducted in open court. But because of their imposed status it is quite possible that some of them may face a lifetime in captivity or even the death penalty without recourse to independant representation and without any reasons being given to anyone outside military circles.

Detainees are slowly being released as time passes; those who remain are judged to be of further use to the investigatory process or are deemed to literally be too dangerous to release.

As far as I am aware, the only ones who have been released so far are those who were physically incapable of committing the acts of which they were accused. And yet it must have been obvious at the time of their detention that they were wrongly accused, so the judgement of those who imprisoned them is called into question. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there will be a number of other wrongly accused persons, yet they are denied legal representation.

It is entirely possible, I suppose, that some of them may die of old age before they get out; such is the case in war

In a more "usual" situation (i.e., a declared war with another country) the release of the detainees (whatever their status) would coincide with the end of hostilities and the signing of a cease-fire or peace agreement.

Surely, the whole point of the war in Afghanistan is that it was against the Taliban who, rightly or wrongly, were the ruling faction up until that time. Is the US now to be the sole arbiter of which wars are proper wars and which the fight against terrorism? There were quite a number of other countries involved in the conflict there, how is it that none of them decided it was necessary to round up all these people?

You may well be right that some of the people detained at Guantanamo Bay should be held for a long time to come, but perhaps you should also ask yourself why they are being held outside US jurisdiction. Could it be that the military (and presidential) authorities are worried what your own courts would have to say about their actions?

And although the detention of some may prove to be valid, I for one can never subscribe to the dictum that the end justifies the means. Put yourself in the shoes of the families of those held, some of whom will be innocent, others who if given a reasonable trial and found guilty would by now have been released. Imagine if a number of US citizens were held in such a way, there would be arguments in the UN for sanctions against the country responsible, attempts to break them free, etc. How do we know this would happen? Because that's exactly what happened in Tehran, then under what the US described as a terrorist government.

We can only assume that since the US government is acting in the same manner, that the US is now being run by a terrorist government.

[Rat Faced]

To add to the above and in j2k4's own words.

The war against the "Taliban" is over, so all those arrested for being part of/fighting for the Taliban should be released.

That leaves the Al Queda members.

On the basis of that, we'd release about 75% of the captives.

We can argue about the other 25% another day.....

[j2k4]

It seems that the "enemy combatants" detained for aiding the efforts of the Taliban (who worked hand in glove with Al Qaeda) have relevant knowledge of the terrorist Al Qaeda organization (which we still need) and would likely find themselves in the service of their Al Qaeda brethren in the event they were released (as the Taliban has been more-or-less vanquished) because to do so would suit their inclination, for that is what they do-the Taliban was a repressive, terrorist government.

These are not school teachers, accountants and filling-station attendents-they amuse and indulge themselves by oppressing others.

It seems the overwhelming sentiment here is to release them, much as a fisherman would practice a "catch and release" philosophy; to inject "sportsmanship" into his activities.

Do those who express this sentiment think these people look forward to self-rehabilitation so as to become productive citizens?

The U.S. declared WAR on terrorism; in a war one does not seek to replenish the enemy's manpower.

[Biggles]

I think it is unlikely that any further relevant imformation will be extracted from the prisoners.

The majority of those held may well be dedicated Taliban members and seek to work against the Kabul government (if it can be called that - city council might be more apt) in some capacity - perhaps poltically rather than militarily. Ultimately the people of that country will decide themselves who is in charge - they may well turn once again to the Mullahs as they did before - it is their freedom to make that choice.

The drug barons that have re-established their fiefdoms since the fall of the Taliban have ensured that heroin is once more flowing into the West in huge quantities. The trouble is, there appears to be little alternative to these criminals in a backward tribal country that hates foreigners.

Those that were non-Afghan AQ members should be detained or agreement sought for their trial in their countries of origin. Those that were Afghan Taliban should be returned. The latter were never interested in anything that happened outside their own borders and were no danger to the West (unlike the criminals we have installed in their place).

Maintaining a concentration camp away from the US mainland does little for the US's image in a world where many are only border line supporters of Washington's aims and it may actually have a greater negative impact through serving as a recruiting sergeant in the ME.

However, I am sure GW doesn't want or need my opinion.

[lynx]

So we are to be offered no insight into why they are being held outside US jurisdiction.

I'm sure you know the reasons, j2k4, surely you merely have to ask the same source who told you that they "have relevant knowledge of the terrorist Al Qaeda organization".

I think you will find that the overwhelming sentiment is that any who are innocent should be released, and that the others should receive a fair and open trial, something which the US government seems unwilling to grant them.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 August 2003 - 04:39
...The U.S. declared WAR on terrorism; in a war one does not seek to replenish the enemy's manpower.

This is a ridiculous statement (and I'm well aware you aren't the originating source, j2 ). Declaring war on an abstract principle seems asinine to me, even though I do think that they've been getting a bit uppity of late.

How's the war on drugs coming, boys?

[imnotanaddict]

If it is land of the free.

how cum u lot cant drink lager n that till your 21
cant smoke in public
drop litter
have sex till 18 (i think, could be wrong)
use drugs


if you were free, then you could do these things, you can in toher countries


n why does madonna go on about her living the american dream when she lives in london?

just what is the american dream

how cum u lot cant drink lager n that till your 21
This is (or was) a state law, up until several years ago in certain states the legal age to buy and drink alcohol beverages was 18.

cant smoke in public
As far as I know there are no laws (enforced anyway) in which anyone cannot
smoke outdoors. There are buildings which may be (smokeless) and certain areas
of others where smoking is prohibited. Restaurants with smoking areas and no
smoking areas. A free country in this sense is protecting the right of those who
wish not to breath in second hand smoke/or allergies or find it offensive.

drop litter
If we didnt have this Law we wouldnt be able to drive through the disposable
diaper strown streets. And what ever else garbage people could think of.

have sex till 18 (i think, could be wrong)
This Is also a state law and I beleive fluctuates somewhat. I know in certain states
with the signature of paarent you can wed. at 16.
Also this may be another one of those crazy laws but not enforced.

use drugs
You can auctually do drugs legally-but you need a prescription for it-
and not operate a moving vehicle.


If it is land of the free.
"The land of the free" is a term not to be taken litterally.
We as americans are free in the sense that we are not going to be persecuted
for our religous beliefs.
We are free in the sense that we are not bound to slavery.
We are free in the sense that we get to vote for our leaders.
But "land of the free" has state and federal laws that we are suppose to follow.
We can't murder, steal or sell drugs without breaking laws. Laws are made to
protect other peoples rights and freedoms.

just what is the american dream
The american dream is a myth. Some people may find the accomplish what they set out to do in life and to them thats fulfilling the american dream.

America is by no means perfect or even close. But its the lesser evil of many other
places.