Obama suspends trials at Guantanamo

Pocono Joe

Waterboarding does not violate the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. It was regularly practiced as a punishment for misdemeanor offenses at and after the time the Eighth Amendment became law (prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment” - ratified in 1791 - not the Founding Fathers OB). Cruel and unusual punishment was also defined in law at the time to mean you had to strangle a person before burning them at the stake or drawing and quartering them. Therefore Congress would have to ban waterboarding for it to be illegal at the federal level.

This is probably why during a Senate confirmation hearing of Bush’s Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, refused to address the legality of bringing a prisoner to near drowning to make him talk. "I think it would be irresponsible of me to discuss particular techniques with which I am not familiar when there are people who are using coercive techniques and who are being authorized to use coercive techniques. And for me to say something that is going to put their careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial, I don't think it would be responsible of me to do that." And later in the testimony he said, "If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional."

Regardless of how the law has been interpreted in the past, the government has a duty to first and foremost protect the citizenry. The Executive (The President), being an independent branch of government, has the duty an responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution as he sees it.

Pocono Joe

Nodin wrote: »

Has one calendar date ever been used to justify so much?

Yup... December 25th.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Waterboarding does not violate the ban on cruel and unusual punishment(...............) it.

Really? I suggest that you actually look into the matter before making such pronouncements. Or are you under the impression that the rest of us are uniformed on the subject?

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.
More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."
In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."
The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

(my bold and underline)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_pf.html

Prosecutions against US soldiers abroad, US nationals domestically, Japanese during WWII.....The whole gamut of possibilities, including civil actions, over a hundred year period. Thats a remarkably consistent stance, evenly applied. Some would say a record of some sort of inherent decency - one that you seem hell bent on burying.

Pocono Joe

Nodin wrote: »

Really? I suggest that you actually look into the matter before making such pronouncements. Or are you under the impression that the rest of us are uniformed on the subject?

Nope… my interpretation of it. We all have our opinions.

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Waterboarding does not violate the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Bla Bla Bla

Cruel and Unusual Punishment != Torture

But regardless they are both covered under the same ban,

On December 10, 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 5 states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."[6] Since that time a number of other international treaties have been adopted to prevent the use of torture. Two of these are the United Nations Convention Against Torture and for international conflicts the Geneva Conventions III and IV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Laws_against_torture

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Nope… my interpretation of it. We all have our opinions.

Form your opinions from Facts, not Fairy Tales, and we'll get along nicely.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Nope… my interpretation of it. We all have our opinions.

But we aren't discussing poetry. The US has punished this as a serious crime for over a century, abroad and domestically, whether perpetrated by its citizens on others, or on its citizens by others. Thats a matter of historical fact. Your "interpretation" of it is therefore superceded rather harshly by reality.

Pocono Joe

I see the Obama administration will maintain the Bush administration's position that battlefield detainees held without charges by the United States in Afghanistan are not entitled to constitutional rights to challenge their detention. I guess they are finding out that governing and protecting our country is a much tougher job than just campaigning. Looks like Dick Cheney knew what he was talking about when he recently said Protecting the country's security is "a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business," and "These are evil people. And we're not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek."

So is Gitmo going to be closed seemingly and purely for political points, or will the administration’s eyes be opened just a little more to the dangers we face from terrorists, and keep detention facility open after the end of this year?

Lemming

Pocono Joe wrote: »

So is Gitmo going to be closed seemingly and purely for political points, or will the administration’s eyes be opened just a little more to the dangers we face from terrorists, and keep detention facility open after the end of this year?

I wont comment on the rest of what you said, but the US (as every other country in the world) has always faced terrorism. It isn't new, although you seem to think it is some new scary near-invincible bogeyman.

The irony is of course is that GitMo is a poster-child for extremist recruiters everywhere. It is their wet-dream for new-number quotas. The British establishment (and the population of Northern Ireland as a whole) learned this bitterly from internment in Northern Ireland, it's just a pity that the US hasn't bothered to learn from the bitter history of others and is apparently doomed to the same cycle only this time even more people will die as a result. "You know best" as they say ...

Pocono Joe

It may just be me, but the threat from dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons in the hands of terrorists (supplied by rogue regimes and rogue individuals) is a bit of a new concern, demanding new tactics, don’t you think?

Lemming

Pocono Joe wrote: »

It may just be me, but the threat from dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons in the hands of terrorists (supplied by rogue regimes and rogue individuals) is a bit of a new concern, demanding new tactics, don’t you think?

People don't just wake up one day and decide to go instigate an NBC attack ...

And in any case, force of arms does not defeat terrorism, intelligence and an awareness of the world outside your own wants & desires does.

Places like GitMo do nothing to combat terrorism. Places like the Maze or the internment camps in Northern Ireland DID nothing to combat terrorism. Ever. They only served as a breeding ground and a rallying cry for terrorism.

Pocono Joe

I keep going back to the Yemen jail break of 23 Islamists, Including USS Cole's bombers in September 2006. There were suspicions at the time that the Yemeni authorities may have colluded with, or turned a blind eye to the escape, to avoid handing individuals over to the United States. Not much chance of this sort of thing happening at Gitmo now is there?

Lemming

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I keep going back to the Yemen jail break of 23 Islamists, Including USS Cole's bombers in September 2006. There were suspicions at the time that the Yemeni authorities may have colluded with, or turned a blind eye to the escape, to avoid handing individuals over to the United States. Not much chance of this sort of thing happening at Gitmo now is there?

So, for the sake of 23 Islamists and a whole load of ifs, buts, and maybes, you stake your claim to a highly inflammatory symbol that is the rallying call for thousands of extremists and their sympathisers along with a serious erosion of crediblity and faith in what your nation represents by those who are not "enemies of the state"?

There is also the minorly f*cking huge issue of an alarmingly high number of detainees at GitMo not actually being guilty of anything since good old greed got the better of the warlords in Afghanistan who started handing over people that they simply didn't like for "rewards" and no questions asked. What do you think happens to someone who gets tortured for no reason? Do you think they end up being buddy-buddy with your country? Or wanting to see it, everyone in it, and everything about it burn in hell for eternity?

There are better and more effective ways to combat terrorism than something like GitMo. The French learned the hard way, the Spanish learned the hard way. The British learned the very hard way, etc.

I just find it so very frustrating that there's this prevailant attitude of "drop a nuke on 'em and let god sort 'em out" among large swathes of the US population who seem to equate might with right. Learning when to stay your hand is mightier than going in all guns blazing and collaterally damaging innocent people in droves (unless of course you want to commit genocide ... ). Not exactly winning of hearts and minds now is it? The US learned that too late in Vietnam, and it appears it has all but forgotten that lesson again now.

Incidentally, torture/interrogation/"robust interview"/whatever-sanitised-clincal-term-you-want-to-use (in reference to GitMo) is one of the worst ways of attempting to get reliable intelligence information. The person being tortured will simply tell you what you want to hear in order to get you to stop.

Pocono Joe

I don’t know anybody, let alone "large swathes of the US population" who feels it best to "drop a nuke on 'em and let god sort 'em out."

President Clinton stayed the hand and we got 9/11.

And yeah... there are better and more effective ways to combat terrorism, but I doubt any of the effective methods would be allowed in this politically correct environment. "Deprogramming" comes to mind, and I know the method works! I went through deprogramming training back in the early 1970’s, specializing in Hare Krishna cults.

Manic Moran

Not much chance of this sort of thing happening at Gitmo now is there?

Gitmo certainly serves a purpose, and I think it's wrong to close down the detention facility entirely. The problem is that it has become a sort of discard pile for people that end up being forgotten about, there seems to have been little accountability for anyone to ensure that the detainees are processed. A reasonable best effort must be made within a fairly short period of time to figure out just whether or not the person should be continued in detention, and that has not really been happening. I'm not talking about a civil trial here, as they take for ever and I think they're on dodgy ground to begin with, but at least some form of investigative/oversight process.

NTM

Lemming

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I don’t know anybody, let alone "large swathes of the US population" who feels it best to "drop a nuke on 'em and let god sort 'em out."

President Clinton stayed the hand and we got 9/11.

And there were the attacks before 9/11. You weren't suddenly combatting terrorism since 9/11, but long before. That you weren't really aware of it is neither here nor there. There was the previous attack on the WTC back in the early 90s, the Cole (albeit that happened elsewhere), etc. This was created before Clinton, and ironically by the some of the same people leading the current "war".

To point this at Clinton is idiotic and blinkered, and of course .... ignoring the cause and looking at the symptom. Again.

And yeah... there are better and more effective ways to combat terrorism, but I doubt any of the effective methods would be allowed in this politically correct environment. "Deprogramming" comes to mind, and I know the method works! I went through deprogramming training back in the early 1970’s, specializing in Hare Krishna cults.

How about encouraging solid intelligence work (and funding therein)? Why settle for the most extreme examples (inherently stupid examples at that)? I mean, you could just as easily say launch a pile of nukes at the Middle East & Central Asia. Job done. But again, that's sensationalist and stupid as an argument.

I'm not dancing around MM's comments (just addressing yours), on which he is of course right. GitMo does serve a purpose (or should at least); it's however being neglected as such and used as a dumping ground which festers and further encourages extremist rallying calls.

Pocono Joe

Lemming wrote: »

And there were the attacks before 9/11. You weren't suddenly combatting terrorism since 9/11, but long before. That you weren't really aware of it is neither here nor there. There was the previous attack on the WTC back in the early 90s, the Cole (albeit that happened elsewhere), etc. This was created before Clinton, and ironically by the some of the same people leading the current "war".

To point this at Clinton is idiotic and blinkered, and of course .... ignoring the cause and looking at the symptom. Again.

The first WTC bombing took place on 26 February 1993; The U.S. Embassy in Kenya bombing was 7 August 1998; The USS Cole bombing took place on 12 October 2000. Bill Clinton was POTUS from January 1993 to January 2001.


I normally would respond in kind to your disparaging personal remarks, but I believe we all know that I would get in trouble for it.

Lemming

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I normally would respond in kind to your disparaging personal remarks, but I believe we all know that I would get in trouble for it.

Excuse me? Please quote the disparaging personal remarks and I'll apologise right here, right now.

I called your argument concerning Clinton flawed. Inherently. I called the use of "deprogramming" a stupid and extreme example (and it is), along with the equally stupid and extreme example of "lets just nuk'em" given by myself to emphasis that.

Show me ONCE where I have called YOU anything derogatory.

Pocono Joe

"Inherently" (adjective) existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute.

You can't use the word as you did without insinuating something personal.

Lemming

Pocono Joe wrote: »

"Inherently" (adjective) existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute.

You can't use the word as you did without insinuating something personal.

Yes you can. To imply that an argument is inherently flawed is to suggest that it has not been thought out properly, for any number of reasons. If you want to load innuendo into that, work away .. you're the one implying it, not me. Just don't dress it up any different kthxbye.

Pocono Joe

Okay, I guess it must be like that famous Bill Clinton quote: That depends on what your definition of "is" is"

My Bad. :rolleyes:


Just to clarify, you gave reasoning for "inherently flawed," what then do you mean by "inherently stupid?"

GuanYin

You both know better than this.

Keep it on topic and non personal.

PJ, you're showing up on my radar far too often.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I see(...........)detention facility open after the end of this year?

The idea that they might have US rights was always flawed. However they should be afforded POW status as recognised by the Geneva convention.

Manic Moran

However they should be afforded POW status as recognised by the Geneva convention.

Which gives rise to another problem. How long does one hold a POW for?

Until the war is over, or there's a prisoner exchange. Do you see either happening any time soon?

That's why I don't think we should be considering Gitmo as either a civilian prison or POW facility. It just doesn't fit well into either frame of reference, no matter how much we want it to slot into something a category we're familiar and comfortable with.

NTM

Lemming

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which gives rise to another problem. How long does one hold a POW for?

Until the war is over, or there's a prisoner exchange. Do you see either happening any time soon?

That's why I don't think we should be considering Gitmo as either a civilian prison or POW facility. It just doesn't fit well into either frame of reference, no matter how much we want it to slot into something a category we're familiar and comfortable with.

NTM

Only problem with that is, whilst there's a valid dilemma, the Geneva Convention is fairly clear in what status is afforded to whom and essentially that it works on a "sliding scale" of recognition with a catch-all for anyone who isn't covered explicitly (e.g. civilian/militia vs. Military & Law/Militia under the instruction of a government or military hierarchy).

Whatever term of reference it falls under, it has to do so within the context of the G.C. framework, which GitMo thus far does not, which makes for an alarmingly worrying state of affairs.

I've quoted the relevant parts on here before, but I'd need to dig them all up again which would take time that I just don't have right now.

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which gives rise to another problem. How long does one hold a POW for?

Until the war is over, or there's a prisoner exchange. Do you see either happening any time soon?

That's why I don't think we should be considering Gitmo as either a civilian prison or POW facility. It just doesn't fit well into either frame of reference, no matter how much we want it to slot into something a category we're familiar and comfortable with.

Well the current situation is untenable. If there isn't a slot, one must be created. Otherwise the US is guilty of hypocrisy (not that thats new, but this is a bit more blatant than hitherto...)

Pocono Joe

Today Eric Holder, the new US Attorney General, said "I did not witness any mistreatment of prisoners. I think, to the contrary, what I saw was a very conscious attempt by these guards to conduct themselves in an appropriate way." of his recent trip to Gitmo. He went on to say said he did not witness any rough treatment of detainees, and in fact found the military staff and leadership performing admirably.

But he also said "It does not in any way decrease our determination to close the facility, even though as I said it is being well-run now."

So I guess the closing of Gitmo really is just a political maneuver after all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_ot/holder_guantanamo

Overheal

Or like when you know the Health Inspector is coming around, you put the Rat back in its shoebox and mop the floor.

Either way gitmo has become a negative American icon due to the events of the last few years.

Manic Moran

Well the current situation is untenable.

They did try alternatives. They tried initial investigations, people objected because they said they weren't trials, so things were put on hold until they could come up with another plan. Then they tried military tribunals, and people objected because they thought that civilian courts should do the job. So everything got put on hold again. Now the civilian wheels of justice are starting to turn, in their usual, lethargic (and in my view, inappropriate) manner.

NTM

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Today Eric Holder, the new US Attorney General, said "I did not witness any mistreatment of prisoners. I think, to the contrary, what I saw was a very conscious attempt by these guards to conduct themselves in an appropriate way."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_ot/holder_guantanamo

It's a new regime at the Whitehouse. The lads in the base are hardly still going to be kicking around the inmates with a picture of GW looking on because nobody posted them the 'cease and desist' order.

Lemming

Manic Moran wrote: »

They did try alternatives. They tried initial investigations, people objected because they said they weren't trials, so things were put on hold until they could come up with another plan. Then they tried military tribunals, and people objected because they thought that civilian courts should do the job. So everything got put on hold again. Now the civilian wheels of justice are starting to turn, in their usual, lethargic (and in my view, inappropriate) manner.

NTM

The military tribunals were a farce though MM; not allowed to see/know the evidence against you, etc. etc. and were structured more like kangaroo courts than anything resembling an actual trial.

The only civilian court trial of note that they had was for that guy convicted on conspiracy charges regarding 9/11 - even then aspects of the prosecution case smacked of desperation to make the charges stick, like the playback of phonecalls on the day from those trapped within the towers - nothing to do with the evidence at hand, and a cynical attempt to bring emotion into the courtroom (were there is no place for emotion). Conviction was secured but it was like using an artillery-gun to push a nail into a wall.

I think what they need to do (first) is examine the finer details that exist on all those people who were not captured during engagements (i.e. handed over by the Afghan warlords) to see who is who since many of those would not be guilty of anything other than not being in the respective warlords favour. That should clear up a lot of space. After that I think they really need some sort of hybrid investigative/court model involving civilian & military authorities along with the intelligence community to check up on whom they've caught. Bob the 16 year old who was recruited out of a madrasa, handed an AK, and simply told "the americans are going to eat your babies. Go stop them." is significantly of less value as both a threat and less value in terms of court time & intelligence work. By comparison, Timbob the 25 year old cell-leader who recruited Bob is quite the opposite and probably has names, places, and dates that involve him or that he knows of.