erynthered Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 It's usually listed on the back of the trading cards. 346622[/snapback] Nope, just checked. It seems there are some still out there. Maybe you should get back to work. http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/...rist_tradi.html http://happyfunpundit.blogspot.com/2002_02...ve.html#9675425
Ghost of BiB Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 Nope, just checked. It seems there are some still out there. Maybe you should get back to work. http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/...rist_tradi.html 346640[/snapback] This is the government. Federal Holiday Monday, which results in extreme screwing off on prior Friday. All the military were out and out off today, most of the civilians took "liberal leave" and when I woke up today I said...nah. didn't go in. I don't think there is anyone there to look for me anyway.
Campy Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 So, then, in your interpretation, are these people civilians or soldiers? 346626[/snapback] What they're called really doesn't matter. Personally, I think that if they were part of a nation's organized military (Geneva refers to them as an army under the direction of a "High Contracting Authority") captured on a battlefield (like the Iraqi army in Gulf I and the begining of Gulf II), it would make it a lot easier to justify detaining them for the duration of hostilities under the terms of Geneva. But in this case, the administration claimed that the detainees aren't members of a High Contracting Authoritiy's military, and instead claimed that Geneva does not apply as they are "individuals detained as suspected terrorists." Individuals detained by the US are granted certain rights as provided by law, provided they aren't being detained under the mechanisms in place during a state of declared war.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 What I call them doesn't matter. They are individuals detained without due process, and they aren't being detained under a declared state of war. Personally, I think that if they were part of a nation's organized military (Geneva refers to them as an army under the direction of a "High Contracting Authority") captured on a battlefield (like the Iraqi army in Gulf I and the begining of Gulf II), it would make it a lot easier to justify detaining them for the duration of hostilities under the terms of Geneva. But in this case, the administration choose to skirt Geneva by declaring that the detainees aren't members of a High Contracting Authoritiy's military. They are "individuals detained as suspected terrorists." Individuals detained by the US are granted certain rights as provided by law. 346657[/snapback] So if I'm understanding you correctly, you'd treat these "individuals" as if they were normal civilian criminals...giving them hearings and free lawyers and a public soap box? I gotta say, that would take some serious huevos.
Campy Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 So if I'm understanding you correctly, you'd treat these "individuals" as if they were normal civilian criminals...giving them hearings and free lawyers and a public soap box? I gotta say, that would take some serious huevos. 346664[/snapback] Yep, that's what I'm saying. And yeah, it'd take some balls. IMO if we are to do any justice to American ideals and the people who died fighting for them over the past two plus centuries, we are obligated to give the detainees their day in court. You might not agree with me, but I'm glad that at least you took the time and effort to see where I'm coming from. Thanks for that.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 Yep, that's what I'm saying. And yeah, it'd take some balls. IMO if we are to do any justice to American ideals and the people who died fighting for them over the past two plus centuries, we are obligated to give the detainees their day in court. You might not agree with me, but I'm glad that at least you took the time and effort to see where I'm coming from. Thanks for that. 346677[/snapback] I would be curious to see what would happen if these animals were given public hearings. And how exactly would you put them in front of a jury of their peers without collecting up a gaggle of camel-herders? MWAAAA..... No doubt it would probably be like "I am not subject to your infidel laws because Allah has prdained me 999 virgins in the afterlife!"
Johnny Coli Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 Yep, that's what I'm saying. And yeah, it'd take some balls. IMO if we are to do any justice to American ideals and the people who died fighting for them over the past two plus centuries, we are obligated to give the detainees their day in court. You might not agree with me, but I'm glad that at least you took the time and effort to see where I'm coming from. Thanks for that. 346677[/snapback] While I completely agree with you, the government's position, right or wrong, has been that to try these individuals under the same legal procedure afforded a civilian, ie prosecuting with evidence, would reveal how that evidence was gathered in the first place, compromising intelligence.
Campy Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 While I completely agree with you, the government's position, right or wrong, has been that to try these individuals under the same legal procedure afforded a civilian, ie prosecuting with evidence, would reveal how that evidence was gathered in the first place, compromising intelligence. 346687[/snapback] I don't care if it's a military-style tribunal, provided they receive due process. In fact, that might even be better, provided all records of the proceedings are made public except sensitive intelligence information that could jeopardize our intel gathering efforts or cause an informant or undercover agent to be outted. It doesn't have to be difficult.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 While I completely agree with you, the government's position, right or wrong, has been that to try these individuals under the same legal procedure afforded a civilian, ie prosecuting with evidence, would reveal how that evidence was gathered in the first place, compromising intelligence. 346687[/snapback] I wasn't going to go there, but FTIW, our closest hold security stuff is that which pertains to intelligence collection. It is the one category that is unifromly considered NOFORN. It would not be a good thing to bring that to light in a trial. Then you'd have these fish tossed back into the pond for lack of evidence - going by our American humanitarian rights of the accused as opposed to the victims rules, of course.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 I don't care if it's a military-style tribunal, provided they receive due process. In fact, that might even be better, provided all records of the proceedings are made public except sensitive intelligence information that could jeopardize our intel gathering efforts or cause an informant or undercover agent to be outted. It doesn't have to be difficult. 346701[/snapback] So....you are going to give the acused the precise data that put him in prison, by discussing the particulars at trial...then, possibly allow him to go back to Pakistan and describe all that to the rest of the gang? Plus, America being America-the frenzied masses inflamed by the press will never allow "Secret Trials". It HAS to be a media event.
Johnny Coli Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 I wasn't going to go there, but FTIW, our closest hold security stuff is that which pertains to intelligence collection. It is the one category that is unifromly considered NOFORN. It would not be a good thing to bring that to light in a trial. Then you'd have these fish tossed back into the pond for lack of evidence - going by our American humanitarian rights of the accused as opposed to the victims rules, of course. 346702[/snapback] What about Campy's suggestion of a military tribunal? The issue I have is the government saying that we can't try these people because it would reveal what intel we got on them and how we got it. There is no independent body to oversee that we aren't just rounding up people based on shoddy evidence. There is no independent body even listing who we have in custody to begin with. A case could be made that if the enemy knew who we had in custody, then that in of itself would compromise the intelligence gathering. But where does it stop? When does it cross the line and become a South American banana republic "disappearing" people for the security of the nation? It smacks of Orwellian paranoia.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 What about Campy's suggestion of a military tribunal? The issue I have is the government saying that we can't try these people because it would reveal what intel we got on them and how we got it. There is no independent body to oversee that we aren't just rounding up people based on shoddy evidence. There is no independent body even listing who we have in custody to begin with. A case could be made that if the enemy knew who we had in custody, then that in of itself would compromise the intelligence gathering. But where does it stop? When does it cross the line and become a South American banana republic "disappearing" people for the security of the nation? It smacks of Orwellian paranoia. 346713[/snapback] Maybe I'm just jaded, but I see "disappearing" these people as a good thing.
Campy Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 So....you are going to give the acused the precise data that put him in prison, by discussing the particulars at trial...then, possibly allow him to go back to Pakistan and describe all that to the rest of the gang? Plus, America being America-the frenzied masses inflamed by the press will never allow "Secret Trials". It HAS to be a media event. 346703[/snapback] Whatever it takes to have our government operate within the law while respecting the sensitivity of the most compromising intel. I imagine there are ways to make it happen. A military tribunal where we can censor and seal the most sensitive information (specific names, specific intel gathering methods, etc) by allowing one camera in the court and treat the footage like the censored pool footage released during Iraq I? I dunno, but that might be one suggestion. I don't claim to know all of the answers, but we are Americans - If there's a solution, we can find it.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 What about Campy's suggestion of a military tribunal? The issue I have is the government saying that we can't try these people because it would reveal what intel we got on them and how we got it. There is no independent body to oversee that we aren't just rounding up people based on shoddy evidence. There is no independent body even listing who we have in custody to begin with. A case could be made that if the enemy knew who we had in custody, then that in of itself would compromise the intelligence gathering. But where does it stop? When does it cross the line and become a South American banana republic "disappearing" people for the security of the nation? It smacks of Orwellian paranoia. 346713[/snapback] I thought they were already having military tribunals, and that several had been released. Others get brought in. It's a continual process. It just seems to me that after the 9/11 fiasco, everyone would prefer to err to the side of caution.
Johnny Coli Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 Maybe I'm just jaded, but I see "disappearing" these people as a good thing. 346714[/snapback] Yes, let's return to Nicaraguan death squads and smuggling coke to arm counter-insurgents. Those sure were happier times under Reagan. It's Morning in America all over again.
VABills Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 I thought they were already having military tribunals, and that several had been released. Others get brought in. It's a continual process. It just seems to me that after the 9/11 fiasco, everyone would prefer to err to the side of caution. 346722[/snapback] There have been. About 200 or so. Sorry I was looking that up yesterday. Just didn't think anyone would like facts.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 Yes, let's return to Nicaraguan death squads and smuggling coke to arm counter-insurgents. Those sure were happier times under Reagan. It's Morning in America all over again. 346729[/snapback] Which just so happened to work in the case of Nicaragua. They're now a democratic country and no problem for us. That strategy could work in Iraq and Afghanistan if our country had the balls to do it.
Johnny Coli Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 Which just so happened to work in the case of Nicaragua. They're now a democratic country and no problem for us. 346736[/snapback] Yup. Great place to vacation. Pina Colada's and char-broiled nun.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 Yup. Great place to vacation. Pina Colada's and char-broiled nun. 346751[/snapback] WAS like that. Not now.
Campy Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 Sorry I was looking that up yesterday. Just didn't think anyone would like facts. 346732[/snapback] Facts like that they were denied lawful counsel? Facts that the tribunals were held despite that the detainees hadn't been charged with a crime? Or is it just conveniently ignoring all of the facts posted in this thread with regard to the legal issues surrounding this situation - like the fact that the US government is breaking the very laws and violating the very rights we've entrusted them to defend? The military tribunal-type courts that I referred to in an earlier post should be a hybrid IMO. Civilian procedure and and a matter of public record, with military to adjudicate and seal the uncensored tesitimony/evidence (to be released when it becomes lawfully unclassified - is it 40 years?) and censor the publicly releasedrecords to maintain the sensitivity of intel. The press needs to have access to the public version of the trial records very quickly, not a year after a hearing is held as is the case with the records to which you refer.
Recommended Posts