Wait a minute!!

[VoodooAce]

Ok.

So the detainees in Cuba are NOT POW's, but criminal detainees. Thus they are not entitled to treatment as POW's under the Geneva Convention.

Ok. I disagree, but whatever.

But NOW that beady eyed hypocrite (I'll leave it to you to determine whether I'm talking about Rumsfeld or Dumbya ) is saying these 'criminals', if found innocent in the Military Tribunals, will not be released.

So, what they are saying is that these guys will ride out the rest of the war as....what?....POW's?????

Dumbya cares nothing for the Constitution. All he cares about is fighting the war on terror....keeping it going and keeping his numbers high.....and he's not going to let technicalities stand in his way.

Give me a f#cking break. This is where everyone gets the idea that we're hypocrites.

I'm beginning to think these guys are the real 'evil ones'.

 

[Pellaken]

frankley, they are terriosts. I couldent care less what happens to them.

 

[Flatlander Fox]

What does the Constitution have to do with ANYTHING in this matter?

And the Geneva convention? You of all people should know what a farce that is. Rules of war? When the terrorists failed to let us know they were attacking the WTC and the Pentagon, they threw that sucker out of the window.

Let 'em rot.

 

[VoodooAce]

Well, I knew when I mentioned the Constitution, I'd get the 'what does that have to do with anything' reply.

Well, to me its all about principles. Its not that I want to see these guys treated like kings.....or even treated like humans. I'm sure many of those guys deserve worse than they will get.

I just hate to see my country abandon its principles as soon as the heat gets turned up a bit. Which is what we have done at practically every opportunity.

I mean, WHAT THE F#CK is the point of trying these guys with tribunals, then????????????

To find them guilty, that's why. Just seems to me that we are making the former Soviets proud. Isn't that the kind of trials they use to hold? You know, to find someone guilty?

I know a lot of people here believe America can do no wrong, but when you start having these trials, and someone is found to be not guilty but we keep him jailed anyway.....well....

What if a spy is caught in the USSR....is tried in a sham trial and still found not guilty.....but they kept him anyway.

All the right wing nuts here would be falling all over themselves to demand retaliation.

Which is what their right wing nuts are going to do.

 

[amadeus]

Two things -- I don't think the government could at all not find enough evidence to convict every single detainee in the Cuban base.

Second, if a spy was caught in the Soviet Union, he'd be interrogated and executed. The only condition the Communists would use a trial is to create pro-Soviet propaganda.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Two things -- I don't think the government could at all not find enough evidence to convict every single detainee in the Cuban base.

Second, if a spy was caught in the Soviet Union, he'd be interrogated and executed. The only condition the Communists would use a trial is to create pro-Soviet propaganda.

Uh. Ever hear of a pilot named Powers???????????????????????

 

[Sixchan]

frankley, they are terriosts. I couldent care less what happens to them.

Wouldn't finding them innocent mean they're NOT terrorists?

If they're not terrorists, shouldn't they be released?

 

[amadeus]

You don't think, though, that the Russians used this guy to promote pro-Soviet messages?

The Communists held on to this guy for two years, and just used him as a "get out of jail free" card for one of their men.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Sixchan


Wouldn't finding them innocent mean they're NOT terrorists?

If they're not terrorists, shouldn't they be released?

Exactly.

But, as ridiculous and unbelievable as it may seem, that's what Rummy is coming out and saying this morning.

Thus my question. Why even have the tribunals?????????????

Are we talking 'show' trials here?

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
You don't think, though, that the Russians used this guy to promote pro-Soviet messages?

The Communists held on to this guy for two years, and just used him as a "get out of jail free" card for one of their men.

Of course they did. And? I never said what I did or didn't think of Powers.

You were incorrect in your statement. Powers was just an example of where you were wrong.

 

[Padma]

Actually, the way they are written, the Geneva Conventions don't really apply. They were written to apply to uniformed service members. All others are considered 'illegal combatants'. The U.S. government, a few weeks ago, did say that once they figure out which prisoners are Taliban they will be treated as POWs, as they constitute the 'army' of the opposing force. Al Queda, OTOH, are illegal combatants, and will be held for criminal trial.

In direct response to this topic, from the Washington Post: "Human rights organizations expressed concern about the policy. But they said it is defensible under international law as long as the U.S. government places a time limit on its detention of prisoners who have not been charged with a crime."

They agree that under the Geneva Conventions they can be held for the duration of the conflict, even if they are acquited of specific crimes. The question is, duration of what conflict?

They can legally be held until the end of the war in Afghanistan, and arguably until the U.S. is done hunting Al Queda members. But until the end of the 'war on terrorism'? That's too open-ended - it will probably never be done.

And VoodooAce, I share your concern that the Constitution should be more than a piece of paper in a museum. It should be guiding principles for our nation's actions. We do need to watch to see what this (or any) administration tries to do to circumvent it. In this case, I think they are on OK, albeit shaky, ground.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Two things -- I don't think the government could at all not find enough evidence to convict every single detainee in the Cuban base.

Of course not, considering no critical source (including the detainees) ever have to see the evidence, it would be impossible NOT to find it. Heresay by secret witness is considered evidence. They can get one Moderator Action: I consider that word a racist comment. Please do not use it again
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889 -PH76 from Afghanistan to say he saw them all shooting at Americans and they'll six feet under (assuming mass graves aren't more convenient) before the end of the day.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Second, if a spy was caught in the Soviet Union, he'd be interrogated and executed. The only condition the Communists would use a trial is to create pro-Soviet propaganda.

Interrogated and executed? Trail for propoganda? Does the hypocracy thing go right over your head?

To explain why Military tribunals are unconstitutional (Despite FDR's efforts as well, perhaps no man has done more to subvert the Constitution than FDR)...
In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution was meant to be the blueprint by which free nations could govern themselves. In my opinion, the United States' supreme law of the land is good enough for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE. Granted, we can't enforce it for everyone, everywhere, because it is only our law. But that is exactly why we must always follow our law: to show the rest of the world that transparent justice can be effective. The original WTC bombers didn't need a military tribunal; they were effectively prosecuted in Federal court. And I challenge you to find any terror secrets from the trial seeing as the sensative information was carefully reviewed by a judge before being released to the immidiate public record.

The specifics of Unconstitutionality:
Bill of Rights...
Article VI: In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the RIGHT to a speedy and PUBLIC trail,... ;to be confronted with the witnesses against him...
Article XIV: No State shall make or enforce any law which.... ; deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I think we should just execute them all once they have been rung dry of all intell.
Then, later on when there is more time, we can hold a trial for them, and if they are found innocent, we can smile apologetically for the cameras.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Greadius
....But that is exactly why we must always follow our law: to show the rest of the world that transparent justice can be effective....

Exactly. And to show the rest of the world that we actually practice and believe what we preach.

Originally posted by Greadius
Does the hypocracy thing go right over your head?

Swoooosshhhhhh

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Padma
Actually, the way they are written, the Geneva Conventions don't really apply. They were written to apply to uniformed service members. All others are considered 'illegal combatants'. The U.S. government, a few weeks ago, did say that once they figure out which prisoners are Taliban they will be treated as POWs, as they constitute the 'army' of the opposing force. Al Queda, OTOH, are illegal combatants, and will be held for criminal trial.

In direct response to this topic, from the Washington Post: "Human rights organizations expressed concern about the policy. But they said it is defensible under international law as long as the U.S. government places a time limit on its detention of prisoners who have not been charged with a crime."

They agree that under the Geneva Conventions they can be held for the duration of the conflict, even if they are acquited of specific crimes. The question is, duration of what conflict?

They can legally be held until the end of the war in Afghanistan, and arguably until the U.S. is done hunting Al Queda members. But until the end of the 'war on terrorism'? That's too open-ended - it will probably never be done.

Well I generally agree with Padma here. I think the question comes down to 1. Are they terrorists? 2. If not, they are still enemy combatants.

I would suspect that that is what is meant by not releasing them if they were found innocent. Say an American POW in WWII was tried for Murder and found innocent. We wouldn't expect the Germans to release him. He would still be a POW.

As for the whole POW debate, I think once sorted out, some of them could be termed POWs if they were part of the Taliban's forces.

The real question becomes, what if someone is found not guilty of terrorism, but is also a member of Al-queda and was caught in armed struggle against US forces? What do we do with those people? We might be able to sit here and say that all Al-queda are terrorists, but not all of them will be found guilty. POW seems a bit too nice of a status for them and doesn't really work, because who are they POW's from?

Perhaps it isn't the best solution, but if we determine that they are not guilty and are not Taliban, they should be turned over to the rule Afgani government. I would assume that they will want to have a policy for dealing with foriegn nationals that fought against them.

 

[Sixchan]

I would suspect that that is what is meant by not releasing them if they were found innocent. Say an American POW in WWII was tried for Murder and found innocent. We wouldn't expect the Germans to release him. He would still be a POW.

But let's say an average American, not a POW, gets found innocent of murder. Since he's not a POW, he can't be held as a POW and should be let go.

Now, if someone in the Taliban forces is found innocent, he is a POW and can be held as such, but if a person who wasn't in the Taliban is found innocent, since he's not a uniformed soldier, he can't be a POW, so he can't be held as one.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Sixchan


But let's say an average American, not a POW, gets found innocent of murder. Since he's not a POW, he can't be held as a POW and should be let go.

Now, if someone in the Taliban forces is found innocent, he is a POW and can be held as such, but if a person who wasn't in the Taliban is found innocent, since he's not a uniformed soldier, he can't be a POW, so he can't be held as one.

Okay that works until you add in the factor that he isn't a uniformed soldier, but he was fighting. I really don't know what the Geneva convention's policy is on this, but I can't think that it requires a nation to let someone go who was an armed combatant, just not uniformed. I do know that there is something in there about the definitions of a spy, and it has something to do with uniforms and isn't quite so nice on what can be done with them. Now I am not suggesting that a non taliban captured while fighting is a spy, but there has to be something in there that covers an irregular combatant, which is what those held who are Al-Queda, but not found guilty of terrorism.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

They are pirates, unlawfual combatants in modern parlance, which basicly means they get the worst of both regimes of law, military and criminal. They can be held indefinately while the conflicts continues, like POWs but are entitled to VERY FEW of the protections that POWs get. Basicly their only right is to MINIMALY humane treatment and sort sort of hearing (no precedent or effective guidence as to what sort) to confirm or establish status. They are to be fed, clothed, not tortured, not dangerously exposed to the elements.
Not having been resident, captured in, or brought to USA sovereign even after being charged with a crime they will get very very few of the contitutional proction for criminals (There are several distinctions among citizens lawful residents, unlawful residents, anybody, in the Constituion about which rights one gets).
They are really, under both USA and International law up the legal creek without much of any paddle. It has been only a little more than century since persons of that status could lawfuly be sumerally executed upon capture.

 

[knowltok2]

I knew there was a basis behind what I was trying to get across!

Thanks Lefty.

 

[damunzy]

And VoodooAce, I share your concern that the Constitution should be more than a piece of paper in a museum. It should be guiding principles for our nation's actions. We do need to watch to see what this (or any) administration tries to do to circumvent it. In this case, I think they are on OK, albeit shaky, ground.

The specifics of Unconstitutionality:
Bill of Rights...
Article VI: In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the RIGHT to a speedy and PUBLIC trail,... ;to be confronted with the witnesses against him...
Article XIV: No State shall make or enforce any law which.... ; deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I too think that we should offer the same respect to every human....but is it really possible when it comes down to it? I also think that we shouldn't be killing anyone, but I know that is a naive view and it will not happen until way past my generation...