OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[Ylvali]

Well spoken llamabeast. But it is important to remember that Guantanamo is bit a small peice of a great puzzle. I am not convinced that "fixing" it makes much of a difference unless part of a massive program to abolish the practices it represents. Neither gitmo or Abu ghraib are unique in any way, they just happened to get exposed.

However, giving enemy combattants lawyers, and flying them to the united states and trying them in court is - lunacy.

Just like international law and human rights in general, right? You do know these rights are confirmed in several international agreements. But it sure seems like the american goverments have agreed with you so far, since those agreements have been sytematically violated for decades.

Furthermore since the trial is necessary to confirm the status of "enemy combattant" or "terrorist" your reasining falls because they are not (yet) confirmed as such when those rights are granted. Hence any rights cannot be denied for this reason until after trial.

I am not at all convinced Obama represents any real change on those issues, but I hope so.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Ylvali

Well spoken llamabeast. But it is important to remember that Guantanamo is bit a small peice of a great puzzle. I am not convinced that "fixing" it makes much of a difference unless part of a massive program to abolish the practices it represents. Neither gitmo or Abu ghraib are unique in any way, they just happened to get exposed.

Just like international law and human rights in general, right? You do know these rights are confirmed in several international agreements. But it sure seems like the american goverments have agreed with you so far, since those agreements have been sytematically violated for decades.

Furthermore since the trial is necessary to confirm the status of "enemy combattant" or "terrorist" your reasining falls because they are not (yet) confirmed as such when those rights are granted. Hence any rights cannot be denied for this reason until after trial.

I am not at all convinced Obama represents any real change on those issues, but I hope so.

Really, a great deal of this is uncalled for.

First: No, you are factually incorrect on several fronts. There are no laws giving US citizen rights to enemy combattants.
The rights of enemy combattants and governed by things like the Geneva conventions, and other documents.

Second: No, it has never been historically necessary to have a trial to determine that someone was an enemy combattant. Nor has it ever been established that you fly them to the United States, determine that an American Court has jurisdiction (if so, which, praytell?) and grant process the same as an American citizen.

Third: I do agree that human rights issues need to be addressed.
I do think the situation needs to be fixed. However, they are issues because they are difficult.

For example, the Geneva conventions apply, when both sides of a conflict are signatories, or so long as the non signatory respects the conventions of the geneva accord. Now, Al-Qaeda has not respected said conventions. But in fact it is probably not realistic to expect any terrorist movement to respect such conventions. So what then *are* the standards? Everyone agrees there should be standards, but I don't know what they are - and more to the point - I don't know anyone who does.

Secondly, something like 40% of the detainees who were released were caught again in conflict with americans. So they as a class basis, they represent a threat to american servicemen.

Thirdly - if you are going to bring them to american courts - which court. How do you determine standing?

American courts give the defendent the ability to question his opponents. Are you going to allow enemy combattants to ability to make american soldiers appear in court - while they are involved in military action?

So lets suppose that some of these people are guilty. You've brought them to the US. Now you are going to send them to jails in the US? So you're going to take an extremist who want to blow up people - and you're going to jail them with people who might have an ax to grind. Fertile recruiting grounds, indeed.

And these are just problems off the top of my head.


For those that don't read my posts, but rather just jump in and pile on with criticism, I'll say it again: I'm in favor of fixing the problem. Hearing someone say they are going to close down gitmo - with a lack of other details - does not inspire me to believe that the problems (for there are several) will be considered, let alone fixed. It rather much appears as if you are pandering to public opinion rather than actually considering the issues. As I said in the ealier post, its a decision that should take the best minds. The AG, SoS, JCS, SoD - etc.

You announce that you want to convene at camp david to brain storm what to do about Gitmo - I'd applaud.

Announce that you want to draft legislation on what to do about non-signatory resistance movements - I'd applaud.

Just announce that you are going to close gitmo.. without announcing how you are going to solve these other issues - and I am way less than impressed.

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

For example, the Geneva conventions apply, when both sides of a conflict are signatories, or so long as the non signatory respects the conventions of the geneva accord. Now, Al-Qaeda has not respected said conventions. But in fact it is probably not realistic to expect any terrorist movement to respect such conventions. So what then *are* the standards? Everyone agrees there should be standards, but I don't know what they are - and more to the point - I don't know anyone who does.

Something of an issue that I have with this paragraph, the Geneva conventions are being ratified by countries, not associations.
They cover how to treat prisoners of war, and other types of "combattants". The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants", a new term that was invented by the US government under Bush during the war on terrorism. The US-american courts are increasingly adopting a position that differs from the government on this.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by lch

Something of an issue that I have with this paragraph, the Geneva conventions are being ratified by countries, not associations.
They cover how to treat prisoners of war, and other types of "combattants". The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants", a new term that was invented by the US government under Bush during the war on terrorism. The US-american courts are increasingly adopting a position that differs from the government on this.

Factually not true. Combattants as you say, are covered so long as they *always* wear something that visually identifies them as member of a militia or resistance group.

Part of the hallmark of a guerilla or terrorist group is the need to slip into the civilian population. Hence, why I said it was unlikely that Al-Qaeda or similar would be, or could be expected to, follow the convention.

This is just one of multiple complex reasons.

Hence it is incorrect to say that the United States violated the Geneva convention.

Go read Title III of the Geneva conventions to see what I mean.
I for one would argue that there should be standards. However, there are none as I know them now, and hard to imagine the process by which they would be developped. Russia in Georgia, China in Tibet, Myanmar in general, Israel in Palestine, Spain with the Basques - each of these countries would have different national goals and perspectives - and developing an accord would be difficult.

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Factually not true. Combattants as you say, are covered so long as they *always* wear something that visually identifies them as member of a militia or resistance group.

Doesn't conflict with what I said. Yes, that's the case. My main beef with your paragraph was that you said something which made it sound like Al-Quaeda had to ratify the Geneva conventions in order to benefit from it.

The rest what I wrote is true as well. And IMHO it's a good thing that the courts allow themselves to deviate from the government line if they consider it unlawful. for that.

[Ylvali]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Really, a great deal of this is uncalled for.

First: No, you are factually incorrect on several fronts. There are no laws giving US citizen rights to enemy combattants.
The rights of enemy combattants and governed by things like the Geneva conventions, and other documents.

You misunderstand me a bit here. I meant that the right to a fair trial is granted by the declaration of human rights. I agree that this might differ from the rights of a US citizen, but it does include similar aspects. Like having a lawyer defending you etc...

Second: No, it has never been historically necessary to have a trial to determine that someone was an enemy combattant. Nor has it ever been established that you fly them to the United States, determine that an American Court has jurisdiction (if so, which, praytell?) and grant process the same as an American citizen.

Perhaps not. But I am talking about terrorist suspects here. The habit of calling those "enemy combattants" is very questionable. They are suspected criminals, and just like other crimes you need a trial to confirm or discard that suspicion. The problem is not whether to try them in the US or somewhere else, but to ensure that the right to fair trial is granted. It weren´t for those detained at gitmo. And it still isn´t to those detained in less famous prison camps around the world.

Third: I do agree that human rights issues need to be addressed.
I do think the situation needs to be fixed. However, they are issues because they are difficult.

For example, the Geneva conventions apply, when both sides of a conflict are signatories, or so long as the non signatory respects the conventions of the geneva accord. Now, Al-Qaeda has not respected said conventions. But in fact it is probably not realistic to expect any terrorist movement to respect such conventions. So what then *are* the standards? Everyone agrees there should be standards, but I don't know what they are - and more to the point - I don't know anyone who does.

You could start by granting them basic human rights. That is a resonable minimum standard don´t you think? Including for example the right not to be tortured or detained without trial:

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

IMO these standards would suffice, if they were actually used. No need to argue about "enemy combattant" or not, as these rights apply to everyone.

Secondly, something like 40% of the detainees who were released were caught again in conflict with americans. So they as a class basis, they represent a threat to american servicemen.

Um, ok. I don´t see what you want to prove, argue for or imply with this.

Thirdly - if you are going to bring them to american courts - which court. How do you determine standing?

American courts give the defendent the ability to question his opponents. Are you going to allow enemy combattants to ability to make american soldiers appear in court - while they are involved in military action?

So lets suppose that some of these people are guilty. You've brought them to the US. Now you are going to send them to jails in the US? So you're going to take an extremist who want to blow up people - and you're going to jail them with people who might have an ax to grind. Fertile recruiting grounds, indeed.

Well, I agree that american courts (or jails) are not optimal for these cases. A more secure system of international courts tied to the UN might be preferable. I know I´d prefer to be tried in such a court over an american one that might be biased against me.

...Just announce that you are going to close gitmo.. without announcing how you are going to solve these other issues - and I am way less than impressed.

I agree with this. It looks like it is mostly for show. My bet is that torture and summary detainment will remain one of the standard tactics for repressive systems around the world. Gitmo or not.

[lch]

Originally Posted by Ylvali

Well, I agree that american courts (or jails) are not optimal for these cases. A more secure system of international courts tied to the UN might be preferable. I know I´d prefer to be tried in such a court over an american one that might be biased against me.

You may not be aware how little appreciation a lot of US Americans have for the UN. The plan sounds good, but it won't find many friends in the US.

[licker]

Originally Posted by lch

You may not be aware how little appreciation a lot of US Americans have for the UN. The plan sounds good, but it won't find many friends in the US.

Chuckle...

You spend much time in south carolina lch?

[Humakty]

Yeah, Guantanamo is too much, they should have done as before : torture them on the spot. I mean, isn't it a sign of responsibility to admit you have concentration camps for people you don't like ?

Jokes put aside : there aren't hundreds of way to obtain info people won't give you.

[Agema]

I would say that the US, as inherited from Britain and the Magna Carta, is established on the Rule Of Law. The rule of law in America I believe also states quite unambiguously, as an essential premise, that all should be equal before the eyes of the law. It doesn't matter whether it's a foreign terrorist or a local pickpocket. I cannot say enough how much that is a principle America or any other civilised nation should be proud of, admired for, and right to uphold.

Currently, Guantanamo Bay humiliates the above principles. If you're American, you may have no idea how much it harms your national reputation in the eyes of the world. Bush, and therefore the US government, has caused the mess. If the next administration needs to make some unpalatable decisions to clear it up and restore the nation's honour, so be it.