Ex-Gitmo prisoner carries out suicide attack

[yall]

I've already shot down your Phil Specter argument so what do you say now?

 

I would say that I wasn't the one who made that argument.

[yall]

UConn James and Yall,

 

Here you go. Enjoy.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Root-Causes-of-Suici...9380&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-...9308&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Kill-Allure-Su...9294&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Fundamenta...9380&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Israeli-Response-Jew...9380&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Terrorism-Am...9380&sr=1-1

 

Feel free to report back once you're done.

 

Buy 'em and have them shipped and I will gladly read them.

 

Edit: And have you actually read those books, or are you just linking them?

 

Just reading the descriptions from one of the books, the author mentions that the people in organizations like Hamas, etc, mostly aren't religious. That doesn't seem to be the case with the detainees. I don't necesarily disagree with the notion that suicide bombing is (in the eyes of a would be bomber) a tactic rather than some easy way to paradise in their eyes. Certainly Saddam was secular, and not very pious, and he helped fund suicide attacks.

 

Again though, all I've really said in this thread is that if there is some evidence that these guys in Gitmo are 'bad' I have no problem detaining them. And I don't consider that a violation of human rights.

 

And do we actually have verifiable proof that the only way to get a trial/tribunal is to plead guitly?

[Chilly]

Buy 'em and have them shipped and I will gladly read them.

 

Edit: And have you actually read those books, or are you just linking them?

 

lol, read em. One of the authors (Ami Pedazhur) was one of my profs at UT.

 

Some interesting stuff if you are into the topic.

[yall]

lol, read em. One of the authors (Ami Pedazhur) was one of my profs at UT.

 

Some interesting stuff if you are into the topic.

 

I am and will at least see if any of therm are in the library.

 

I may take extreme positions on the subject matter when arguing on the internet, but many times it's simply to elicit a response for a wide variety of opinions.

[DC Tom]

How about at least treating them by the standards of the Geneva Conventions and not suspending the writ of habeas corpus for them. How about taking a moral lead and treating them like an American citizen would be in a criminal trial. Why would that be wrong?

 

There's no legal basis for either. Hell, there's absolutely no legal basis for both as far as I know - I've never heard of any situation where a POW has the right to habeas corpus (in fact, it is against the Geneva Convention to subject POWs to domestic judicial process - you may NOT accuse them of a crime, therefore there's no right to habeas corpus). But either one...the application of the Geneva Convention would require them to belong to a country with which we are at war, and habeas corpus is a legal right that doesn't apply to people captured in military conflicts. Hell, if you clarified it either way, you'd probably have to release them (argue habeas corpus, and I'd counter-argue that the application of any criminal justice procedure is a violation of posse comitatas and they should therefore be freed. Argue POW status, and I'd counter that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply since they're operating outside the authority of a nation-state on their own individual initiative...and hence it's a legal and not military matter.)

 

The central point a lot of people still keep missing here is that there's a hell of a lot of ambiguity in the situation. Trans-national terrorists exist and operate in a legal grey area - in fact, could not operate without the grey area, as it's what allows them to simultaneously argue the oppression of their enemy while operating under the protection of the rights guaranteed by their enemy. Again, Gitmo is just an attempt to resolve that ambiguity. And it really makes no sense to argue against Gitmo by crying "What ambiguity?"

[Chilly]

Just reading the descriptions from one of the books, the author mentions that the people in organizations like Hamas, etc, mostly aren't religious. That doesn't seem to be the case with the detainees. I don't necesarily disagree with the notion that suicide bombing is (in the eyes of a would be bomber) a tactic rather than some easy way to paradise in their eyes. Certainly Saddam was secular, and not very pious, and he helped fund suicide attacks.

 

Hamas and Hezbollah are interesting cases, because while they started out as simply terrorist organizations, they've transformed themselves.

 

Bloom's book, which is somewhat of an extension of Pape's book, argues that one of the uses of suicide terrorism is to compete for popularity and gain standing within the community. Hamas and Hezbollah have gone beyond that and transformed themselves into not just terrorist organizations, but also political parties, providing lots of social welfare program to increase their standing.

 

Both organizations tend to use religion as a tool to motivate the people that they need to use (for attacks or other reasons), but many aren't overly religious.

[UConn James]

Ok, you believe the Geneva Conventions don't apply because they aren't conventional prisoners. You are ignoring the fact that the parts of the Conventions covering treatment of prisoners is being ignored. A lot of people are appalled by this including, POW himself, John McCain. Don't try to make it like I'm the only one. There are a lot of us. The only reason the Geneva Conventions don't apply here is because the current administration says they don't. They very well could if the administration said they did. It's only by decision that they don't. We know they are waterboarding prisoners which is a direct violation of the Conventions.

 

Newsweek, 2005-11-21. According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal."

 

Before you say "Oh poor prisoners" ask yourself if the treatment is ok against our troops. It was made illegal during the Vietnam war and at least one officer was court martialed for it. So why isn't it considered torture now?

 

Why do you believe that treating them well would be different than what we did with prisoners in WWII? Compassionate treatment always works to a certain extent. Are there guys who don't care at all? Yes. Are there families that would view us much differently? Yes. You can't categorically state that it wouldn't work at all in this situation as it didn't work with every POW during WWII.

 

If the prisoners are being treated so well why isn't the prison open to journalists? They should be letting journalists into the prison to make inspections monthly if they want to. The secrecy of the prison only makes the world think bad things are going on and seems to confirm it to people like me. South Africa denied that prisoners weren't being mistreated for years too. Then the images of Steven Biko hit the London papers and the doo doo hit the fan. Prove they aren't being mistreated. Why is that so hard? We know they're waterboarding these guys and if you don't think that's torture then you're an idiot.

 

 

Here's your quote about Spector;

 

 

 

You were trying to compare a person who was seen by a judge within 24 hours of being arrested and able to enter a "not guilty" plea and then released to the Gitmo prisoners. You're trying to change your argument now but it won't wash. Nice try. I'm not saying they should have been released but they should have been able to enter a plea and had a hearing scheduled. You seem to not have a problem with that by using the Spector thing as an analogy. Spector was not held for four years without any contact with a judge or able to enter a plea. Not even having one prisoner tried yet is criminal IMO. You seem to not get that. Maybe you do now.

 

I probably shouldn't have leveled the puss comment to you but it seems that many of the people who think the way you do have no problem with the suspension or out and out loss of civil rights in order to feel "safer". My point is that if you feel that way then you're a wuss.

 

A) I never said word one about torture/waterboarding. That was not the point of discussion in this thread as it has been covered in many others. The discussion has been about detention.

 

Admittedly, the depth of my knowledge on this part is what I hear in the background on the TeeVee or radio as I'm doing the dishes. I don't know if it's been confirmed that they used it at Gitmo; I've only definitively heard Afghanistan with KSM and Iraq. I am pretty certain that by congressional law, the practice has been stopped for a while now. Journos are let in sporadically, but then again, I wouldn't blame the admin from blocking access to an uber-maximum-security prison on the grounds of the nature of the people incarcerated there and what such a disturbance causes. Also, letting in people (yes, journos are regular people, no special qualification) to poke and prod the detainees like they're zoo animals would be against the GC's humiliation standard, as you so want the admin to follow. Per Tom's thread above, you have have a real misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Geneva Convention actually entails beyond the surface level that's discussed on the news by talking heads as if it's the breadth and depth of the terms of the agreement. And the fact that you persist in saying 'They could get it all done, but don't want to' despite people in the know having to explain to you over and over that it just isn't so... it begs the question if you come here for educational discussion or your and molson's cacophony of BushBad.

 

"Prove they aren't being mistreated" is like proving that California won't de-continentilize and drift into the ocean after a massive earthquake. It's pretty hard to prove a negative assertion. If the admin does show what proof they can, people like yourself will no doubt say it's not enough, or 'They probably beat him right after they took that photo' or upwards of thousand other theories.

 

B) It wasn't my intent to say Spector's treatment = Gitmo. Of course it wasn't; it was baby steps thru the process; however, his world was in limbo during those 4 years from soup to nuts, and that was in the best of circumstances, not where fundamental definitions are still being worked out b/c trans-national, non-state-supported terrorism is relatively uncharted legal territory. Probably shouldn't have used the comparison to make the very broad point that justice takes time... people here have a tough time with anything other than apples-to-apples (and even then, they'll pinprick it to McIntosh, Cortland or Washington Red! ).

[Steely Dan]

I would say that I wasn't the one who made that argument.

 

Where did you ever get the impression that comment was meant for you?!

 

 

There's no legal basis for either. Hell, there's absolutely no legal basis for both as far as I know - I've never heard of any situation where a POW has the right to habeas corpus (in fact, it is against the Geneva Convention to subject POWs to domestic judicial process - you may NOT accuse them of a crime, therefore there's no right to habeas corpus). But either one...the application of the Geneva Convention would require them to belong to a country with which we are at war, and habeas corpus is a legal right that doesn't apply to people captured in military conflicts. Hell, if you clarified it either way, you'd probably have to release them (argue habeas corpus, and I'd counter-argue that the application of any criminal justice procedure is a violation of posse comitatas and they should therefore be freed. Argue POW status, and I'd counter that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply since they're operating outside the authority of a nation-state on their own individual initiative...and hence it's a legal and not military matter.)

 

The central point a lot of people still keep missing here is that there's a hell of a lot of ambiguity in the situation. Trans-national terrorists exist and operate in a legal grey area - in fact, could not operate without the grey area, as it's what allows them to simultaneously argue the oppression of their enemy while operating under the protection of the rights guaranteed by their enemy. Again, Gitmo is just an attempt to resolve that ambiguity. And it really makes no sense to argue against Gitmo by crying "What ambiguity?"

 

You're right about the Conventions not allowing us to try them and I shouldn't have used that as a point. However, there are ways to get them trials in other countries that are neutral.

 

Yes, they are charting new territory but there are parts of the Conventions that could apply. Once again we are saying they don't qualify because we said so. It doesn't mean we can't treat them to some of the parts of the conventions. Arguing that there is no way they could qualify for any of them is just ridiculous. They can be applied. We've chosen not to apply them. Saying there is ambiguity means that things need to be figured out. In the mean time the prisoners have certain rights that I believe are being violated. It's been four years and it's not that nobody can figure something out it's that nobody wants to figure things out. They don't give a . That makes things a lot harder for us to sell moral leadership. If you believe that the same rules of detention for Gitmo prisoners should apply to Americans captured in this fight then ok. I have a problem with that though.

 

But lost amid all the speculation are the serious steps taken by Congress to bring U.S. detainee policy back in line with American tradition and values by restoring habeas corpus rights to these detainees. Habeas corpus, or the Great Writ, dates back to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 and has been a fundamental part of free and open societies for centuries. It allows any imprisoned person to challenge in court the legality of their confinement.

 

Linkage

 

Here are some of the rights that I believe should be applied to these prisoners from the coventions. In no particular order and not comprehensively.

 

In all prisoner of war camps, except where officers are present, the prisoners must be allowed to freely elect representatives by secret ballot every six months and in case of vacancies. These representatives will lobby for prisoners' interest before the military authorities, the protecting powers, and

 

. (Convention III, Art. 79)

 

Prisoners of war must be allowed to freely consult with their representatives, and these representatives must be allowed to freely visit premises where prisoners are kept. (Convention III, Art. 81)

 

That's not happening. The legal counsel they've been assigned have been stonewalled repeatedly and when a trial was finally offered it was only if the prisoner agreed to plead guilty.

 

Immediately upon capture, or within a week after arrival at a prisoner of war camp, transit camp, or hospital, prisoners have the right to write directly to their families. (Convention III, Art. 70)

 

I believe they have been completely cut off from making any contact with their families since they've been incarcerated.

 

All prisoners must have the right of appeal or petition and be informed of these rights and of any time limits on them. (Convention III, Art. 106)

 

Well I guess we need to start with trials first.

 

access to prisoners of war

 

Captured medical personnel or members of the Red Cross or other aid organizations must be allowed to periodically visit prisoners of war in labor units or hospitals outside the camp. ( Convention I, Art. 28a )

 

Representatives of the protecting powers shall have permission to visit all places where prisoners of war may be, particularly to places of internment, imprisonment and labor. They must be able to interview the prisoners without witnesses, either personally or through an interpreter. ( Convention III, Art. 126)

 

Gitmo Detainee Manual Reveals Red Cross Evasion

November 15, 2007

 

How does the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay really work? Well, let’s check the manual. [Wired]

 

The manual of standard operating procedures for the terrorist holding facility at Guantanamo Bay has surfaced on the internet, and it reveals some potentially shady practices regarding Red Cross access to detainees.[WikiLeaks PDF]

 

In 2006, the Bush White House defended its human rights record at Guantanamo by touting its cooperation with the International Red Cross in allowing them “full access to the detainees.” [White House]

 

But according to the 2003 “Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures” manual, detainees were classified according to their “levels of ICRC [international Committee of the Red Cross] contact.” These levels ranged from “Unrestricted” to “No Access“—meaning that it was likely that certain detainees were barred access to Red Cross investigators.

 

Says Jamil Dakwar, advocacy director of the ACLU’s Human Rights program, “That actually raises a lot of concerns about the administration’s genuineness in terms of allowing ICRC full access, as was promised to the world…They are the only organization that has access to the detainees, and this raises a lot of questions.”

 

Even this level of restricted access did not prevent a 2004 Red Cross investigation from concluding that the interrogation and detainment practices at the facility were “tantamount to torture” and that “doctors and other medical workers at Guantánamo were participating in planning for interrogations [in a] flagrant violation of medical ethics.‘’ [NY Times]

 

Full cooperation with the Red Cross ensures their ability to keep our own soldiers safe when captured by enemies. So much for supporting our troops.

 

Linkage

 

 

A) I never said word one about torture/waterboarding. That was not the point of discussion in this thread as it has been covered in many others. The discussion has been about detention.

 

Admittedly, the depth of my knowledge on this part is what I hear in the background on the TeeVee or radio as I'm doing the dishes. I don't know if it's been confirmed that they used it at Gitmo; I've only definitively heard Afghanistan with KSM and Iraq. I am pretty certain that by congressional law, the practice has been stopped for a while now. Journos are let in sporadically, but then again, I wouldn't blame the admin from blocking access to an uber-maximum-security prison on the grounds of the nature of the people incarcerated there and what such a disturbance causes. Also, letting in people (yes, journos are regular people, no special qualification) to poke and prod the detainees like they're zoo animals would be against the GC's humiliation standard, as you so want the admin to follow. Per Tom's thread above, you have have a real misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Geneva Convention actually entails beyond the surface level that's discussed on the news by talking heads as if it's the breadth and depth of the terms of the agreement. And the fact that you persist in saying 'They could get it all done, but don't want to' despite people in the know having to explain to you over and over that it just isn't so... it begs the question if you come here for educational discussion or your cacophony of BushBad.

 

"Prove they aren't being mistreated" is like proving that California won't de-continentilize and drift into the ocean after a massive earthquake. It's pretty hard to prove a negative assertion. If the admin does show what proof they can, people like yourself will no doubt say it's not enough, or 'They probably beat him right after they took that photo' or upwards of thousand other theories.

 

B) It wasn't my intent to say Spector's treatment = Gitmo. Of course it wasn't; it was baby steps thru the process; however, his world was in limbo during those 4 years from soup to nuts, and that was in the best of circumstances, not where fundamental definitions are still being worked out b/c trans-national, non-state-supported terrorism is relatively uncharted legal territory. Probably shouldn't have used the comparison to make the very broad point that justice takes time... people here have a tough time with anything other than apples-to-apples (and even then, they'll pinprick it to McIntosh, Cortland or Washington Red! ).

 

Sorry, I see torture and detention in the same area. I guess they could torture non-detainees.

 

If you believe that this administration follows any laws I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya. They have repeatedly ignored laws of the Constitution and don't believe they have to obey them.

 

Ummm, how about letting the Red Cross determine the unethical treatment of prisoners and allow them complete access to all prisoners. It's not nearly as hard as you seem to think it is. Circumventing the Red Cross only makes it look like we're torturing prisoners. Especially when they conclude, even with limited access, that we are torturing prisoners.

 

Once again here's your quote on Phil Spector;

 

Phil Spector was held for like 4 years before he went to trial, no? But suppose they are all tried and justice is meted. Where do you put them when you advocate shutting down Gitmo?

 

Tell me again how I'm misinterpreting that. He wasn't held for four years. Try comparing apples to something in one of the food groups instead of venturing way off base with silly analogies.

[DC Tom]

Where did you ever get the impression that comment was meant for you?!

 

 

 

 

You're right about the Conventions not allowing us to try them and I shouldn't have used that as a point. However, there are ways to get them trials in other countries that are neutral.

 

Yes, they are charting new territory but there are parts of the Conventions that could apply. Once again we are saying they don't qualify because we said so. It doesn't mean we can't treat them to some of the parts of the conventions. Arguing that there is no way they could qualify for any of them is just ridiculous. They can be applied. We've chosen not to apply them. Saying there is ambiguity means that things need to be figured out. In the mean time the prisoners have certain rights that I believe are being violated. It's been four years and it's not that nobody can figure something out it's that nobody wants to figure things out. They don't give a . That makes things a lot harder for us to sell moral leadership. If you believe that the same rules of detention for Gitmo prisoners should apply to Americans captured in this fight then ok. I have a problem with that though.

 

[...lots of stuff deleted that contained the words "prisoner of war"...]

 

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that they're not prisoners of war covered by the Geneva Convention??? Come on...I point out the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, and you respond with "Well...here's how we could apply it." It doesn't apply. Furthermore, as I pointed out, there are practical matters of international law that make it very difficult to apply even "in part" - for example, the little fact that the Convention isn't an a-la-carte menu, and if any part is applied it can be legally argued that all must apply...in which case the argument defaults to my earlier "Under the Geneva Convention they must be released" argument.

 

You'd be surprised to find out that I agree with you more than I disagree (actually, I agree with Darin - Gitmo's a bad idea on principle). But arbitrarily applying the Geneva Convention or domestic legal protections "just because" is not a solution. You want to solve this, you push to negotiate a fifth Geneva Convention that actually covers extra-national combattants under international law (or pass a law that applies retroactively to allow the military to engage in law enforcement activities outside US borders - which is a truly horrible idea). All you're doing is pretending the ambiguity's not there, and thus failing to address it.

[Steely Dan]

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that they're not prisoners of war covered by the Geneva Convention??? Come on...I point out the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, and you respond with "Well...here's how we could apply it." It doesn't apply. Furthermore, as I pointed out, there are practical matters of international law that make it very difficult to apply even "in part" - for example, the little fact that the Convention isn't an a-la-carte menu, and if any part is applied it can be legally argued that all must apply...in which case the argument defaults to my earlier "Under the Geneva Convention they must be released" argument.

 

You'd be surprised to find out that I agree with you more than I disagree (actually, I agree with Darin - Gitmo's a bad idea on principle). But arbitrarily applying the Geneva Convention or domestic legal protections "just because" is not a solution. You want to solve this, you push to negotiate a fifth Geneva Convention that actually covers extra-national combattants under international law (or pass a law that applies retroactively to allow the military to engage in law enforcement activities outside US borders - which is a truly horrible idea). All you're doing is pretending the ambiguity's not there, and thus failing to address it.

 

Did you miss the part where I said that doesn't mean they can't be given some rights. Saying they don't apply to these guys and therefore they can never be given any of those rights is just silly. Saying it then opens up arguments that they should get all of the rights is sillier. It's better than ignoring all of the rights they could be given. It seems your argument is that if they get some fair treatment then we should give them every right in the book. It doesn't wash with me and I don't think it washes with the rest of the world. This administration is making up the rules as it goes along and they ignore a lot of the rules altogether when they want to. Why can't they do so here but in a positive manner? I have a very hard time believing that giving them limited rights would be transgressing the unwritten law. Yes, I've said the ambiguities are there but in four years nobody's tried to solve them due to just plain apathy about the prisoners. That really hurts our ability to raise righteous indignation about similar treatment to our prisoners.

 

Did you read the part of my post about habeas corpus as it applies to prisoners and always has applied to prisoners? Did you read the part of the post where the Red Cross found that they were torturing prisoners even with limited access? Does it mean if we stop torturing them we have to give them all of the rights in the Geneva Conventions? If we allow them contact with their families and allow them fair trials I don't think it would open a huge debate about them getting all of the rights of the Geneva conventions. It would make us look moral and human. The argument of ambiguity doesn't mean that nothing should ever be done with them.

 

Letting them do limited things within the conventions is not terrible. The conventions don't even have to be mentioned in the reasoning for them. I think you're over analyzing the situation and making broad assumptions with no precedent. There is more precedent for treating them better than they are being treated than there is for treating them the way they are being treated.

[Wacka]

They AREN'T CITIZENS. They do not deserve any rights we have. As Tom has repeatedly pointed out they aren't even covered by the Geneva Convention.

You bleeding hearts will have real bleeding hearts because you have done nothing to stop those F'ers.

 

Do you have collective amnesia? Do you even remember what happened on 9/11/2001?

[DC Tom]

They AREN'T CITIZENS. They do not deserve any rights we have. As Tom has repeatedly pointed out they aren't even covered by the Geneva Convention.

You bleeding hearts will have real bleeding hearts because you have done nothing to stop those F'ers.

 

Do you have collective amnesia? Do you even remember what happened on 9/11/2001?

 

And then we get the flip side: righteous indignation makes it morally acceptible to throw away everything we as a nation believe and treat other people like animals.

[Steely Dan]

And then we get the flip side: righteous indignation makes it morally acceptible to throw away everything we as a nation believe and treat other people like animals.

 

I agree with you. Yes I know you're being sarcastic.

 

I just don't buy the whole they aren't covered by the Geneva Conventions and therefore giving them any rights associated with them would only cause more harm than good.

 

Wacka, do you support American troops being treated that way? I don't. Do you really believe that every single one of the prisoners there is guilty? Do you really believe they don't deserve trials or contact with their families? If you can answer yes to all of these questions for American troops too then I'll vehemently disagree and if you don't why are you so angry. Not all of the guys in Gitmo were terrorists when they were captured.

 

Off topic but 19 of the 9/11 plotters were Saudi Arabian and none were Iraqi.

[Wacka]

American troops are killed if they are captured by Al-Qieda. The conditions in Gitmo are better than most of the islamofascists had it back home. Waterboarding is not torture and it works. That guy in Pakistan that looks like Artie Lange spilled everything within minutes.

The Geneva Convention only holds if both parties sign it. Well, lets get Osama out of hiding to sign it, then we can go by the provisions. Lets get on with the trials and shoot the guilty f'ers (which is probably >99% of them). The reason the trials haven't been held are that bleeding hearts like you have been trying to stop them in court.

[Steely Dan]

American troops are killed if they are captured by Al-Qieda. The conditions in Gitmo are better than most of the islamofascists had it back home. Waterboarding is not torture and it works. That guy in Pakistan that looks like Artie Lange spilled everything within minutes.

The Geneva Convention only holds if both parties sign it. Well, lets get Osama out of hiding to sign it, then we can go by the provisions. Lets get on with the trials and shoot the guilty f'ers (which is probably >99% of them). The reason the trials haven't been held are that bleeding hearts like you have been trying to stop them in court.

 

Ok, one at a time.

 

1. Waterboarding is torture and in the Vietnam conflict at least one soldier was courtmartialed for it. It is only this administration who interprets it as not being torture.

 

2. You know he spilled his guts within minutes how?

 

3. You know 99% of them are how?

 

4. Bleeding heart liberals are trying to hold up the trials? How did you manage to get that biggie out of your ass!!

[UConn James]

4. Bleeding heart liberals are trying to hold up the trials? How did you manage to get that biggie out of your ass!!

 

I actually wouldn't be surprised by that. Either directly, or more likely, indirectly thru the threat that whatever the admin does, will be reversed by said bleeding hearts who don't think anyone should ever be in jail for very long no matter what they've done. Bush, and I'd wager most Americans, believes that the detainees should never breathe free air again, for what those who have the information on details of capture know they did... information which is still militarily/national security sensitive so it's reasonable to me that they do not want to disseminate it. So, the admin is forced to make everything doing with adjudicating absolutely watertight and vetted to be so, and to try one at the beginning as they started last fall. I guess this needs to be explained to you for the 34th time in this thread (who knows... maybe it might sink in if enough people say it) that this takes a crapload of time, to make sure that whatever convictions they get will stick and not be thrown out on stupid technicalities, or they just don't do anything at all and hold the detainees in stasis... which isn't the worst thing in the world, when you see what's happened to captives thru the ages of man the fact that the detainees weren't summarily executed and quietly buried in the sand shows pretty high restraint and a nod to the GC, in place of its application due to legal/definitive qualifiers.

 

Your reasoning for all of this is so American soldiers aren't treated the same way.... As Wacka wrote (and I don't agree with him often, nor on this point to the extent he takes it that it entitles us to do anything we want) the enemy that we are discussing has killed every American soldier they have managed to capture. Hell, they have killed every American, soldier or civilian, that they've captured (On edit: we rescued Jessica Lynch after she was beaten and raped; who knows what special plans they had for her). And these have not even been quick, painless deaths --- they involve grotesque torture, disembowelment and dismemberment. I honestly don't get why you'd want to raise this point. It's really not good for your case.

 

I'm not sure whether the detainees have been allowed to contact their families in letters. Nonetheless, the GC's wording is such that it allows one letter to inform they've been captured and whatever else they want to write to their family. If the argument is that they can't write back and forth, that is not what the GC stipulates.

 

The Red Cross's 'level of contact' access to some detainees. Why the admin would want to do that isn't hard to understand, even for mouth-breathers. IIRC, people working/posing as humanitarian workers and lawyers have been caught trying to pass information and deliver coded messages from the detainees. There's a reason why Gitmo is a special degree even among maximum-security facilities. It's also for the safety of those individuals. I'll make this a little easier for your level... remember that scene in "Silence of the Lambs"?

 

But lost amid all the speculation are the serious steps taken by Congress to bring U.S. detainee policy back in line with American tradition and values by restoring habeas corpus rights to these detainees. Habeas corpus, or the Great Writ, dates back to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 and has been a fundamental part of free and open societies for centuries. It allows any imprisoned person to challenge in court the legality of their confinement.

 

Finally, you'd have to wonder at the conduct of such hearings and trials. I'm not arguing their eventual necessity once the details of how exactly to proceed are established, the point that we can say we did the best as humanly possible in the delivering of justice, or that what I'm thinking will happen will indeed happen. But if this is anything like the Moussaoui trial circus, it will involve 700 cases where the detainee/defendant incessantly shouts that he does not recognize the authority of the court/tribunal/what-have-you, that he wasn't where the military captured him, calls upon Allah to help him dismember all involved in said proceeding, that his name isn't Mustafah Al-Sayid el Basheer and that despite all physical evidence, witness testimony, detainee's own statements, they've got the wrong man, sitting and loudly chant verses from the Koran, et cetera, et cetera. Again, I'm not going to dispute the necessity, but will such a circus make us feel any better or make any other country predisposed to disliking the US think that we gave someone a fair trial rather than a farce (tho it's of the defendant's own making)?

 

And where? A statement you've made several times in this thread... "in a neutral country." I call bullsh--. What country is neutral? What country where all of the citizens can truly say "I have no opinion on either the US or AQ/affiliated groups." What country where the process could be absolutely secure from its high-value target?

[yall]

we rescued Jessica Lynch after she was beaten and raped

 

FYI - She denies this.

[UConn James]

FYI - She denies this.

 

From all I've read, she has no recollection of her capture or what transpired. She had multiple broken bones and bruising. She was taken to the hospital by Iraqi army along with the bodies of the rest of her unit, and the Iraqis and more govt agents were waiting around, probably not w/o a purpose. What they planned on doing with her before they likely got wind the Americans would be coming is anybody's guess.

 

From her Wikipedia entry (I know, I know....):

The authorized biography, I Am A Soldier Too: The Jessica Lynch Story, by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Rick Bragg states that Lynch had been raped during her captivity, based on medical records and her pattern of injuries.[28]

 

However, Lynch has since stated that she does not recall any sexual assault and was "adamantly opposed to including the rape claim in the book", but that Bragg wore her down and told her that "people need to know that this was what can happen to women soldiers."

 

She may have been hesitant to include it, as many victims of sexual assault understandably don't want all and sundry to know such details or be known solely as such, but the evidence of it was certainly there.

[yall]

From all I've read, she has no recollection of her capture or what transpired. She had multiple broken bones and bruising. She was taken to the hospital by Iraqi army along with the bodies of the rest of her unit, and the Iraqis and more govt agents were waiting around, probably not w/o a purpose. What they planned on doing with her before they likely got wind the Americans would be coming is anybody's guess.

 

From her Wikipedia entry (I know, I know....):

 

 

She may have been hesitant to include it, as many victims of sexual assault understandably don't want all and sundry to know such details or be known solely as such, but the evidence of it was certainly there.

 

Didn't the wiki entry (I know, I know ) also state there was no evidence of sexual assualt?

[UConn James]

Didn't the wiki entry (I know, I know ) also state there was no evidence of sexual assualt?

 

It says that based on medical records he had access to, and (now-hesitant-to-admit, which is not uncommon) confirmation from JL, the ghostwriter wrote in her book that she had been raped.