Ex-Gitmo prisoner carries out suicide attack

[yall]

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.

 

Yeah - I'm just trying to display my super-awesome level of reading comprehension.

[ieatcrayonz]

Hamas and Hezbollah are interesting cases,

If you consider the 92 different ways a severed head can roll down a flight of stairs interesting, then I suppose Hamas and Hezbollah are interesting.

[Sketch Soland]

If you consider the 92 different ways a severed head can roll down a flight of stairs interesting, then I suppose Hamas and Hezbollah are interesting.

 

93 ways.

 

The 93rd way involves Canadian heads.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have let this go on a public board.

[Steely Dan]

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"?

 

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?

 

You cannot possibly really believe the charges would be reversed by "bleeding hearts", who by your definition, it seems, is anyone who wants fair treatment for them.

 

Linkage

 

Here's an article that I'm sure will have you saying the guy is a complete liar. I don't know that and you don't know that. For sake of argument if it is true do you think he should be held at Gitmo indefinitely and with a sham trial?

 

WASHINGTON — A Guantanamo Bay detainee indicted in the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Tanzania says he unwittingly delivered the explosives used by others for the deadly attack, according to a Pentagon transcript of his hearing.

 

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani said he did not know about the assault beforehand and was sorry for the role he played, according to the transcript of his hearing at the Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba.

 

"It was without my knowledge what they were doing, but I helped them," he said. "So I apologize to the United States government for what I did. And I'm sorry for what happened to those families who lost, who lost their friends and their beloved ones."...

 

...Ghailani, speaking through a military representative, said he was first told the TNT he carried was soap for washing horses, then later — after he delivered it — was told it was explosives "for mining for diamonds in Somalia" and also for a Somali training camp.

 

 

 

Any sensitive information can be left out of the public part of the trial I'm surprised you don't know that. Wait, no I'm not.

 

Linkage

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the Bush administration's plan to limit what judges and the detainees' attorneys can review when considering whether the Combatant Status Review Tribunals acted appropriately.

 

"Counsel for a detainee has a 'need to know' the classified information relating to his client's case," the appeals court ruled. "The government may withhold from counsel, but not from the court, certain highly sensitive information."

 

 

The appeals court decision is likely to be considered by the Supreme Court as it decides whether detainees should have greater access to U.S. civilian courts.

 

When detainees are brought before military CSRTs, they are not allowed to have lawyers with them and the Pentagon decides what evidence to put forward. Unlike in criminal trials, there is no obligation for the government to turn over evidence that the defendant might be innocent. If the military reviewers determine a prisoner is an enemy combatant, he can challenge that designation in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

 

During that appeal, government attorneys argued, federal judges have the authority only to review the evidence the Pentagon had chosen to put forward during the CSRT hearing.

 

Without all the information, the appeals court said, deciding whether the military reviewers acted appropriately would be like trying to figure out the value of a fraction without knowing both numbers.

 

"The court has resoundingly rejected the government's effort to control the record and to limit an investigation into the truth," said attorney Sabin Willett, who argued the case.

 

{Friday's unanimous decision was issued by Judges Douglas Ginsburg, Judith Rogers and Karen Lecraft Henderson. Rogers is a Clinton appointee. Ginsburg, the chief judge of the appeals court, is a Reagan appointee. Henderon was appointed by President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush.}

 

Damn bleeding heart Bush and Reagan appointees!!

 

I was wrong about the contact with families as it stands now. I do believe though that I remember it was a very long time before they were permitted any contact at all with families.

 

Gitmo Prisoners Granted Phone Call to Family

 

Posted Mar 13, 08 4:15 AM CDT in World, US Editor's Choice

 

(newser) – "Unlawful enemy combatants" detained at the Guantanamo Bay naval base will be allowed to phone their families one a year, Reuters reports. But the military task force in charge of managing the prison has yet to work out the details. As it stands, Gitmo inmates can send and receive letters—subject to military censorship—but otherwise are permitted no contact with the outside world.

 

Here's something about their access to their lawyers.

 

Linkage

 

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is trying to evade responsibility for problems at the Guantanamo Bay prison by falsely blaming defense lawyers for the trouble, the New York City Bar says.

 

The group's president leveled the criticism in asking Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to abandon a Justice Department proposal to limit lawyers' access to the nearly 400 detainees.

 

In a court filing this month, the department said attorney access via the mail system has "enabled detainees' counsel to cause unrest on the base by informing detainees about terrorist attacks."

 

The mail system was "misused" to inform detainees about military operations in Iraq, activities of terrorist leaders, efforts in the War on Terror, the Hezbollah attack on Israel and abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, the department said in this month's court filing.

 

"This is an astonishing and disingenuous assertion," the association president, Barry M. Kamins, wrote to Gonzales.

 

"Blaming counsel for the hunger strikes and other unrest is a continuation of a disreputable and unwarranted smear campaign against counsel," according to the letter Friday.

 

Kamins said many detainees have been held in solitary confinement for prolonged periods and have lost hope of a fair hearing to demonstrate their innocence.

 

Kamins pointed to recent remarks by the former deputy assistant secretary for detainee affairs, Charles Stimson. Stimson resigned after saying he found it shocking that lawyers at many top firms represent detainees held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba.

 

Linkage

 

"When corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms," Stimson said on a Washington radio station, Federal News Radio, on January 11.

 

The legal community denounced Stimson's comments.

 

Defense Department officials immediately distanced themselves from Stimson, saying his comments did not reflect those of the Bush administration.

 

In a letter to the editor published in the Washington Post a week later, he said, "I zealously represented unpopular clients. ... I believe that our justice system requires vigorous representation. ... I apologize for what I said, those comments do not reflect my core beliefs."

 

You can say Stimson recanted but I believe it was under pressure and that his original point is an excellent one.

 

Linkage

 

The men, all of whom are Guantanamo Bay detainees, face the death penalty if convicted.

 

Charges against them were approved Friday, but the attorney for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind, was not informed until late on Monday, he told CNN.

 

"To me that shows what little regard the government has for the defense and the defense process," said Capt. Prescott Prince, the military lawyer appointed to defend Mohammed.

 

"I am frustrated with the game-playing."

 

The sixth man, Mohammed al-Qahtani, will remain in custody as an enemy combatant.

 

Is this a good summation of your beliefs?

 

The prisoners don't deserve any sort of fair treatment because they are all guilty and they belong to a group of people who are totally without compassion for any of the soldiers they've captured. Giving them any rights means that they would have to get every right and that's a can of worms we don't want to open. There's no such thing as a neutral country so we just have to let them sit in prison without trials because that's all we can do for them.If we were to give them trials they'd probably turn into a circus like some of the trials have in the past for some of these guys. So all we can do with them is torture them and let them rot in prison. That's all they deserve. Is that about right?

 

Here's something else of interest to this discussion on the peripheral about torture;

 

Linkage

 

WASHINGTON — A suspected Saudi terrorist told a military hearing that he was tortured into confessing that he was involved in the bombing of the warship USS Cole, according to a Defense Department transcript released Friday.

 

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi national of Yemeni descent, said he made up stories that tied him to the 2000 Cole attack, which killed 17 U.S. sailors and nearly succeeded in sinking the $1 billion destroyer in Aden harbor, Yemen.

 

"From the time I was arrested five years ago, they have been torturing me. It happened during interviews. One time they tortured me one way, and another time they tortured me in a different way," al-Nashiri said, according to the transcript. "I just said those things to make the people happy. They were very happy when I told them those things."

 

I'd say there is some truth to his statements and some lies. I do think however this does show that prisoners subjected to torture will say anything to get out of the torture and information gleaned from them is mostly useless despite what the pathologically lying Bush administration claims. After all they can't say we've gotten no decent information after submitting these guys to torture can they?

 

Because I try to own up to my mistakes here is an interesting article. I don't think it really has much to do with the neutral country argument but it does show the problems with trying to get other countries to accept prisoners which I think does show how difficult getting other countries involved in anything can be.

 

Linkage

 

CELEVELAND — An Islamic religious leader convicted of concealing ties to terrorist groups remains jailed in Michigan seven months after he reached a deal with the U.S. government to be deported.

 

The agreement called for Fawaz Damra's deportation to Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Egypt or the Palestinian territories. But so far, no one has been willing to take the former imam of the Islamic Center of Cleveland, officials said.

 

There is no definitive rule on how long Damra can be held in jail, according to his attorney, Robert Birach.

 

"If there was progress, he'd be gone by now," said Birach, who declined comment on whether any other countries were being asked to take Damra. "We haven't gotten a country yet to say yes."

 

 

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.

 

Hesitant and adamant are two very different words in my opinion and I believe in most peoples opinion too.

[yall]

You cannot possibly really believe the charges would be reversed by "bleeding hearts", who by your definition, it seems, is anyone who wants fair treatment for them.

 

Linkage

 

Here's an article that I'm sure will have you saying the guy is a complete liar. I don't know that and you don't know that. For sake of argument if it is true do you think he should be held at Gitmo indefinitely and with a sham trial?

 

This is a lot to respond to all at once, but I'll just take on the first article for now

 

• The subject of the article admitted to delivering the explosives that killed innocent people.
  
• He admitted to attending an AQ training cap for "self defense purposes".
  
• He also admitted to helping AQ operatives obtain fake passports and cross boarders illegally.
  

 

Doesn't sound like much of a problem to me to hold him indefinitely.

 

From the article you linked:

 

"Ghailani, a Tanzanian, is suspected of buying the Nissan truck used to deliver the bomb, supplying the TNT and detonators, and later running a document forgery office for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He was arrested after a gunbattle in Gujrat in eastern Pakistan in July 2004."

 

In his own words: "At times speaking in English, Ghailani said he went to an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan after the bombing, because he wanted military training for self-defense."

 

Again his words:"Ghailani said he later he worked for Al Qaeda in Pakistan providing passports and documents to help them get across borders"

 

I'm not feeling too bad for this guy if he knowingly worked with a known terror organization and then later admitted it, and now regrets it because he is locked up.

[Steely Dan]

This is a lot to respond to all at once, but I'll just take on the first article for now

 

• The subject of the article admitted to delivering the explosives that killed innocent people.
  
• He admitted to attending an AQ training cap for "self defense purposes".
  
• He also admitted to helping AQ operatives obtain fake passports and cross boarders illegally.
  

 

Doesn't sound like much of a problem to me to hold him indefinitely.

 

From the article you linked:

 

"Ghailani, a Tanzanian, is suspected of buying the Nissan truck used to deliver the bomb, supplying the TNT and detonators, and later running a document forgery office for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He was arrested after a gunbattle in Gujrat in eastern Pakistan in July 2004."

 

In his own words: "At times speaking in English, Ghailani said he went to an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan after the bombing, because he wanted military training for self-defense."

 

Again his words:"Ghailani said he later he worked for Al Qaeda in Pakistan providing passports and documents to help them get across borders"

 

I'm not feeling too bad for this guy if he knowingly worked with a known terror organization and then later admitted it, and now regrets it because he is locked up.

 

The question was about if he was innocent of the charges I had outlined and only those charges without taking anything else into account as if those were the only charges. I guess I didn't make that clear.

[ieatcrayonz]

In his own words: "At times speaking in English, Ghailani said he went to an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan after the bombing, because he wanted military training for self-defense."

 

Again his words:"Ghailani said he later he worked for Al Qaeda in Pakistan providing passports and documents to help them get across borders"

 

I'm not feeling too bad for this guy if he knowingly worked with a known terror organization and then later admitted it, and now regrets it because he is locked up.

But if you don't give him habeus corpuscles, you will never know for sure whether he did it. We have a legal system for a reason. OJ can admit to the murders now all he wants but it is still better for America that he is roaming the streets.

 

Don't you think it would be better if we gave this guy a lawyer so he could get off? He clearly doesn't know about his right to remain silent because of the Bush administration. If we gave him a lawyer to teach him, he would get out and go back home to tell everyone how great a country America was to him. He would be like the Yakov Smirnoff of the Middle East and instead of recruiting more terrorists like the current policy promotes, he would help recruit more friends or maybe start a comedy routine which promotes American ideals.

 

The best thing would be if we caught Bin Laden and gave him a trial and he got off. Then the world would see how great we are. Right now, they can't see it.

[Steely Dan]

Here's a better example;

 

Linkage

 

In December 2005, a U.S. federal judge said of the men's detainment, "This indefinite imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay is unlawful."

 

Michael Sternell, a lawyer who represents three of the men on behalf of law firm Kramer, Levin, Naftalis and Frankel told ABC News, "These men have suffered more than anyone should ever have to in a lifetime in just the last four-and-a-half years. They were detained simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time."

 

Q: What was Guantanamo like?

 

A: Guantanamo is like a hell where there is no justice or respect for human dignity. Our life there was very, very miserable, especially the last one year after being told that we are innocent and still living behind wired walls. We feel confused, frustrated and tired. I would call the worst period of time of my four years incarceration in Guantanamo.

 

The saddest part of the whole thing is that after being cleared, no longer enemy combatants, or innocent. Being innocent people, we were told that we have no rights but shelter, food, water and a place to pray. Given that, that place is not the normal, usual prison. So I would say that it is a hell.

[Steely Dan]

But if you don't give him habeus corpuscles, you will never know for sure whether he did it. We have a legal system for a reason. OJ can admit to the murders now all he wants but it is still better for America that he is roaming the streets.

 

Don't you think it would be better if we gave this guy a lawyer so he could get off? He clearly doesn't know about his right to remain silent because of the Bush administration. If we gave him a lawyer to teach him, he would get out and go back home to tell everyone how great a country America was to him. He would be like the Yakov Smirnoff of the Middle East and instead of recruiting more terrorists like the current policy promotes, he would help recruit more friends or maybe start a comedy routine which promotes American ideals.

 

The best thing would be if we caught Bin Laden and gave him a trial and he got off. Then the world would see how great we are. Right now, they can't see it.

 

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." - Silvan Engel

[ieatcrayonz]

The question was about if he was innocent of the charges I had outlined and only those charges without taking anything else into account as if those were the only charges. I guess I didn't make that clear.

You are right to ignore truck bombings as they are really no big deal. Who needs trucks anyways?

 

Maybe if we put everything into tiny little boxes and got real specific we could release all criminals and terrorists worldwide. They would see how nice we are and help us.

 

They always say you attract more flies with sugar than with a pile of steaming dog crap. I'm not calling these guys flies but it is the best analogy I can think up. We have too much analogous steaming dog crap in our policy. If we showed these analogous non-flies a little more analogous sugar, I am sure they would talk us up back home.

[ieatcrayonz]

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." - Silvan Engel

Quoting hippies does not make you sound smarter. It makes people think you smell bad and smoke pot and wonder aloud "what if blue was really red, and red was really blue."

[yall]

Here's a better example;

 

Linkage

 

In December 2005, a U.S. federal judge said of the men's detainment, "This indefinite imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay is unlawful."

 

Michael Sternell, a lawyer who represents three of the men on behalf of law firm Kramer, Levin, Naftalis and Frankel told ABC News, "These men have suffered more than anyone should ever have to in a lifetime in just the last four-and-a-half years. They were detained simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time."

 

Q: What was Guantanamo like?

 

A: Guantanamo is like a hell where there is no justice or respect for human dignity. Our life there was very, very miserable, especially the last one year after being told that we are innocent and still living behind wired walls. We feel confused, frustrated and tired. I would call the worst period of time of my four years incarceration in Guantanamo.

 

The saddest part of the whole thing is that after being cleared, no longer enemy combatants, or innocent. Being innocent people, we were told that we have no rights but shelter, food, water and a place to pray. Given that, that place is not the normal, usual prison. So I would say that it is a hell.

 

Your example shows that the innocents are slowly being cleared. We may not like the timeline, certainly the process should be sped up within reason. But I still doubt there is torture and a total suspension of habeas corpus if people are eventually being released.

[DC Tom]

Here's a better example;

 

Linkage

 

In December 2005, a U.S. federal judge said of the men's detainment, "This indefinite imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay is unlawful."

 

Michael Sternell, a lawyer who represents three of the men on behalf of law firm Kramer, Levin, Naftalis and Frankel told ABC News, "These men have suffered more than anyone should ever have to in a lifetime in just the last four-and-a-half years. They were detained simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time."

 

Q: What was Guantanamo like?

 

A: Guantanamo is like a hell where there is no justice or respect for human dignity. Our life there was very, very miserable, especially the last one year after being told that we are innocent and still living behind wired walls. We feel confused, frustrated and tired. I would call the worst period of time of my four years incarceration in Guantanamo.

 

The saddest part of the whole thing is that after being cleared, no longer enemy combatants, or innocent. Being innocent people, we were told that we have no rights but shelter, food, water and a place to pray. Given that, that place is not the normal, usual prison. So I would say that it is a hell.

 

 

Says the lawyer for the defense.

[Steely Dan]

Your example shows that the innocents are slowly being cleared. We may not like the timeline, certainly the process should be sped up within reason. But I still doubt there is torture and a total suspension of habeas corpus if people are eventually being released.

 

You doubt there was torture after a prisoner released said there was and the International Red Cross said there was. Keep the blinders on they help you see things the way you like to see them.

 

They are now. Did you miss the part where a judge had to tell the Bush Administration in 2005 that it was illegal to detain them forever? If it wasn't for judges finally being able to tell the Bush Administration how far they've gone in breaking all the rules they would still be detained. It is only by bi-partisan Congressional action that these things are finally taking place.

 

The Bush Administration has done so many things they knew were illegal in so many ways domestically and internationally that I can't believe you'd be defending them on any level. I guess you don't agree with the American system of being innocent until proven guilty. I happen to love the Constitution and think it should be obeyed. The judges hearing the prisoners cases obviously agree that the spirit if not the actual Constitution is being violated in these situations.

 

Why weren't those prisoners treated better after being cleared. I think that would have been easy to do.

[Steely Dan]

Says the lawyer for the defense.

 

Yeah, it must be a lie.

 

BTW, how's your understanding of habeas corpus in relation to prisoners going? I haven't heard you comment since I proved you wrong. Why is it I can admit my mistakes but you can't admit yours?

[DC Tom]

Yeah, it must be a lie.

 

No, I'm sure defense attorneys tell the unvarnished truth on behalf of their clients.

 

 

You're kidding, right? They have an axe to grind, just like the people that run the camp. You'd be a fool to take either of them at face value.

 

BTW, how's your understanding of habeas corpus in relation to prisoners going? I haven't heard you comment since I proved you wrong. Why is it I can admit my mistakes but you can't admit yours?

 

Wherever you think you proved me wrong, I didn't see it. Habeas corpus does not apply to POWs. You didn't prove me wrong; there is no argument. For habeas corpus to apply, they would need to be subject to US law, which is forbidden by the Geneva Convention. Period.

[Steely Dan]

No, I'm sure defense attorneys tell the unvarnished truth on behalf of their clients.

 

 

You're kidding, right? They have an axe to grind, just like the people that run the camp. You'd be a fool to take either of them at face value.

 

Wherever you think you proved me wrong, I didn't see it. Habeas corpus does not apply to POWs. You didn't prove me wrong; there is no argument. For habeas corpus to apply, they would need to be subject to US law, which is forbidden by the Geneva Convention. Period.

 

Yeah, when you ignore the part where I site the International Red Cross it makes that so much easier to defend your point doesn't it?

 

Steely Dan post Yesterday, 06:20 PM

 

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.

 

I'm sorry somehow I thought that meant that the U.S. has always given detainees the right of habeas corpus. I also interpreted it to mean that it has been a part of free and open societies for centuries since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 but I'm probably misinterpreting that somehow.

[DC Tom]

Yeah, when you ignore the part where I site the International Red Cross it makes that so much easier to defend your point doesn't it?

 

Steely Dan post Yesterday, 06:20 PM

 

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.

 

I'm sorry somehow I thought that meant that the U.S. has always given detainees the right of habeas corpus. I also interpreted it to mean that it has been a part of free and open societies for centuries since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 but I'm probably misinterpreting that somehow.

 

No, the criminal justice system gives the right of habeas corpus to people detained under the criminal justice system. HABEAS CORPUS DOES NOT APPLY TO PRISONERS OF WAR, because they are not subject to the criminal justice system of the detaining country according to the Geneva Convention. I don't care that the ICRC says otherwise (they don't, by the way - note they say "prisoners", not "prisoners of war". Even they dodge the question of the legal status of the Gitmo detainees). THE LAW says that habeas corpus does not apply to prisoners of war, a point of law that has been upheld in court (e.g. Eisentrager: "a nonresedient enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime", and

 

"A resident enemy alien is constitutionally subject to summary arrest, internment and deportation whenever a "declared war" exists. Courts will entertain his plea for freedom from executive custody only to ascertain the existence of a state of war and whether he is an alien enemy. Once these jurisdictional facts have been determined, courts will not inquire into any other issue as to his internment.

 

A nonresident enemy alien, especially one who has remained in the service of the enemy, does not have even this qualified access to our courts.

 

These nonresident enemy aliens, captured and imprisoned abroad, have no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States.

 

The Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States.

 

The term "any person" in the Fifth Amendment does not extend its protection to alien enemies everywhere in the world engaged in hostilities against us.

 

That is a matter of interntational law and treaty codified in US judicial process. POWs do not have a right to habeas corpus. Criminals do.

 

(And that, by the way, is how you "prove" something. Not by quoting some ambiguous statement by the ICRC.)

 

 

Which brings us right back to where we started: do you want them treated as criminals under the US justice system (in which case habeas corpus is in effect, and they go free because of the violation of posse comitatus if detained by the military or jurisdictional violations if detained by, say, the FBI)? Or do you want them treated as POWs under the Geneva Convention (in which case they go free, given that their actions are unsanctioned by nation-states, and hence are a judicial matter having nothing to do with warfare)? Or we could just go with your earlier suggestion...just follow parts of the Geneva Convention without resolving their legal status in any way, and thereby feel good about ourselves while accomplishing precisely jack sh--.

 

Or we could actually try to resolve the ambiguity of their legal status. Fascinating idea, that.

[VABills]

No, the criminal justice system gives the right of habeas corpus to people detained under the criminal justice system. HABEAS CORPUS DOES NOT APPLY TO PRISONERS OF WAR, because they are not subject to the criminal justice system of the detaining country according to the Geneva Convention. I don't care that the ICRC says otherwise (they don't, by the way - note they say "prisoners", not "prisoners of war". Even they dodge the question of the legal status of the Gitmo detainees). THE LAW says that habeas corpus does not apply to prisoners of war, a point of law that has been upheld in court (e.g. Eisentrager: "a nonresedient enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime", and

 

 

 

That is a matter of interntational law and treaty codified in US judicial process. POWs do not have a right to habeas corpus. Criminals do.

 

(And that, by the way, is how you "prove" something. Not by quoting some ambiguous statement by the ICRC.)

 

 

Which brings us right back to where we started: do you want them treated as criminals under the US justice system (in which case habeas corpus is in effect, and they go free because of the violation of posse comitatus if detained by the military or jurisdictional violations if detained by, say, the FBI)? Or do you want them treated as POWs under the Geneva Convention (in which case they go free, given that their actions are unsanctioned by nation-states, and hence are a judicial matter having nothing to do with warfare)? Or we could just go with your earlier suggestion...just follow parts of the Geneva Convention without resolving their legal status in any way, and thereby feel good about ourselves while accomplishing precisely jack sh--.

 

Or we could actually try to resolve the ambiguity of their legal status. Fascinating idea, that.

 

Tom, you do know that only "foreign combatants" are supposed to be in gitmo. Hence they are not prisoners of war, but rather are to be considered more like spies. No rights. None. The tribunals are crap, and honestly if we followed letter of law these guys should have been tortured for info and then given battlefield executions. They are not criminals, they are not prisoners of war. The are foreign agents.

[DC Tom]

Tom, you do know that only "foreign combatants" are supposed to be in gitmo. Hence they are not prisoners of war, but rather are to be considered more like spies. No rights. None. The tribunals are crap, and honestly if we followed letter of law these guys should have been tortured for info and then given battlefield executions. They are not criminals, they are not prisoners of war. The are foreign agents.

 

It's very arguable that they are universally equivalent to spies. Under international law, to be considered "agents" subject to summary execution, they would have to be operating under the authority of a sanctioning nation - which is the crux of the problem. They're not. They operate under their own ex-national authority...which traditionally would be a criminal matter, save that no one has criminal jurisdiction over them. The only conceivable way that works otherwise is if you posit that al-Qaeda members fighting in Afghanistan were sanctioned by the legitimate Afghani government (i.e. the Taleban), which is a pretty questionable proposition. Again, their legal status isn't clear.

 

And yes, I do know that foreign combattants (the legally recognized term is "enemy combattants") only are supposed to be in Gitmo. Legally, if any American citizen is in Gitmo, they have a legitimate right to habeas corpus under US law, judicial decision, and tradition (considering that treason - the only real reason any American should be held in Gitmo - is a judicial matter, and not one of military or international law). Non-resident aliens captured overseas engaged in hostilities unsanctioned by another country, though...covered by neither international law nor US law (nor should they be covered by any US law - again, jurisdictional issues). Legally, the Gitmo detainees don't exist - but the solution isn't to arbitrarily give them more rights so you can sleep well at night while holding their legal status in abeyence. The solution is to resolve their friggin' legal status!!!