Secret military tribunals and historical precedent

by Seeker 32 Replies latest jw friends

Amazing

Hi LPH: Well, I think we are getting closer here.
You said,
"A team of British officials, who spent the weekend inspecting Camp X-ray, has passed a report to the Foreign Office and to Number 10 - but it will not be made public.
The dispute over conditions at Camp X-Ray hinges around the fact that US refuses to recognise the detainees as prisoners of war, referring to them instead as illegal combatants.
Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war must be tried by the same courts and under the same procedures as US soldiers.
Under that status, prisoners would be tried for war crimes through courts-martial or civilian courts, not by secretive military tribunals that could impose the death penalty.
My point exactly! The USMCJ is the standard for courts-martial. Such trials are not normally public, and can been in secret to avoid national security breeches. If there is a question as to fairness, such trials may be attended by neutral monitors.
If the USA is refusing to call them POWs, then again, what harm is being specifically caused during this interim process where a determination is being made? What is the core of the fear? What specific unfairness is feared?
BTW, I am glad we are having this discussion, because the process is helpful to me. And I appreciate the material you quoted above. So, I hope that we can ferret out some good things to arrive at a mutual concensus. Thanks again LPH.
Lionel_P_Hartley

Amazing,
Obviously the fear is that since the US refuses to consider them as bing under the Geneva Convention they will be tried by the proposed secret military tribunals and executed. You seem to be assuming that they will be eventually classified as POWs under the Geneva Convention - but that is merely an assumption. Why else have secret military tribunals - as opposed to courts martial - been proposed by the Bush administration.
It is not a question of what should be done - but of what is being done - which is not according these prisoners rights under the GC as POWs. There may or may not be good reasons for that - but there can be no dispute that their current status allows them to be executed at the behest of secret military tribunals. Thus, to argue that they are POWs being accorded rights under the GC is not true. Thus, Seeker's points about secret courts stand until the evidence says othrwise.
USMCJ mightbe the standard for courts martial but if you read the quotation carefully you will see that they currently have no rights to such treatment. That is what is causing the concern. It is no good to assume that the US government will act in a certain way, sincem as Seeker showed, they may not.
LPH
Amazing

Hi Lionel:
I am not assuming that the Detainees will eventually classified as POWs. I am saying that until the USA makes a determnination, I cannot assume that the Detainees are necessarily being treated unfairly or any different than if they were classified as POWs, other than the official title. I just don't know.
You stated:
"Thus, to argue that they are POWs being accorded rights under the GC is not true. Thus, Seeker's points about secret courts stand until the evidence says othrwise."
I concede this aspect: Since they are not yet classified as POWs, then with the question open, there is uncertainty. I can't say that they are not being given rights equal to the GC-POW rules, because I don't know. Right now, all we know is that they are not labeled POWs. But, I cannot assume that there is not a violation going on or could take place in the future.
The second aspect is that of considering a Military Tribunal, outside the GC rules. I thought that the death penalty could still be exercised under GC. The post-WWII War Crimes trials did lead to some executions. Would you check and confirm whether the Death penalty is allowed under GC? If so, then the argument of death penalty under a Military Tribunal or GC-POW status takes on a different flavor ... that is ... would a GC-POW trial necessarily be more fair than a Tribunal that is governed by the USMCJ?
The main concern of the GC as I understand it has far more to do with humane treatment of POWs ... such as proper food, shelter, medicine, and certain other amenities ... and what I asked earlier is, is there any evidence that these important standards are not already being met?
As to trial ... you said,
"USMCJ might be the standard for courts martial but if you read the quotation carefully you will see that they currently have no rights to such treatment. That is what is causing the concern. It is no good to assume that the US government will act in a certain way, sincem as Seeker showed, they may not.'
I am not convinced that Seeker showed that would not be treated fairly. The issue he raised is the fact of non-POW status and a secret Military Tribunal. If this were the People's Republic of China holding Taliban detainees ... the issue would not even be debated to discussed. The Chinese would simply pronounce them guilty and shoot them in the back of the head and kick them into the grave they made them dig for themselves.
I made a factual case that given the clear and fully legal opportunity to try John Walker for treason as a non-US citizen - seeking the death penalty - the Bush Administration chose to still treat Walker as a US Citizen ... and allow him to have a civilian trial. This is evidence that suggests that the Bush Administration intends fairness.
The US President, even as Commander in Chief still has limitations ... and with the whole planet watching us like hawks ... I am not convinced that the Bush Admin will try anything that would hurt its public interests. Politics is very powerful over and above other considerations.
I agree that as much as I call for a wait and see approach, I need to apply the same standard of caution, and not assume that the Bush Admin will necessarily do the right thing ... so, I agree that this is worth watching, waiting, and not making assumptions either way until we see what kind of decision is made.
I tend to trust Republicans more than Democrats, so I am more confident that the decision will be ethical ... but at the same time, I cannot be certain ... Politicians of any party, of any nation always has its dirty side. I am sure the even in the UK Tony Blair has a few wrinkles in his service as PM.
I appreciate your good points ... and will look forward to see your response on whether the GC allows for the death penalty.
Englishman

Just a cautionary note on this.
America is justifiably agrieved at the wounds it received in Sept 11. However, America's penal code is generally perceived by the rest of the non- muslim world as being extremely harsh and draconian.
It would be a great pity if the treatment of prisoners were to alienate sympathetic folk from what is a justifiable grievance, America needs to be seen to be above revenge and all for justice.
Englishman.
..From the scepter'd Isle kept free by 2 fins and 4 Merlins.
Seeker

If this were the People's Republic of China holding Taliban detainees ... the issue would not even be debated to discussed. The Chinese would simply pronounce them guilty and shoot them in the back of the head and kick them into the grave they made them dig for themselves.
Funny enough, that's almost exactly what Roosevelt had done to the would-be saboteurs. They were pronounced guilty, then they held a trial where the guilt was announced, then they were taken to be executed a few days later. Just like China. Hmm....
I do agree with you, Amazing, that news travels much faster today, and so the people in the U.S. Government who want to get up to dirty tricks have to be more on their toes than it used to be. My point, however, is that the U.S. Government has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy at times. Therefore, as a U.S. citizen, I want my 6th-Amendment rights kept in place so I can keep an eye on things. Without accountability, power corrupts more rapidly.
Lionel_P_Hartley

Amazing,
As I understand it the GC does allow for the death penalty under certain situations - including international offenses. But that is besides the point - the issue is not what the penalty shall be but the procedure by which that penalty is arrived at. I'm sure you'd agree that sentencing an innocent man to death in a secret tribunal is easier than it is in a courts martial where the defendant has at least some nominal rights.
Seeker took issue with secret tribunals - as opposed to being tried by the military under the normal rules of courst-martial - in the latter the defendant is treated in exactly the same manner as would a US soldier guilty of the same offense.
Which would you prefer?
It all hinges on the central question, really the only question - are these people to be treated under the Geneva Convention or not? If the death penalty is permitted under the GC then why would the administration prefer secret tribunals - as distinct from courts martial that are already permitted to act and sentence under international law? That is, no special requests of Congress for tribunal power need be sought. One obvious answer is so that the prisoners can be interrogated. Maybe that is as it should be but one must at least admit to what is being done.
In any event, it is no argument against Seeker's point - in fact the GC is the central issue. That it can be so readily put aside when it was such a big issue, say in WWII, in regard to allied prisoners shows that it all depends on whose foot the shoe is.
As for Tony Blair - I think the tendency to label sides as conservative or liberal as is so often done is a very unsophistcated way of proceding indeed. Right now in Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh languish a number of British citizens who have not been charged with any offense nor does it look like they will be anytime soon. They are though to have been associated with Al Quaida. Thus, when the going gets rough the western democracies are quite prepared to abandon the constitutional rights of their citizens. Just qs the US did with Japanese US citizens in WWII. Similarly, the US asked Bosnia to detain a number of naturalized Bosnian citizens who are Arabs because they had contact with Al Quaida members. They are now at Guantanamo Bay since they were due to be released, having never been charged with a crime. Of course, many of these people were inspired by the US in the first place to fight the Russians who had apparently been deliberately drawn into Afghanistan by US manipulations during the "liberal" Carter administration.
As for trusting conservatives ahead of liberals, it's hard to pick one over the other - certainly George Bush's nefarious share dealings show that, born again Christian or not, he is perfectly happy to stiff people when it suits him. Then we have Clinton bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that has led to untold suffering for many - and the UK government refused to supply necessary pharmaceuticals. The list goes on, really. The conservative and liberal sides are there mainly to create the illusion that people have a choice.
LPH
Amazing

Hi Lionel:
"It all hinges on the central question, really the only question - are these people to be treated under the Geneva Convention or not? If the death penalty is permitted under the GC then why would the administration prefer secret tribunals - as distinct from courts martial that are already permitted to act and sentence under international law?
If the death penalty is allowed under each method, then the motive for a secret trial likely may be something else. I understand that under a Military Tribunal, with the level of secrecy, it is easier to keep a lid on information collected as a result of the trial. It is easier to present evidence that is also classified intelligence.
That is, no special requests of Congress for tribunal power need be sought. One obvious answer is so that the prisoners can be interrogated. Maybe that is as it should be but one must at least admit to what is being done.
Under the GC, POW can also be interrogated. They do not have to give anymore information than name, rank, serial number. As detainees, they are also interrogated. Again, all they have to give is name, rank, and serial number (provided they use such system.) The only way to extract more information is to torture them. If the USA engages in torture, then we have serious problems. My instincts tell me that the basis for secrecy is not to torture, and the death penalty is on the table no matter what system is used ... so, the basis is to decide if secrecy will all the easy presentation of classified evidence, or the collection of the same.
In any event, it is no argument against Seeker's point - in fact the GC is the central issue. That it can be so readily put aside when it was such a big issue, say in WWII, in regard to allied prisoners shows that it all depends on whose foot the shoe is.
In WWII Japan was among the worst at using torture against Allied POWs. They did not care about any rules of conduct. The purpose of the GC was to agree how things should be done to prevent such treatment of POWs, and other rules. I have not read material on the GC, so I don't know all the rules, but just what I have learned second hand. So, when the UK officials visited Camp X-Ray in Cuba, they were satisfied that the Detainees were being treated properly. The rest will just have to wait and see what develops.
As for Tony Blair - I think the tendency to label sides as conservative or liberal as is so often done is a very unsophistcated way of proceding indeed.
I have watched the House of Commons on TV when Blair, and his predecessor, Major visited. British are much more lively when they boo and hiss and shout in such a body of government. I was very surprised when I first saw this. US House and Senate are much more restrained and somber.
Liberal and Conservative labels came back into vogue here when Ronald Reagan started it in his first election bid. Reagan's run for the Whitehouse was the result of a longtime split in the Republican Party after Barry Goldwater lost to Johnson in 1964. The GOP at that time moved central and moderates took control. The terms Liberal and Conservative almost died.
Watching BBC and the House of Commons and other British campaign speakers, I find that much of the Conservative and Liberal agenda can be match with US concepts.
Right now in Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh languish a number of British citizens who have not been charged with any offense nor does it look like they will be anytime soon. They are though to have been associated with Al Quaida. Thus, when the going gets rough the western democracies are quite prepared to abandon the constitutional rights of their citizens. Just qs the US did with Japanese US citizens in WWII.
Well, Lincoln abandon the Constitution during the Civil War. The 11 Confederate States were never allowed to vote and ratify the added Amendments that prohibited slavery, and other racial discrimination. And to this day, those Amendments are not really Constitutional. But, inspite of setting aside the Constitution to push their passage, people here agree to let the Amnedments stand. Had Lincoln and the republicans allowed the Constitution to stand, then the South would never have ratified the Civil rights Amendments ... and slavery wold still be permitted. So, sometimes, setting aside the rules - as a fortune of war - is necessary, and does not always mean that the intent or results will be evil.
As for the Japanese being interned ... that is a black eye on the USA. These folks were not tortured ... and those I have known who were in the Internment camps said that it was a mixed thing for them ... they felt more secure there against mob riots of anti-Japanese protestors ... and they felt betrayed as Citizens. The USA eventually officially apologized and made reparatons to the Japanese citizens or their decendants.
Today, the USA is working very hard to avoid the same mistake of outrage being directed at Muslims and Arab peoples living here. So, we have learned from this terrible lesson.
Similarly, the US asked Bosnia to detain a number of naturalized Bosnian citizens who are Arabs because they had contact with Al Quaida members. They are now at Guantanamo Bay since they were due to be released, having never been charged with a crime.
Yes, that is unfortunate. But, hey, we are dealing with terrible people ... and in times of war things get ugly ... but compared to WWII, much of the hand-wringing and angst is over comparatively minor things.
Of course, many of these people were inspired by the US in the first place to fight the Russians who had apparently been deliberately drawn into Afghanistan by US manipulations during the "liberal" Carter administration.
I need to take exception here. The Soviet Union had a long standing policy of expansionism ... the spread of communism and get the Sobviet Union to warm-water ports. The Soviets worked hard to befriend Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, etc. While Afghanistan is land-locked, they are closer to to the Indian Ocean and they have a long border with Iran and Pakistan. They strategically needed and wanted a puppet government in Afghanistan.
The USA had a long standing committment to resist the spread of communism and prevent strategic advancement of the Soviet Union. So the USA supplied anti-communist forceds in Afghanistan with training and weapons. The plan worked much as it did for the Soviet Union when the USA fought in Viet Nam. The problem is, the USA left when the war was over and did not build a close relationship with Afghanistan ... and the bad guys took over.
As for trusting conservatives ahead of liberals, it's hard to pick one over the other - certainly George Bush's nefarious share dealings show that, born again Christian or not, he is perfectly happy to stiff people when it suits him.
Can you cite an example where he has stiffed anyone?
Then we have Clinton bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that has led to untold suffering for many - and the UK government refused to supply necessary pharmaceuticals. The list goes on, really. The conservative and liberal sides are there mainly to create the illusion that people have a choice.
I was always a cynic with regards to politicians ... and this grew to a high as a JW. When I left the JWs, I found that I did not need to be cynical. I chose to support political efforts and groups that are in favor of limited government. The Libertarians and Republicans favor limited government. I did this because I saw how the JW total Theocracy of Government from the top down worked ... like Markism did in the Communist nations ... and so I lean away from much government. It was a rude awakening for me to find that most ex-JWs lean Liberal and want lots of government, and government programs, and are willing to pay loads of taxes so that government can run their lives. I would have thought that rejecting the JW views would have also meant rejecting total government control. But, I was wrong on that one.
Anyway ... it has been interesting ... and it will be interesting to see how this POW-Detainee thing ends up.
dubla

seeker-
Secrecy to prevent revenge is not a factor because the first WTC terrorist trials went on in New York City civil courts just fine, no problems. So the second WTC terrorist trials could do the same.
really? there was no revenge taken on nyc?
aa
Lionel_P_Hartley

Amazing,
My instincts tell me that the basis for secrecy is not to torture, and the death penalty is on the table no matter what system is used ... so, the basis is to decide if secrecy will all the easy presentation of classified evidence, or the collection of the same.
Instincts don't count - that amounts to trusting government which is the whole basis of the 6th Amendment and Seeker's concernes, right?
Whatever the reasons it remains true that (a) Bush is pushing for secret tribunals and (b) the prisoners are not being accorded rights under the GC. It is pointless to try to explain why that might be - we simply don't know - but it raised enough concern in Europe that senior UK government officials are very concerned.
All I am saying is that Seeker's basic point cannot be rationalized away by looking for justification along the lines of "wahetver the US is doig it is for good reason." What's the point of the GC convention at all if it makes no difference as you seem to imply? The basic implication is that the US is such a trustworthy country that it doesn't need to be bothered with the GC whereas other countries do.
I'm not even suggesting that the GC should necessarily apply, either. All I am saying is that when someone raises problems with secret trials, then that argument cannot be deflected by arguing that prisoners are getting GC rights when they are not.
As for Bush, here is a link - http://www.public-i.org/story_01_040400.htm
And for the Afghan trap - it all depends on one whether one believes Brzezinski or not in his memoirs.
LPH
Amazing

Hi Lionel:
All I am saying is that Seeker's basic point cannot be rationalized away by looking for justification along the lines of "wahetver the US is doig it is for good reason." What's the point of the GC convention at all if it makes no difference as you seem to imply? The basic implication is that the US is such a trustworthy country that it doesn't need to be bothered with the GC whereas other countries do.
My intention is not to justify or rationalize away the GC. But, I am trying to counter-balance the implications that because these Detainees are not treated as POWs (yet) under the GC, that somehow creates suspecion that they will not be treated fairly. So, I am simply truying to see both sides during this process until the USA makes a decision.
The GC, if I am not mistaken, was largely influenced by Britain, the USA, and other western allies. As nations mature in their civilized methods, and become more tame, they seem to seek rules that govern everything - eben in war - like a gentleman's dual - must be by the book.
When the USA was fighting for independence from Great Britain, the British Army sent her to squash it were of this sort of training. General Cornwallis, featured in a recent movie here, was known for being an excellent officer and gentleman ... he played by the book ... nice neat soldiers in bright uniforms, taking position on the open battlefield, fighting by the book. The rules of engagement were important to professional soldiers and officers.
The USA fighters were largely untrained farmers, poorly equiped, no uniforms, poor discipline, poor public support (only about 40% of the public wanted independence from the Crown). And so these men fought dirty ... wore cloths hard to be seen in the forests, and ambushed the British. Even with all that we still needed the help of the French to finish the job. Great Britain was THE world power, the premier class empire ... and had the best Navy and Army.
Now the shoe is on the other foot ... crazy religious fanatics are fighting very dirty ... and they would as soon kill us as to look at us ... they kill innocent civilians ... they will break out of prison and take control in a heart beat ... Americans and English and others are hated ... we are seen as the evil, heathen, satanic powers. Their memories are long, as they are fighting for their ancestors as well as for themselves ... they still hate the Jews for taking the land under Moses and King David, they still hate the British Empire for invading and taking control of much of the middle east and southeat Asia, including India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other areas.
They do not see today's generation of British, Americans, and others as having nothing to do with that history ... they see us all as products of the evil west ... and they are committed to kill us at every turn.
Were the taliban and Al Quaeda to have held out longer, and captured British or American troops, then I have little doubt that our soldiers would not be given any consideration along the GC lines. These people care not for the gentlemen's rules of engagement ... they do one thing, and only one thing best ... kill ... no trial, no justice ... no deciding on the best way ... to them there is one way ... kill.
I feel that the angst over their current label as Detainees is an exercise in semantics - for the moment - until the USA makes a determnination. Then, we can begin to debate the results with greater vigor. And if the US Government make a blunder, you can bet that ever nation is going to be all over our proverbial ass.
In my earlier posts, I did not mean that I trust government ... for it is my conservative position to trust government least among all our institutions ... I much rather trust people, business, and other private organizations. I am just wanting to take a wait and see position as I form my opinion.
To date, no one have really stated just what rights the Detainees have been denied, other than the label POW. While3 the implications can be problematic, in reality, what problem has been caused. Is a label equal to a right? If the Detainees are being afforded the same rights under their current label ... then what harm has been done to them? What has really been violated.
Suppose we call them POWs, but then quietly deny rights ... and this is not seen by other nations ... then what? Will the label pacify observers, implying that they are more concerned with the package and not the content?
I fully understand Seeker's very valid issue. It concerns me as well, and that is why I have been very active in this discussion. I distrust governments in general. But, I also have to try and see other sides ... it is not like we have a track record as Germany. Can you imagine is Germany were the nation that was attacked on 9/11, and then sent troops to Afghanistan ... toook a bunch of Detainees back to Germany, activated an old Concentration Camp to hold the Detainees ... and the rest of the world watched this? I would be far more fearful of Germany given their track record of starting two world wars and the horrible abuses they committed.
The USA, nor Britain, nor other western nations have that sort of track record. Well, except for the British Empire of ages gone by ... but today, from WWI forward, our nations have been pretty gentle by comparison.
Assuming that Bush as an agenda outside protection and gathering classified information under the current Detainee plan ... and let's say that he is getting personal, then here is a far more realistic way he would treat the situation: Let them be tried in civilian courts with all the GC rules and any other rules that Europeans want ... including asking the Attorney General and Justice Dept. to NOT seek the death penalty. Wow ... this would dazzle the Europeans that we Americans are really being highly civilized ... but, once these bad guys are sent to life in prison ... then this would be the cruelest of ways to get even ... for American prisons are mean places ... and American prisoners would just loved to welcome the Al Quaeda and Taliban ... In America, for such people, the death penalty is an act of mercy.
So, this is why I am not convinced that Bush has bad intentions. because the best polotical move would be to allow all the right packaging and wondow dressing ... gain the trust and love of Europe ... not enforce the death penalty ... then gloat privately as the Taliban and Al Quaeda memebrs live in American prison ... my god, that would be the way to go were he truly vindictive and wanting real revenge.

Secret military tribunals and historical precedent

Share this