Gitmo.....what is the truth?
Thread Starter
Gitmo.....what is the truth?
Writer's Bio....
http://www.richardminiter.com/bio/index.html
A DEADLY KINDNESS
By RICHARD MINITER
September 15, 2006 -- GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA
ON the military plane back from America's most fa mous terrorist holding pen, the in-flight film was "V for Vendetta," a screed that tries to justify terrorism. It was a fitting end to a surreal, military-sponsored trip.
The Pentagon seemed to be hoping to disarm its critics by showing them how well it cares for captured terrorists. The trip was more alarming than disarming. I spent several hours with Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., who heads the joint task force that houses and interrogates the detainees. (The military isn't allowed to call them "prisoners.")
Harris, a distinguished Navy veteran who was born in Japan and educated at Annapolis and Harvard, is a serious man trying to do a politically impossible job. I spoke with him at length, and with a dozen other officers and guards, and visited three different detention blocks.
The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives.
The politically correct regulations are unbelievable. Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption. They are entitled to a minimum of two hours of outdoor recreation per day.
Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)
Interrogations are not video or audio taped, perhaps to preserve detainee privacy.
Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous. Adm. Harris admitted to me that a multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.
And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.
Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How? Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.
That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.
There is little doubt what this note-passing and weapons-making is used for. The military recorded 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct from July 2005 to August 2006 - an average of more than eight incidents per day. Some are nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.
One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.
The kinder we are to terrorists, the harsher we are to their potential victims.
Striking the balance between these two goods (humane treatment, foreknowledge of deadly attacks) is difficult, but the Bush administration seems to lean too far in the direction of the detainees. No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on.
What if a detainee confesses a weakness (like fear of the dark) to a doctor that might be useful to interrogators, I asked the doctor in charge, would he share that information with them? "My job is not to make interrogations more efficient," he said firmly. He cited doctor-patient privacy. (He also asked that his name not be printed, citing the potential for al Qaeda retaliation.)
Food is strictly halal and averages 4,200 calories per day. (The guards eat the same chow as the detainees, unless they venture to one of the on-base fast-food joints.) Most prisoners have gained weight.
Much has been written about the elaborate and unprecedented appeal process. Detainees have their cases reviewed once a year and get rights roughly equivalent to criminals held in domestic prisons. I asked a military legal adviser: In what previous war were captured enemy combatants eligible for review before the war ended? None, he said.
America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.
Of Gitmo's several camps, military records show that the one with the most lenient rules is the one with the most incidents and vice versa. There is a lesson in this: We should worry less about detainee safety and more about our own.
Some 20 current detainees have direct personal knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and nearly everyone of the current 440 say they would honored to attack America again. Let's take them at their word.
Richard Miniter (richardminiter.com) is a bestselling author and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.
http://www.richardminiter.com/bio/index.html
A DEADLY KINDNESS
By RICHARD MINITER
September 15, 2006 -- GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA
ON the military plane back from America's most fa mous terrorist holding pen, the in-flight film was "V for Vendetta," a screed that tries to justify terrorism. It was a fitting end to a surreal, military-sponsored trip.
The Pentagon seemed to be hoping to disarm its critics by showing them how well it cares for captured terrorists. The trip was more alarming than disarming. I spent several hours with Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., who heads the joint task force that houses and interrogates the detainees. (The military isn't allowed to call them "prisoners.")
Harris, a distinguished Navy veteran who was born in Japan and educated at Annapolis and Harvard, is a serious man trying to do a politically impossible job. I spoke with him at length, and with a dozen other officers and guards, and visited three different detention blocks.
The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives.
The politically correct regulations are unbelievable. Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption. They are entitled to a minimum of two hours of outdoor recreation per day.
Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)
Interrogations are not video or audio taped, perhaps to preserve detainee privacy.
Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous. Adm. Harris admitted to me that a multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.
And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.
Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How? Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.
That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.
There is little doubt what this note-passing and weapons-making is used for. The military recorded 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct from July 2005 to August 2006 - an average of more than eight incidents per day. Some are nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.
One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.
The kinder we are to terrorists, the harsher we are to their potential victims.
Striking the balance between these two goods (humane treatment, foreknowledge of deadly attacks) is difficult, but the Bush administration seems to lean too far in the direction of the detainees. No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on.
What if a detainee confesses a weakness (like fear of the dark) to a doctor that might be useful to interrogators, I asked the doctor in charge, would he share that information with them? "My job is not to make interrogations more efficient," he said firmly. He cited doctor-patient privacy. (He also asked that his name not be printed, citing the potential for al Qaeda retaliation.)
Food is strictly halal and averages 4,200 calories per day. (The guards eat the same chow as the detainees, unless they venture to one of the on-base fast-food joints.) Most prisoners have gained weight.
Much has been written about the elaborate and unprecedented appeal process. Detainees have their cases reviewed once a year and get rights roughly equivalent to criminals held in domestic prisons. I asked a military legal adviser: In what previous war were captured enemy combatants eligible for review before the war ended? None, he said.
America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.
Of Gitmo's several camps, military records show that the one with the most lenient rules is the one with the most incidents and vice versa. There is a lesson in this: We should worry less about detainee safety and more about our own.
Some 20 current detainees have direct personal knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and nearly everyone of the current 440 say they would honored to attack America again. Let's take them at their word.
Richard Miniter (richardminiter.com) is a bestselling author and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If only some of the PC brigade lost loved ones due to these guys and thier organisation, they may not feel quite so fluffy towards them. Breaks your heart to think of what we put our servicemen through daily, when we treat the enemy so well.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pianosa
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm. Soundes like a great place. When are you booking your summer holidays?
A few minor points though:
Known in the trade as a "Dog and Pony Show", I believe. I love guided tours.
High-minded critics like, umm, The Supreme Court of the United States, Three US Senators- including the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, another who spent 7 years as a POW and another who moonlights as a Col and judge in the USAF JAG Corps, and someone else (name escapes me right now) who was the previous Secretary of State and a former Chairman of the JCS.
I'm sure there can be no other possible explanation for the interrogations not being taped, can there? I mean, it's not as if they're doing anything illegal...
I guess you're not treated to The Great Escape every Christmas, mate.
Umm, if they're not allowed to look at the messages, how are they to know what they contain?
Yes, some of them are nasty people. There are others though, that have done nothing wrong and just been yanked off the street. I dare say I'd be a little miffed at being stuck in a wire cage during hurricane season.
God damn that Geneva Convention. Ask John McCain or Michael Durant what it's like when your captors view you as a war criminal.
4,200 a day??? Do the guards do a 50k tab every day? What kind of fat b@stards are running the show down there? Is this part of a plot to kill the terrorists by morbid obesity? That's the equivalent of 7 Big Macs a day for God's sake! You'll forgive me if I have a healthy scepticism for anything else this propaganda effort has to say.
And how many have been charged? Oh, none, that's right, because the Supreme Court ruled the tribunal unconstitutional.
IIRC, we're still waiting for the Japanese to say sorry.
Intent is nothing without capability, and intent can be lessened if you guys actually started to live by the ideals you proclaim from the mountain tops. Stop acting like w
rs and you'll find a lot of people won't be as eager to kill you. It's not that complicated, you know.
...and a barking loon.
A few minor points though:
Writer's Bio....
http://www.richardminiter.com/bio/index.html
A DEADLY KINDNESS
By RICHARD MINITER
September 15, 2006 -- GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA
ON the military plane back from America's most fa mous terrorist holding pen, the in-flight film was "V for Vendetta," a screed that tries to justify terrorism. It was a fitting end to a surreal, military-sponsored trip.
The Pentagon seemed to be hoping to disarm its critics by showing them how well it cares for captured terrorists. The trip was more alarming than disarming. I spent several hours with Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., who heads the joint task force that houses and interrogates the detainees. (The military isn't allowed to call them "prisoners.")
http://www.richardminiter.com/bio/index.html
A DEADLY KINDNESS
By RICHARD MINITER
September 15, 2006 -- GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA
ON the military plane back from America's most fa mous terrorist holding pen, the in-flight film was "V for Vendetta," a screed that tries to justify terrorism. It was a fitting end to a surreal, military-sponsored trip.
The Pentagon seemed to be hoping to disarm its critics by showing them how well it cares for captured terrorists. The trip was more alarming than disarming. I spent several hours with Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., who heads the joint task force that houses and interrogates the detainees. (The military isn't allowed to call them "prisoners.")
The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives.
Interrogations are not video or audio taped, perhaps to preserve detainee privacy.
Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous. Adm. Harris admitted to me that a multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.
And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.
And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.
Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How? Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.
That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.
That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.
There is little doubt what this note-passing and weapons-making is used for. The military recorded 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct from July 2005 to August 2006 - an average of more than eight incidents per day. Some are nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.
One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.
One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.
The kinder we are to terrorists, the harsher we are to their potential victims.
Striking the balance between these two goods (humane treatment, foreknowledge of deadly attacks) is difficult, but the Bush administration seems to lean too far in the direction of the detainees. No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on.
Striking the balance between these two goods (humane treatment, foreknowledge of deadly attacks) is difficult, but the Bush administration seems to lean too far in the direction of the detainees. No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on.
Food is strictly halal and averages 4,200 calories per day. (The guards eat the same chow as the detainees, unless they venture to one of the on-base fast-food joints.) Most prisoners have gained weight.
Much has been written about the elaborate and unprecedented appeal process. Detainees have their cases reviewed once a year and get rights roughly equivalent to criminals held in domestic prisons. I asked a military legal adviser: In what previous war were captured enemy combatants eligible for review before the war ended? None, he said.
America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.
Of Gitmo's several camps, military records show that the one with the most lenient rules is the one with the most incidents and vice versa. There is a lesson in this: We should worry less about detainee safety and more about our own.
Some 20 current detainees have direct personal knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and nearly everyone of the current 440 say they would honored to attack America again. Let's take them at their word.
Some 20 current detainees have direct personal knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and nearly everyone of the current 440 say they would honored to attack America again. Let's take them at their word.
rs and you'll find a lot of people won't be as eager to kill you. It's not that complicated, you know.
Richard Miniter (richardminiter.com) is a bestselling author and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Washington Irving, good critique. To follow your final point,
<<The Hudson Institute is a United States, non-partisan, conservative think tank founded in 1961 in Croton-on-Hudson, New York by the futurist Herman Kahn and other colleagues from the RAND Corporation. ...
<<A public policy research organization that forecasts trends and develops solutions for governments, businesses and the public.
<<
<<The Hudson Institute is a United States, non-partisan, conservative think tank founded in 1961 in Croton-on-Hudson, New York by the futurist Herman Kahn and other colleagues from the RAND Corporation. ...
<<A public policy research organization that forecasts trends and develops solutions for governments, businesses and the public.
<<
Is it very surprising that anyone locked up for a long time with no idea of if or when they will be released, charged or whatever become 'inventive' with regard communicating between cells, groups - or invent ways to attack guards or even escape or play the system? Doesn't that happen in any 'POW' camp?
The outrage in the Richard Miniters article misses the point - by descending to their level we have lost the moral high ground and have no idea how we are get out of the gutter that we now inhabit with the terrorists.
(And I do not level this at the military but the governments that direct the military).
The more I read of the history of the middle east and the conflict that has existed the more I see that our governments are as much to blame though we kindly choose to remain ignorant of what they did or we have forgotten it because to us the events which precipitated the current situation were happening too far away, too long ago, to a bunch of people we didn't care about.
The outrage in the Richard Miniters article misses the point - by descending to their level we have lost the moral high ground and have no idea how we are get out of the gutter that we now inhabit with the terrorists.
(And I do not level this at the military but the governments that direct the military).
The more I read of the history of the middle east and the conflict that has existed the more I see that our governments are as much to blame though we kindly choose to remain ignorant of what they did or we have forgotten it because to us the events which precipitated the current situation were happening too far away, too long ago, to a bunch of people we didn't care about.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geneva Convention
Slight thread creep, however......
For a number of years people far smarter than I have been quoting the Geneva Convention when it came to dealing with the various "detainees"; followed by much chest beating. Would one of the learned ppruners point me in the direction of the relevant Article of the Geneva Convention that states the "detainees" are protected. I have only read Article 3 which states a number of basic tests to define POWs; such as the display of a symbol indicating they are part of a military organisation, not concealing weapons etc. On first pass it would seem the type of person that we are dealing with in Iraq/Afghanistan fails every test............... and indeed takes very real tactical advantage (ie killing US/UK servicemen) by intentionally failing such tests.........
For a number of years people far smarter than I have been quoting the Geneva Convention when it came to dealing with the various "detainees"; followed by much chest beating. Would one of the learned ppruners point me in the direction of the relevant Article of the Geneva Convention that states the "detainees" are protected. I have only read Article 3 which states a number of basic tests to define POWs; such as the display of a symbol indicating they are part of a military organisation, not concealing weapons etc. On first pass it would seem the type of person that we are dealing with in Iraq/Afghanistan fails every test............... and indeed takes very real tactical advantage (ie killing US/UK servicemen) by intentionally failing such tests.........
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread creep, however......
. Would one of the learned ppruners point me in the direction of the relevant Article of the Geneva Convention that states the "detainees" are protected. I have only read Article 3 which states a number of basic tests to define POWs; such as the display of a symbol indicating they are part of a military organisation, not concealing weapons etc. ...
. Would one of the learned ppruners point me in the direction of the relevant Article of the Geneva Convention that states the "detainees" are protected. I have only read Article 3 which states a number of basic tests to define POWs; such as the display of a symbol indicating they are part of a military organisation, not concealing weapons etc. ...
The Geneva Convention may be found on the net and its wording seems quite clear and straight forward. I would suggest however that even experienced ppruners would be unable to give an answer to your underlying question as that is entirely in the hands of legal wizards in the US. What the rest of us understand, or think we understand, is an irrelevance.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it's not a rhetorical question......it's a very real question......
Nearly every media report on the detainees will contain a reference to the Geneva Convention, or at least label them POW's and then leapfrog into giving these folks rights...which have been supposedly abused.
On my reading of the Geneva Convention, these people, by design, are outside of the protection of the Convention. I am quite prepared to accept that I have missed something and would be grateful if someone of knowledge (and there are plenty on pprune!!) would highlight the relevant Article.
Moreover, I remember from my days in Uniform, it was pretty clear that if I was to conduct warfare without obeying the provisions of Article 3; I would be poorly placed if caught......
Nearly every media report on the detainees will contain a reference to the Geneva Convention, or at least label them POW's and then leapfrog into giving these folks rights...which have been supposedly abused.
On my reading of the Geneva Convention, these people, by design, are outside of the protection of the Convention. I am quite prepared to accept that I have missed something and would be grateful if someone of knowledge (and there are plenty on pprune!!) would highlight the relevant Article.
Moreover, I remember from my days in Uniform, it was pretty clear that if I was to conduct warfare without obeying the provisions of Article 3; I would be poorly placed if caught......
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
LG,
The Bush administration announced on 11 July 2006 that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in U.S. military custody everywhere are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. This was in response to the 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by President Bush. That decision struck down the tribunals because essentially it was felt they did not obey International law and had not been authorized by Congress. The White House said that the instruction manuals used by the Department of Defense in regard to the treatment of Gitmo prisoners already complied with the humane-treatment provisions of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, so formal adherence to that convention was not an issue.
Therefore, the sub-plot is that by recognizing the protections under the Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the Administration is in step with International Law, therefore, the Gitmo detainees can be tried by Military Tribunal. So it is nothing to do with giving them any more 'rights', it is more about taking the Supreme Court decision on the chin and setting the scene for another run at Military Tribunals. After all, if the world sees they are being treated the same as Military POW's, it is but a small step to treat them to the same form of trial. Machiavelli would be very proud if he was around today.
The Bush administration announced on 11 July 2006 that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in U.S. military custody everywhere are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. This was in response to the 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by President Bush. That decision struck down the tribunals because essentially it was felt they did not obey International law and had not been authorized by Congress. The White House said that the instruction manuals used by the Department of Defense in regard to the treatment of Gitmo prisoners already complied with the humane-treatment provisions of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, so formal adherence to that convention was not an issue.
Therefore, the sub-plot is that by recognizing the protections under the Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the Administration is in step with International Law, therefore, the Gitmo detainees can be tried by Military Tribunal. So it is nothing to do with giving them any more 'rights', it is more about taking the Supreme Court decision on the chin and setting the scene for another run at Military Tribunals. After all, if the world sees they are being treated the same as Military POW's, it is but a small step to treat them to the same form of trial. Machiavelli would be very proud if he was around today.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
How could somone publish such sh!t??? It's one thing to write it but who could be sp irresponsible to actaully publish it? Wouldn't you just be embarrasing yourself by announcing your ignorance to the world.
Onya Richard, good article mate! I too love guided tours
'Dog & Pony show' - He He - like that!
Onya Richard, good article mate! I too love guided tours
'Dog & Pony show' - He He - like that!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LG
These 'detainees' are not POWs as you correctly point out. They have not been afforded that status by the Governement.
Why do you think that is? Possibly because POWs have rights. 'Detainee' is a nothing meaning and is used to (poorly) cover up the fact that people are being held 'on suspicion' without hard evidence.
There is in normal law, a limit to how long someone can be held without being charged. This is being exceeded by years in the case of some at Gitmo.
The west (USA and UK in particular), like to talk about how they are fighting for freedom and civil liberties and that they are on a moral crusade. Unfortunately this all turns to compete hogwash when they hold people without evidence.
Innocent until proven guilty is how the free world works.
If there is evidence - charge 'em, if found guilty, execute them (a luxury we do not have in our legal system). If there is no evidence, then they have to be released under 'due process'.
Until we act morally, we cannot take the moral high ground.
It is a fine line that our governements are having to walk, but bringing in special powers that flaunt normal legal process is on the wrong side of it, morally and legally (even though the powers have been pushed through on an emergency basis).
I am all for detaining suspects, and questioning them - but if the evidence is not there, they have the same rights as everyone else.
These 'detainees' are not POWs as you correctly point out. They have not been afforded that status by the Governement.
Why do you think that is? Possibly because POWs have rights. 'Detainee' is a nothing meaning and is used to (poorly) cover up the fact that people are being held 'on suspicion' without hard evidence.
There is in normal law, a limit to how long someone can be held without being charged. This is being exceeded by years in the case of some at Gitmo.
The west (USA and UK in particular), like to talk about how they are fighting for freedom and civil liberties and that they are on a moral crusade. Unfortunately this all turns to compete hogwash when they hold people without evidence.
Innocent until proven guilty is how the free world works.
If there is evidence - charge 'em, if found guilty, execute them (a luxury we do not have in our legal system). If there is no evidence, then they have to be released under 'due process'.
Until we act morally, we cannot take the moral high ground.
It is a fine line that our governements are having to walk, but bringing in special powers that flaunt normal legal process is on the wrong side of it, morally and legally (even though the powers have been pushed through on an emergency basis).
I am all for detaining suspects, and questioning them - but if the evidence is not there, they have the same rights as everyone else.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two's in.... thanks for the prompt reply and a google based on the info you have provided was interesting.....not sure I understand all of it.
Anotherthing...whether these guys are POWs or not....the US government has, as Two's in, has pointed out, afforded them rights as detailed in all The Geneva Conventions......so in effect they are POW's (for the time being..)
Anotherthing....you are lucky to live in a very clear cut black and white world..... You say, "If there is no evidence, then they have to be released under 'due process'." What is the due process and what constitutes "evidence"? Please tell us because it would seem the Judges on the US Supreme Court are struggling.........
Playing devil's advocate, it would seem a lot of the detainees are believed to be support players to AQ and what if the evidence against them has been obtained through means that would make such evidence inadmissable in a Civil Court (illegal search, electronic eavesdropping, witnesses who would not take the stand etc). To the man on the Clapham Omnibus they would be as guilty as OBL but they would walk free; indeed they would be free right now.
Your argument... "Until we act morally, we cannot take the moral high ground" is well rehearsed and all well and good when you are referring to a person intent on comitting murder...but mass murder?? I am certain should even one of these guys be released and commit mass murder on the scale of 9-11 or 7-7 the man on the Clapham Omnibus or indeed your good self would rapidly forget the moral high ground.........
Anotherthing...whether these guys are POWs or not....the US government has, as Two's in, has pointed out, afforded them rights as detailed in all The Geneva Conventions......so in effect they are POW's (for the time being..)
Anotherthing....you are lucky to live in a very clear cut black and white world..... You say, "If there is no evidence, then they have to be released under 'due process'." What is the due process and what constitutes "evidence"? Please tell us because it would seem the Judges on the US Supreme Court are struggling.........
Playing devil's advocate, it would seem a lot of the detainees are believed to be support players to AQ and what if the evidence against them has been obtained through means that would make such evidence inadmissable in a Civil Court (illegal search, electronic eavesdropping, witnesses who would not take the stand etc). To the man on the Clapham Omnibus they would be as guilty as OBL but they would walk free; indeed they would be free right now.
Your argument... "Until we act morally, we cannot take the moral high ground" is well rehearsed and all well and good when you are referring to a person intent on comitting murder...but mass murder?? I am certain should even one of these guys be released and commit mass murder on the scale of 9-11 or 7-7 the man on the Clapham Omnibus or indeed your good self would rapidly forget the moral high ground.........
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LG,
It is black and white - evidence is gathered, suspects are drawn up as a result of investigations and evidence.
People are detained, questioned and as a result of questioning, further enquiries are made, with the aim of finding more evidence and then, when the case notes have been collated, they are sent to the prosecuter.
The CPS (in UK) then decides whether there is a case to answer, or more to the point, whether there is a good chance of a conviction. Legal proceddings will then continue, and a trial brought to bear.
At this point, and within a stipulated time frame, if a chance of conviction is not high enough, it is legally required to release the suspect, however galling that may be.
The crimes they are suspected of commiting/plotting etc have no bearing on this process despite what you try to say, whether it be shoplifting, Robbery, Rape, Murder, Mass murder or terrorism.
It is called due process.
Simply put, if there is no evidence to gain a conviction, the suspect must be released. If there is evidence, it must be presented to a court and the legal process must be given the chance to work.
Yes, there will be outrage if it goes wrong, but that is no justifiction for holding people for years without evidence (if the evidence was there, it would have been used in a court of law by now).
As to your argument
Terrorism rightly brings new rules, however if the security services are going to employ such methods, what is the point unless they have the balls to follow it through and simply let the terrorist vanish of the face of the Earth? Having evidence obtained by illegal means (and therefore not admissable in a Civil Court) does not give a Government the right to hold them indefinitely if they cannot then find evidence by legal means!!
The severity of the crime does not come into it when we are talking about dong what is morally, and legally correct. When countries invade others talking on the strength of human rights issues etc, they must be whiter than white themselves. Unforunately, at this point in time neither the US nor the UK are.
By the way, one of the victims of the 7/7 bombings was a colleague of mine, in the Armed Forces, so I understand outrage, but in many ways, this is a moral war, we have to keep British Muslims etc onside.... we cannot do this by being duplicitous and two faced in our legality.
It is black and white - evidence is gathered, suspects are drawn up as a result of investigations and evidence.
People are detained, questioned and as a result of questioning, further enquiries are made, with the aim of finding more evidence and then, when the case notes have been collated, they are sent to the prosecuter.
The CPS (in UK) then decides whether there is a case to answer, or more to the point, whether there is a good chance of a conviction. Legal proceddings will then continue, and a trial brought to bear.
At this point, and within a stipulated time frame, if a chance of conviction is not high enough, it is legally required to release the suspect, however galling that may be.
Your argument... "Until we act morally, we cannot take the moral high ground" is well rehearsed and all well and good when you are referring to a person intent on comitting murder...but mass murder??
It is called due process.
Simply put, if there is no evidence to gain a conviction, the suspect must be released. If there is evidence, it must be presented to a court and the legal process must be given the chance to work.
Yes, there will be outrage if it goes wrong, but that is no justifiction for holding people for years without evidence (if the evidence was there, it would have been used in a court of law by now).
As to your argument
Playing devil's advocate, it would seem a lot of the detainees are believed to be support players to AQ and what if the evidence against them has been obtained through means that would make such evidence inadmissable in a Civil Court (illegal search, electronic eavesdropping, witnesses who would not take the stand etc). To the man on the Clapham Omnibus they would be as guilty as OBL but they would walk free; indeed they would be free right now
The severity of the crime does not come into it when we are talking about dong what is morally, and legally correct. When countries invade others talking on the strength of human rights issues etc, they must be whiter than white themselves. Unforunately, at this point in time neither the US nor the UK are.
By the way, one of the victims of the 7/7 bombings was a colleague of mine, in the Armed Forces, so I understand outrage, but in many ways, this is a moral war, we have to keep British Muslims etc onside.... we cannot do this by being duplicitous and two faced in our legality.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LG, thanks for the clarification but, from the replies, I think yoiu may see how it could have been interpreted.
The Geneva Convention is quite clear. There are combatants, non-combatants and POW. Detainees?
A POW is a former combatant who has been detained (verb) by the capturing power. Viz (joint) A term used to refer to any person captured or otherwise detained by an armed force. (JP 1-02)
www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/wiki/index.php/Counterinsurgency_Operations/Glossary
Dictionary.co.uk states
detainee
noun {C}
a person who has been officially ordered to stay in a prison or similar place, especially for political reasons: - a political detainee
I love that
The Geneva Convention is quite clear. There are combatants, non-combatants and POW. Detainees?
A POW is a former combatant who has been detained (verb) by the capturing power. Viz (joint) A term used to refer to any person captured or otherwise detained by an armed force. (JP 1-02)
www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/wiki/index.php/Counterinsurgency_Operations/Glossary
Dictionary.co.uk states
detainee
noun {C}
a person who has been officially ordered to stay in a prison or similar place, especially for political reasons: - a political detainee
I love that
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing,
Not sure what your post is saying; but if you are suggesting the correct or only due process is a UK Criminal Court; they would have never been detained in the first place. Look how difficult it has been to prosecute those arested in the UK with all the forensics, witnesses, CCTV...etc
I think politically motivated random attacks on civilian masses are a totally different event and cannot be compared to crimes against an individual or property.
We will agree to disagree...... I believe AQ and others would have comitted a series of outrages against the west that would have upstaged 911 had it not been for a host of measures taken by the US and UK govts; detention without trial being but one. I am glad they did it..................
Finally, don't understand the "we must keep the British Muslims etc onside" bit.....???
Not sure what your post is saying; but if you are suggesting the correct or only due process is a UK Criminal Court; they would have never been detained in the first place. Look how difficult it has been to prosecute those arested in the UK with all the forensics, witnesses, CCTV...etc
I think politically motivated random attacks on civilian masses are a totally different event and cannot be compared to crimes against an individual or property.
We will agree to disagree...... I believe AQ and others would have comitted a series of outrages against the west that would have upstaged 911 had it not been for a host of measures taken by the US and UK govts; detention without trial being but one. I am glad they did it..................
Finally, don't understand the "we must keep the British Muslims etc onside" bit.....???
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 19th Sep 2006 at 11:24.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wader2,
The bit of the the Geneva Convention I am struggling with is Article 4 which defines a POW as inter alia;
"(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
Now which part of the above do these guys come under?????
The bit of the the Geneva Convention I am struggling with is Article 4 which defines a POW as inter alia;
"(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
Now which part of the above do these guys come under?????
