Report: U.S. may turn Guantanamo Bay into "death camp"

[Art]

Jimbo,

I'm not sure I share the Fantasy Island world you live in where you can make statements like American justice has always lacked a certain indiscriminate nature. We've been some of the most historically indiscriminate deliverers of justice the world has ever seen. We've firebombed whole cities. Targeted entire populations. Eradicated civilizations. We've won. We've won. We've won.

We've NEVER been true to the American sense of justice to those who are not Americans. I'd have an IMMENSE problem if we started giving these idiots the rights of Americans. I'd be shocked if every American wouldn't agree completely with that sentiment. Which means I'm growing shocked .

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Art

We've been some of the most historically indiscriminate deliverers of justice the world has ever seen. We've firebombed whole cities. Targeted entire populations. Eradicated civilizations. We've won. We've won. We've won.

We've NEVER been true to the American sense of justice to those who are not Americans. I'd have an IMMENSE problem if we started giving these idiots the rights of Americans. I'd be shocked if every American wouldn't agree completely with that sentiment. Which means I'm growing shocked .

Art, thanks for this post. It's a thing of clear, ideological beauty.

This reminds of something I read a while back about the Ten Commandments. Most modern people would say those commandments were given as moral guidelines for how mankind should treat each other. I was surprised to read that this was not the original and traditional Jewish reading of those commandments: instead, the commandments dictated how Jews should treat other Jews. As for treatment of others: no holds barred.

This, in short, is apparently your reading of American judicial principles. That is, you believe we do not have principles based on the "natural rights of man" (a John Locke assertion that founded English and American law), but rather we have principles based on the "natural rights of American citizens" and little or no principles for others.

I disagree.

As for your drive-by survey of American carnage, these were acts of war that occurred in declared wars between combatant countries. You seem not to perceive a distinction between the necessary brutality of declared wars and the unnecessary brutality of secret trials and executions.

[Art]

ASF,

I'd submit to you that the people we currently have in Cuba would have been dead bodies in previous American combat eras. And judicial principles don't fall on every world citizen. The only people who believe in a world government are people who believe the U.S. should render itself meaningless. The U.S. has always accorded Americans rights that the rest of the world hasn't gotten. And if you disagree with that, that's fine. You just can't disagree that it's been the overriding principle of our administration of justice throughout time.

[redman]

We're fighting a different kind of war, one in which the struggle and everything at stake in it is very much "warlike", but where the combatants on one side and the way they fight operate more like a criminal syndicate. In essence, they've sought to bend the rules, to blend in, to fight their war in the disguise of civilians in various countries, including our own. I'll be d*mned if I'm going to play their game consider them to be the equivalent of American (or any other country's) citizens with all of the rights and privileges accorded thereto given the game they're playing. They've decided to try to use the rules of the civilized world against the civilized world in their war. That can't be allowed to happen.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Art

I'd submit to you that the people we currently have in Cuba would have been dead bodies in previous American combat eras.

That's speculative, Art. We can't know that, especially because we have almost no information about who these people are, why they were apprehended, in what circumstances they were apprehended, what the specific allegations are against each individual, and what proof we have to support those allegations.

The only thing I know for certain is that these people fell under the power of the American military, and the battlefield GIs and special forces -- no swooning ACLU members -- made a battlefield decision to take them under custody instead of killing them. That says a lot to me. Among other things, it says that most of these people probably surrendered, probably surrendered thinking they were POWs with international rights, and the GIs who took possession of them probably thought they were taking POWs, material witnesses or terrorists who would be prosecuted under the due process of American or international law.

Surrender during warfare, particularly since the Geneva Conventions, brings a set of assumptions that are understood by both the surrendering party and the apprehending party -- assumptions that cross language and national boundaries.

People used to think they knew what it meant to raise a white flag and surrender to American troops. It's not simply a gesture of defeat, but rather a gesture of trust. And one reason we want to reward such trust is because the alternative is worse: wars fought until every last man is killed, even every civilian killed, because the people facing American firepower simply do not trust that they will be treated fairly as prisoners. We grant fair treatment not merely for altruism, but also to end wars more quickly, compel surrenders swiftly, and spare our own GIs even one more hour of danger on the front lines.

[redman]

Surrender during warfare is caused by the hope - not necessarily the expectation - that one will not be tortured or killed. If they wanted to "save their bacon" (pun/malaprop intended!) that was their choice. But it doesn't suddenly transform them from an illegal combatant into a legal one.

[Riggo-toni]

POWs are normally kept in camps until the war is over. So I guess once the war against terror ends, we should let them go, that is, if they're still alive 50 years from now...

The German terrorist group "Red Army Faction" took advantage of open trials of their cohorts by studying the evidence in order to learn how to avoid getting caught in future operations. With every trial, those who remained standing became more and more dangerous. Al Quaeda similarly took advantage of info gleaned from the '93 trials of Ramzi Yousef and others. The judge from that trial last I heard is still under 24-hour police protection, ten years later. Keep the trials/tribunals private.

[Larry]

Art,

Leaving aside the evidence that suggests that at least one of the people being held in Cuba is an american citizen. (Granted, it was a month after he was taken before the government admitted that he was taken. And, let's ignore the people who're willing to assume that every single person there deserves to be there, therefore there doesn't have to be any effort to actualy review the prisioner's status.)

The problem I have with the position that rights only apply to members of one group, is that all someone has to do to deny rights to you, is simply decide that your'e not part of the "right" group. And, our government is steadfastly insisting that there doesn't need to be any due process (or at least, no process that they'll actually reveal) involved in how to actually decide which group somebody belongs to.

It's the same problem I have when people wonder how an attourny can defend some (they always seem to forget the word "accused") child molester: If the attorney doesn't defend the (accused) child molester, then the jury isn't determining guilt any more, the attorney is.

[Art]

Larry,

I don't know what to tell you guy. These guys aren't prisoners of war because they don't qualify as prisoners of war under the terms of the Geneva Convention. So, you can't have that as your point of view, because we can't make them something they aren't. These guys also aren't criminals in terms of being available for trial in the U.S. because they were captured during war-time actions by our military.

It has nothing to do with being in any group. These guys AREN'T in any group you want them to be in. They are a different classification and due different rights and that we treat them so well as we do is simply a tribute to our country as a whole.

As for an American citizen who is captured in a foreign land in the process of having taken up arms against his country, the law states he's no longer entitled to the rights of other American citizens. He forfeits those rights. All they have to do is catch him with a gun on a battlefield and he's done.

People have been released from Cuba. There's obviously a process in place for determining an individual's status whether some of you want to believe it or not.

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by Art

People have been released from Cuba. There's obviously a process in place for determining an individual's status whether some of you want to believe it or not.

Amen!

By the way, I find the term "Death Camp" in the title of this thread horrendously slanderous.

[fansince62]

how about we acknowledge some of the hidden assumptions and prejuidices here....ASF can spew the anti-American flotsam we have all become accustomed to, but he nevertheless has no idea or facts on which to base the assumtion that trial by military court procedures would not abide by rigorous evidentiary requirements, active defense and fair judgment. He can only spitefully assert his politically motivated accusations. And this latter point is the true objective of "public" trials - an opportunity to politicize the global struggle that is presently being fought.

To be brutally honest....I don't give a flying *uck anymore about the hysteria that apparently keeps ASF breathing and thinking. There is a group of people who hold power that are determined to eliminate the threat. The tolerance for indecision is low and action is being taken. Once the threat is removed, we can get back to the BS conversations that flood our popular columns every day from those who risk very little but, by all appearances, are willing to lie, decieve and misdirect. Until then, the ASFs of the world are simply to be ignored........that's what's happening right now....get used to it......your brand of justice has wrought not but dead Americans over the last quarter century........

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by Art

Jimbo,

I'm not sure I share the Fantasy Island world you live in where you can make statements like American justice has always lacked a certain indiscriminate nature. We've been some of the most historically indiscriminate deliverers of justice the world has ever seen. We've firebombed whole cities. Targeted entire populations. Eradicated civilizations. We've won. We've won. We've won.

We've NEVER been true to the American sense of justice to those who are not Americans. I'd have an IMMENSE problem if we started giving these idiots the rights of Americans. I'd be shocked if every American wouldn't agree completely with that sentiment. Which means I'm growing shocked .

Art, you are so far outside the mainstream that I don't believe you're EVER shocked to find your views in the minority.

I'm glad you can comfort yourself with phrases like "indiscriminate deliverers of justice", it must be fun living in ArtyWorld. I'm under no illusions that the US has historically been a Pollyanna, strange that your comprehension is slipping a bit. It is you who seems to accept as an article of faith that there will be an adequate process in place. Even less do I trust our current commander in chief to control those cowboy instincts for frontier justice. Nor do I trust people like you, who have already decided all of these prisoners are "idiots".

Drawing a parallel to citywide firebombing is absurd. Its one thing to incur civilian casualties during battle. Its another to wantonly slaughter helpless prisoners without trying to establish their status. One is an act of war, the other an act of vengence. And murder.

But wait, because "we won", that makes it OK? Nope. Let the enemy pay the price of death, I've no problem with that. Lets just make sure who's neck the noose is around before tightening the rope.

[Art]

Jimbo,

What battle was fought in and around Dresden when we firebombed and targeted the civilian population? Right. None . My views here are not one bit outside of the mainstream and it's a scary concept that there are people out there who actually deem that Americans aren't accorded the rights of Americans, but, all the world's people are.

Still, that's amusing aspect No. 2 of your reply. The most amusing thought is that "I'm under no illusions that the US has historically been a Pollyanna, strange that your comprehension is slipping a bit." But, oddly, based on your previous statement, "As long as we're true to an American sense of justice and not indiscriminate, I have no problem with it," it would appear your own ability to track your own commentary is slipping more so than my comprehension.

In fact, you acknowledge we've not been historically a Pollyanna immediately after stating that as long as we are true to our historical Pollyanna actions that you're cool. So, really, you've created a way not to be cool with it because you recognize that historically we've been among the world's greatest indiscriminant deliverers of justice.

Yes, I am comforted that there are appropriate processes in place to account for these fools down in Cuba. You see, I know, as you do, that already some have been released, meaning there are clearly measures for processing these men that allow for freedom and better yet, I'm not so pathetically childlike that I'd allow myself to think people rounded up in the mountain caves of Afghanistan are somehow noncombatants. However, given that we've already released some, it would go to figure we've found some percentage of these folks as either noncombatants or non-threats.

Which, again, allieviates your concern that we would be indiscriminate in the ultimate end of the majority of these jacka$$es, so, in the end, you are happy after all and we rejoice at such conclusions. Since you want to make sure who's neck is in the noose and you are aware that we are assuring we know precisely who's neck is in the noose, you should be a powerful proponent of our careful deliberations in this instance.

I await your appearance on the right side here .

[Sarge]

First, let me pose a fairly obvious question: since Afghanistan had little semblance of a regular military, didn't the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan instantly make almost anyone who resisted in danger of being declared "an unlawful combatant"?

Was that conveniant or what? Guess if they really gave a rat's a$$ about the people defending their little terrorist fifedom, they would have thought about that.

Second, in a conflict of this sort (fundamentally a guerilla campaign), isn't it highly difficult to distinguish between the usual categories of "enemy combatant", "non-combatant" and "unlawful combatant"?

And the problem is..........? Basically, anyone with a gun is legit to shoot at.

Third, doesn't such uncertainty by default place most of these prisoners in the category of "undetermined status" until their status is determined by properly constituted tribunal? Until such resolution through due process, aren't these prisoners by your own field manual subject to the POW rights afforded by the Geneva conventions?

No. Since a war was not declared, we are not obliged to treat them by the Geneva Convention. The fact that we give them three hots and a cot, showers, their own little koran to further their radical beliefs and their very own personal U.S. GI to tell them which way is east so they can pray, is probably a lot better than they deserve and a testament to us as a people that we treat them so well. It's a lot better than the treatment our guys received in iraq when they got a bullet to the back of their heads.

Fourth, how can we know whether these prisoners have even been told of their right to appeal for POW status?

Don't know, don't care. A better question is, how can we know if all those people in the Pentagon and Twin Towers were told they were going to die on Sept 11th. Didn't they have aright to know they weren't going home that afternoon.

Sixth, why is the U.S. government interested more in secrecy and denial of prisoner's rights than proving guilt in open court, where the world can be shown the just nature of U.S. law and U.S. prosecutions? Does not our confidence in our own government require that we be shown the fairness of our judicial proceedings, particulary in capital cases like these -- and particularly when entire U.S. acts of war are based on the unproven presumption of enemy guilt?

I would think that the government would want to avoid the spectacle of an OJ trial. All the prisoners have to do is request that the case be tried in LA or the FL Supreme Court, and they'll walk. Additionally, you need to do some research on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is based on the U.S. Constitution and actually demands stricter criteria of proof in order to convict . They'll get a fair shake. Then we'll take them out back and shoot them.

[JimboDaMan]

Well Art, it seems you are not pathetically childlike enough to believe some of those taken prisoner are non-combatants, but in the next sentence you acknowledge that some have already been released, apparently being noncombatants. This is getting rather worrisome, Art. I hope its not the early onset of something horrible.

[gbear]

Fansince 62,

Your post actually reminds me of someone: Sharon of Israel.

You say "your brand of justice has wrought not but dead Americans over the last quarter century"

With our attempts to live by a just code and not escalate to a war of attrocities vs. Israel's retaliation (though perhaps logical and certainly understandable), which approach has seen less terrorist attacks on it's civilian population?

Can anyone read this thread and not get the "make them pay for 9-11 and ever raising a gun against us" gist? The only question I can ask at this point is "At what point is it not justice but vengance?"

As I look at Middle Eastern history over the past 100 years, all I see is tragedy down the vengance path.

[Sarge]

Oh, and when we start building giant shower rooms complete with nozzles to emit poison gas and ovens big enough to roast humans by the bushel, then these pricks can start calling them "death camps".

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by Air Sarge

Oh, and when we start building giant shower rooms complete with nozzles to emit poison gas and ovens big enough to roast humans by the bushel, then these pricks can start calling them "death camps".

Agreed.

[NavyDave]

Ribs, Ham, Chops and bacon they are good for ya dude come on over to the Right Side.

Real Men arent bleeding hearts.

We would have been better off just taking them out including those American Taliban scum.

Guess its a good thing I am out.

R.O.E. and trying to be a compassionate warrior while carrying a M16 and being shot at would not produce the results some of you want.

[fansince62]

...it's grand to be philosophical while others assume the risks...I thought I was being more blunt. I'm not much interested any longer in the delicacies of international diplomacy, incremental moralism or equity suffering (read justice in some quarters).....I simply do not care any longer. the terrorists must be killed and anyone/nation who succors them must be dealt with severely. this is about the exercise of power pure and simple. those arguiing the loudest...very often are doing the least...........

[JimboDaMan]

fan, all I want to know is, if by some bizarre string of events your parents, or wife, or kids, are swept up in this...matters not how, just that they are well and truly innocent. But its OK to shoot them, right? Because "incremental moralism" is for weaklings, right?

[fansince62]

JimboDaMan....dwell on with your hypotheticals.......I can conjure any also that fit any hyperventillating which suits my purposes.....

but back in the real world...that won't happen........so, in our outcome dominated times, I'm not terribly worried

we now live in a world dominated by outcomes......just ask the dems filibustering a nomination that has the votes: true "democracy" in action.....

but.....yea...I'm willing to dispense with closely held/cherished "principles".......they apparently don't mean much far as I can tell..........everything now is judged on a case specific, personal "feelings" basis anyway. why should I be concerned with the rights of Taliban/Al Queda freedom fighters when no one on this board has singled out the rights/justice for 3000 murdered victims in oh....a very long time? it's all an academic exercise, right? something to wax philosophical about from a distance, but not worth getting into the mud over. easier to hire someone to do that.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by fansince62

JimboDaMan....dwell on with your hypotheticals.......I can conjure any also that fit any hyperventillating which suits my purposes.....

but back in the real world...that won't happen........so, in our outcome dominated times, I'm not terribly worried

we now live in a world dominated by outcomes......just ask the dems filibustering a nomination that has the votes: true "democracy" in action.....

fan, just curious: are those ellipses actual blackouts for you?

seizures?

different dimensions?

visions of eating babies?

It's like you're *almost* here........slipping in.......slipping out.......tell us what it's like out there.......somebody's got to pay......hurts so bad.....kill them......kill them......kill them all.....god it hurts......KILL THEM NOW.....KILL KILL KILL.......

[fansince62]

ASF...why haven't you packed your bags yet? despairing minds want to know!!!!

you're such a noble guy.........thank god we are blessed with your balanced, nuanced outlook on life!

i would have thought that punctuation, order, sense mattered rather little to you as you drift about in your personal solar system of conspiracies, power grabs, and Jew bating....

semper sly!!!!

[gbear]

So it doesn't concern anyone that the whole "we'll wipe them out where ever they may be" thing has been tried multiple times? It doesn't matter that it has resulted in year after year of more blood shed?

Israel after the olympic masacre...England with the IRA...Israel after most recent attacks moving in, occupying territories, buldozing homes. I'm not saying it isn't justified. I'm saying it doesn't work. The blood shed continues as long as that is the approach. It's interesting that so many can see it on a thread about what Israel should do, but when it comes time to what we should do...

Of course not. This is like a bad Norv story. Atleast with Norv we got "What we do works." We've replaced that with "What we do doesn't work, but it will make me feel better.":doh:

Incrimental moralism my a$$! How about effective moralism?