Just what amnesty international has said:
http://web.amnesty.org/web/news.nsf/WebAll/EC3FAE6D4DD4F46C80256B42005A1B5F?OpenDocument
Taliban prisoners in Cuba
by Abaddon 62 Replies latest jw friends
-
GWEEDO
-
ThiChi
Loss of freedom ahead?
There are two fires raging in the matter of President Bush and his proposed tribunals. One is historical/theoretical, the second, ideological.
The Constitution ordains that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Question No. 1: Are we facing a rebellion or invasion?
Question No. 2: Who decides?
And, No. 3, the decision having been made, who then redesigns, for the duration, that which, using shorthand, the Constitution simply calls "habeas corpus"?
The activity of Sept. 11 and what it implies -- continued terrorist acts on a worldwide scale -- can be classified as an "invasion" without cavil, and an immediate response to an invasion is properly undertaken by the commander in chief.
Now it can at this point be argued that an invasion calls forth a declaration of war, and this is the prerogative of Congress. But this formalism (it is, increasingly, just that) shouldn't be thought critical. On Sept. 11, a mutant form of warfare evolved. Responses to it are necessarily improvised. Al-Qaida is not a "government," and traditional declarations of war against it are somehow awkward, on the order of calling the fire department when you learn of the distress of a ship at sea. A comprehensive response to this innovative war against us is required of the commander in chief. Congress acknowledged the need to improvise in times of national challenge when in 1973 it passed the War Powers Act, specifying that the president should have freedom of action for 60 days against a perceived enemy. Moreover, post-Hiroshima, declarations of war are out of style. Presidents Truman, Johnson and Nixon didn't declare war against North Korea or North Vietnam. We found other ways of doing it, so-called graduated responses.
But after we acknowledge that Sept. 11 initiated the equivalent of an invasion and proceed to suspend habeas corpus, who is to design the new protocols? Bush has taken the initiative, but we are left without any empirical knowledge of how exactly prosecutions are to be brought about. What we have are flat contradictions about what is contemplated, and here divisions tend to be ideological. The clerks want to file protests, the soldiers, to go to war. Time magazine's Josh Tyrangiel charges that the proceedings can be secret, hearsay used as evidence, the defendant left without a right to challenge evidence nor the right to hear it; left without the lawyer of his choice in a proceeding in which guilt need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict need not be unanimous, executions can be authorized, appeals denied.
Alberto Gonzales, counsel to the president, writes in The New York Times that military tribunal trials will not be secret, except when classified information needs protection, that contemplated trials will be "full and fair," defendants will know the charges against them and will be represented by qualified counsel and allowed to present a defense.
Now the thing of it is, we don't know -- and we won't accumulate this knowledge without experience -- just what it is that we need to effect in order to enhance national security. Most people know that a search for justice can mean that you bring in 10 people even knowing that only one of them is guilty. With "due process," you find the guilty party and let the others go. In existing circumstances, you can't act on the absolute presumption of innocence, because negative findings on the matter of guilt don't add up to positive findings that the detained are harmless. We note that proposed arrangements are to be used only on non-U.S.citizens. That citizens have superior privileges (and duties) neither surprises, nor offends.
Suppose that Congress asserted a right, under the Constitution (Article I), to prescribe the conduct of justice in this war? Probably Congress would authorize everything that Mr. Bush contemplates, with here and there an accommodation. What really gums things up is hysterical formulations. "My job is to defend the Constitution from its enemies," Mr. Bill Goodman of New York's Center for Constitutional Rights advises us, "(whose) main enemies right now are the Justice Department and the White House." That finding is not only wrong, it is dumb. We hear from Alan Dershowitz and from Bill Press that what we are fighting for are such things as standards of guilt and innocence enshrined in current practice of law, which is foolish. What we are fighting for is to frustrate al-Qaida's designs on American lives.
We should always give solicitous attention to liberty, but what we are struggling to do right now is to discover how 15 steel-willed enemies of the United States succeeded in destroying the two largest buildings in New York and one part of the Pentagon, missing out only on two other probable targets, the White House and the Capitol. To find the hidden enemy will require Yankee ingenuity, and a couple of days off for the American Civil Liberties Union.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------William F. Buckley Jr
“We all fell down from the milky way, hanging around here for the judgement day, heaven only knows who’s in command.”- Jimmy Buffet
-
Seeker
Alberto Gonzales, counsel to the president, writes in The New York Times that military tribunal trials will not be secret, except when classified information needs protection, that contemplated trials will be "full and fair," defendants will know the charges against them and will be represented by qualified counsel and allowed to present a defense.
ROFL! Propaganda at its finest. Hey, I hope Buckley is right. But his fellow right-winger, William Safire, blasted Bush for his anti-Constitutional approach to tribunals.
Now, I wasn't aware Washington and Lincoln had made the same mistake, but I'd be glad to learn more about it.
-
Seeker
Let me add another thought to Mr. Gonzalez's comments. Only "classified" information will be kept secret? Did he add that Bush just pushed through a total gutting of the Freedom of Information Act? What is classified? Whatever the government says is classified.
What Mr. Gonzalez is essentially saying is that some things will be done in secret, but don't worry, the government will do the right thing. In other words, 'trust the government.' There are few statements more un-American than that. This country was founded on the principle that governments, none of them, can be trusted. That's why openness was the hallmark of constitutional America. That some people are applauding the taking away of this openness is appalling to me.
'But there are valid reasons for this!' No, there are not. Governments will always give "reasons" for taking what they want. The way propaganda works is that it 'sounds right.' But you can't talk past the constitution. The constitution drew a line in the sand and say government may not cross that line. Bush has shown contempt for this concept, to his shame.
-
WindRider
Seeker,
Maybe we should just "read his lips" when Bush talks about fair representation and trials for those charged. I mean it's not like he would lie or anything.....well, it worked for his father!
Sincerely, Windrider
-
jelly
I think there is a fundamental question that is being missed here.
Do foreign nationals (non-citizens, non-long-term residents) have the same constitutional freedoms and protections as citizens? Personally I feel no they do not; the constitution was written to protect the rights of American citizens and them only. That’s why John Walker is being tried in a civilian court and not in a tribunal he is getting his constitutional protections due him as a citizen.
If an individual foreign national was to rob a bank in America or even commit a murder than yes they should have a civilian trial and be afforded all the rights that citizens have; but when an organization begins to make good on threats of conducting a war on America I see that as an entirely different situation.
Jelly
-
cellomould
Excellent posts Abaddon, Seeker, and fodeja, teejay, et al
we won't tolerate a repeat of 9/11
Does anyone agree with that? How do you propose?'Send them a strong message!'?
WTF do you think it was that they sent the US? Those resposible for the bombings don't know that they are wrong. They know only THAT THEY ARE RIGHT!
You in essence have the same attitude as the perpetrators!
Do you claim to know how many of the prisoners were at all responsible for the attacks on 9-11? I'd venture to say that less than 1% of the prisoners were remotely responsible. Most are poor peasants fighting for what they believe represents their honour and freedom.
If you don't care about the peasants in Afghanistan, why the hell should they care about you?
People are implying over and over here that its alright to label any Afghani as a 'terrorist'. That is an emotional 'codeword'! It hides the truth.
So anyone hiding in a cave is a terrorist huh? I suppose all the farmers should have decided to hide in the bushes instead, right?
I can only imagine how many people were wrongly killed or imprisoned. This situation really reeks!
Come on guys, if you can figure out the BORG's mind control, why can't you figure out this Nationalistic mind control?! Think for yourselves! Do you really think that anyone born on United States' soil is better than anyone born anywhere else?
That is what you are saying.
cellomould
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
-
jelly
Cellmond,
I don’t believe that the people being held in Cuba are Afghani; I think they are the foreign Arab members of Al Quada (sp?) who were pretty much aware that they were engaged in a holy war against the US. A holy war that justifies that targeting of civilians with weapons of mass destruction.
Jelly
-
Abaddon
This is great...
WOULD SOMEONE IN FAVOUR OF HOLDING TALIBAN/AL-QUAEDA PRISONERS IN CUBA PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!
So far, all I've heard from them is bait-and-switch tactics, asking viewpoint questions to justiy their stance. And failing miserably, but that's just my opinion...
Please, check out the previously provided link for Amnesty International. The US Government are making a big mistake. They are clearly either violating International law, or intentionally making a mockery of it. They are making propoganda for the extremists by flouting their own standards in the treatment of prisoners.
To assert "...these are prisoners of war and as long as they are not being tortured then that's all they need to expect" is incorrect (sorry Richard, not picking on you, the others on your side of the debate are just as wrong). Please see the follow extract from the Geneva Convention.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm
The bolds are mine...
The Geneva Convention protects prisoners of war from;
Article 3.1(a)
And what is a prisoner of war?
Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.Article 4.A (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
Now, the USA are saying they are not prisoners of war. If you read the Geneva convention, you can see they have, from my layman point of view, some avenues they could squirm out of if they want to go that way. Amnesty International disagree, and are quite firm on their POW status.Fortunately the Geneva Convention takes such despute into account, and under Artcle 5 awards prisoners of a disputed status full POW rights until otherwise determined by a 'competant triubunal' http://web.amnesty.org/web/news.nsf/WebAll/EC3FAE6D4DD4F46C80256B42005A1B5F?OpenDocument
But the operative word is 'squirm'. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. These people are prisoners, taken in a armed conflict that has been termed by the President of the USA a war, but it needn't even be a declared war for the provisions to apply (check the Convention), so one has to question the wisdom and motives of holding people in a position where they can be done with as the Millitary and the Government see fit.
Chief in this is probably the desire to be able to interrogate people for information beyond 'rank, name & serial number', which is all that a POW is obliged to give.
Cellomould makes some excellent points on this, so, the question to ask yourself, is whether it is in the 'greater good' to deliberately flout or circumvent international law that applies to the situation in the hope of getting gain.
If the answer is 'yes', then you are using a similar chain of logic to that used by the planners and participants of 911.
They did what they did for their version of the 'greater good'.
Now, I do not for one moment think that there is a comparison other than in the logic used.
Obviously trying to gather information about these people is far less morally repugnant than an attack on thousands of citizens.
But it is still flouting International Law out of some belief that it's okay because there is a 'greater good'.
And as long as the most powerful country in the world does that, how can it point the fingre at those that do the same? How can the world progress politically unless it is recognised that the arguement of greater good is a moral minfield that should not be crossed?
I think my opinion is clear, and I think I have given good backing to my opinion. If someone of the opposite side of the debate wants to try and back their opinions and answer questions that have been raised as to the correctness of the US's actions, go ahead. But I'm not interested in just reading 'I think it's right'.
I want you to justify your opinons, and all I've heard is a desire for vengence.
And vengence and justice are not the same thing.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
-
Yerusalyim
Well, I've read the first full paged and haven't read an informed opinion yet, after I post this I guess I'll peek at the others and see if it got better (somehow I doubt it). Lets see, Humane treatment, hmmm, these guys are being fed better than they have in months, these guys are warm, they have blankets, 3 meals a day, tolietries, etc. They are allowed to pray, and within reasonable limits to practice their religion. They're not being tortured. They ARE being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. They are NOT being treated as Prisoners of War as they do NOT meet the Geneva Convention guidance as POW's. They are being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention for the humane treatment of battlefield detainees.
They apparently rough treatment shipping them from Afghanistan to Cuba was for the safety of the Guards and air crews. These are some of the same guys who lead the riot at the military prison at Mizar e Sharif. They are more than willing to die if they can take an american with them.None of their human rights are being violated. They are battle field detainees, are being treated as such in accordance with the Geneva Convention (which I recommend you all actually READ before you criticize how they are being treated).
The laws of the criminal courts are not designed to deal with war criminals, to try them in the US in our criminal courts system would only expose juries and judges to danger.