Land Of The Free? Imprisonment Without Trial

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil__@20 August 2003 - 14:04
Do you think America would send troops into Britain to rescue their citezens if they were held illegally in the U.K.

---

Ah, there's the nub of the argument.

If they were held in the UK or the US (and I am assuming you mean by government forces) they would have recourse to legal redress, so there would be no need for troops to be sent, just lawyers (and you can bet there would be an army of them). But of course these people are not being held in the US.

There is only one possible explanation.

COWARDICE

The US administration is afraid of it's own courts.

Edit: realised that cowardice is yellow.

The new color of anti-Americanism is thus yellow.

Lynx-

If it were possible the U.S. recognized there existed no appropriate venue in which to deal with these exceptional (read: non-nation-sponsored; not officially, anyway) detainees, and, for the sake of securing international recognition of this fact chose their current path, what say you then?*

*I am trying to indicate my sense of a diplomatic "gap" which could be filled by a nation sufficiently and "heroically" motivated. Is there such a nation?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
If it were possible the U.S. recognized there existed no appropriate venue in which to deal with these exceptional (read: non-nation-sponsored; not officially, anyway) detainees, and, for the sake of securing international recognition of this fact chose their current path, what say you then?*

---

Are you suggesting that these men are being kept in a legal black hole with no rights whatsoever to "secure international recognition of the fact that these are... exceptional non-nation-sponsored detainees" and that there is "no appropriate venue to deal with them."?

If you are then I would say the suggestion is highly dubious.

(If you believe I've distorted the true meaning of your words by paraphrasing your quote please feel free to clarify the true meaning.)

I was expecting the 'anti-american' tag, glad you didn't disappoint me.

The problem is not so much where they are held, except that it allows the US administration to deny them legal representation and a fair trial. The administration could have allowed them normal human rights, but has chosen not to do so. It could not have made this decision had it detained them on US soil or on a base where US law is enforcible (eg Rammstein).

Thus it is only logical to assume that the reason for detaining them at Guantanamo Bay is simply to prevent them having normal human rights.

As for your sense of a diplomatic 'gap', you could well be right (though I doubt whether the US administration has looked too hard). But in any case, any such nation would be bound to allow the same rights to such detainees as it's laws permit, so any such offer would automatically be rejected.

I mean to communicate that it is just possible that the U.S. might appreciate some/any nation whose view of the situation is of the "these are people who participate in, or have guilty knowledge of terrorism, and they need to be tried/processed in such a way as to extract that knowledge while concurrently penalizing them appropriately for their actions".

It seems, though, that the international community (at least as constituted on this board) wishes them to be set free with no restraints-have I got that right?

As no one is inclined to discuss alternative motivations/scenarios, I'll bow out of this discussion, as there is no place for my "oily" views among your "watery" sentiments.

In other words, I have to go to work.

Enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+20 August 2003 - 11:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 20 August 2003 - 11:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
If it were possible the U.S. recognized there existed no appropriate venue in which to deal with these exceptional (read: non-nation-sponsored; not officially, anyway) detainees, and, for the sake of securing international recognition of this fact chose their current path, what say you then?*

---

Are you suggesting that these men are being kept in a legal black hole with no rights whatsoever to "secure international recognition of the fact that these are... exceptional non-nation-sponsored detainees" and that there is "no appropriate venue to deal with them."?

If you are then I would say the suggestion is highly dubious.

(If you believe I&#39;ve distorted the true meaning of your words by paraphrasing your quote please feel free to clarify the true meaning.) [/b][/quote]
No, EBP-I don&#39;t believe you&#39;ve distorted anything having to do with my views.

Lynx-

Was my appreciation of your "yellow" remark out of line?

J2K4

As with many operations, things rarely go to plan. I see the situation in Cuba as simply another example of an administration making it up on the hoof.

There will be, without doubt, terrorists in the camp who could present a clear and present danger if released. Many others will simply be senior Taliban foot soldiers with no interest in anything much beyond their tribal homeland (many may even struggle to put a pin in the map to locate where they have spent the last year or so).

The latter would almost certainly have been returned some time ago if Afghanistan were a little more stable. Unfortunately it is not, and if anything it is getting more unstable by the day. I believe close on a 100 have died in fighting this week and it is only Wednesday. Hence I think there may be a certain reluctance to process any further inmates who may simply disappear into the hills with a gun on their return.

In this sense they are more like true prisoners of war and will not be released until hostilities end. The US appears in no hurry to try them for anything in particular and is understandably far more interested in those detained who represent AQ forces rather than the Taliban. I suspect many will not be tried at the end of the day. A small number have already been returned quietly to Afghanistan and more will follow in due course, if things go to plan there (a big if I know).

With regards "unlawful combatants" I would not hold my breath waiting for a clearer definition. I believe the wording is deliberately ambigious because, at the end of the day, no country will be prepared to give up the right to conduct guerilla operations if faced with an invasion. The French, Czech, Polish (to name but a few) resistence movements were all unlawful combatants in that sense. Many were school teachers, priests etc., and had little or no military training. In contrast, the Taliban armed forces were an army (of sorts) and most of those held were captured during formal military engagements.

The base at Cuba represents an expediency, it is &#39;real politik&#39; in action. We should not be surprised at this as international relations and diplomacy are at something of a 6s and 7s and there are no easy solutions to any of the ME issues. This is why, despite hiccups on other fronts, the US has not much in the way of formal criticism from the international community on this topic. I think ultimately the camp will prove counter productive, but I am sure those in the administration can see that too and are presumably working on alternative strategies as we pontificate.

At which point it is time for me to ponder over dinner.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>these are people who participate in, or have guilty knowledge of terrorism, and they need to be tried/processed in such a way as to extract that knowledge while concurrently penalizing them appropriately for their actions".[/b]

---

Doesnt that seem like the wrong way round to you? How can we be sure that they have all participated in or have guilty knowledge of terrorism before they are tried? We&#39;ve already heard about how these people were &#39;selected&#39; for detainment and it certainly wasnt via due process. Dubious allegations from even more dubious sources in a significant number of these cases. Viewed in this light its hardly surprising that no other nation is sharing this view with the US.

Taken at face value it seems like you&#39;ve just confirmed suspicions of the "guilty until proven guilty" approach that is causing so much contention.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
It seems, though, that the international community (at least as constituted on this board) wishes them to be set free with no restraints-have I got that right?
[/quote]

I dont think so. I believe the consensus is for fair trials and access to lawyers. Basic human rights, nothing more.

Dont forget that the international community is also under threat from Al-Queda et al. More so in fact considering the geography of the Western world. Europe would be much easier to attack in todays post 9/11 climate, thus &#39;we&#39; dont want possible terrorists running free with "no restraints" any more than you guys do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@20 August 2003 - 18:55
Lynx-

Was my appreciation of your "yellow" remark out of line?

---

Obviously, I should have said "The US administration is detaining prisoners in Cuba, everyone except the Americans are absolute bastards for not making sure they are released". Hmmm, somehow it doesn&#39;t seem to fit the facts does it. I&#39;m sure you would like to pin the blame on the rest of the world, and for me to argue for the immediate release of the detainees, but I&#39;m going to debate the facts, not what you would like to pretend the facts to be.

Quote:

---

It seems, though, that the international community (at least as constituted on this board) wishes them to be set free with no restraints-have I got that right?

---

Nope, you&#39;ve got it wrong again. If you look at the title of the thread (have you forgotten what it was about ?) you will see that it is about imprisonment without trial. But I suspect (since you seem to avoid the issue at every turn) that it doesn&#39;t suit your purpose to discuss this.

Okay.

Let me try this:

At root, I feel we (the U.S.) should push Castro into the sea so that we might expand the boundries of Gitmo until it&#39;s borders and Cuba&#39;s are indistinguishable; then buy more chicken-wire to build the requisite outdoor cages to house as many "enemy combatants" as we can find.

We should expand the definition of "enemy combatants" until it&#39;s as loose as Maggie&#39;s box, and begin wholesale detention of all dissenters; I mean, if we don&#39;t care, lets take it up a notch, huh?

Lynx-

I do remember the topic-at the outset, you and all the others demanded a civilian solution for what the U.S. has chosen to treat as a military problem-I responded that civilian detention and military detention are not the same; military detention is much more arbitrary, and the U.S. has deemed this a necessity.

There it is-simple.

But you (and others) choose to drag the thread through all the permutations of your distaste for the general situation, and here we are.

I spent my two cents pages ago; we have regressed to this point due to your harping on the point of timely and effective legal representation. I answered the U.S. doesn&#39;t feel they are deserving of same, and you don&#39;t like it-so?

If you want a question answered, ask one.

And please, no more lectures on how I&#39;m avoiding the "issue"; package it up neatly and I will address it.