Secret Prisons

[Sayhey]

It just keeps getting worse and worse folks. Now we are using the prisons of the former gulag system we once castigated. Not only are we using the prisons but we are not telling Congress about them. OK, I'm with Green Day, wake me up when September ends. I could not make this stuff up for trashy fiction and be believed.
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 2, 2005; Page A01

The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions....Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html)

[mactastic]

Why am I not surprised...

Bush: The president who dragged America's honor through the mud.

[mactastic]

Oops... duplicate post. Oh well, might as well use it for something!

Weren't the Bushies all up in arms not that long ago because they were mentioned in the same sentence as 'gulags'?

Now we know why that stung so much, hitting so close to home as it did...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Is this the U.S.A or have we turned into Nazi's? Our own Govt has decided to ignore a little thing like the Constitution and Bill of rights. These people are being held with no trials nothing. This is Scary stuff when you have a Govt going around doing anything it wants and not answering to no one. All this secret stuff can only lead to abuse of power and it has. All they have to do is throw a label on someone like....insurgent or enemy combatant and presto no human rights at all? We are becoming what our forfathers fought against. Another poor example the U.S. is setting under George & the Deferral Gang. You know all those draft dodgers like Cheney, Rove, Libby.............and yes George. Its a sad time to be an American when we have such piss poor sorry butt lack of leadership. Hypocrites.

[jelloshotsrule]

i love how blunt you are dhm!

sayhey- next time try not to get a source that's such a liberal commie rag. :rolleyes: ;)

[hcuar]

Is this the U.S.A or have we turned into Nazi's? Our own Govt has decided to ignore a little thing like the Constitution and Bill of rights. These people are being held with no trials nothing. This is Scary stuff when you have a Govt going around doing anything it wants and not answering to no one. All this secret stuff can only lead to abuse of power and it has. All they have to do is throw a label on someone like....insurgent or enemy combatant and presto no human rights at all? We are becoming what our forfathers fought against. Another poor example the U.S. is setting under George & the Deferral Gang. You know all those draft dodgers like Cheney, Rove, Libby.............and yes George. Its a sad time to be an American when we have such piss poor sorry butt lack of leadership. Hypocrites.

Umm... hello? These prisons are holding non US citizens. The consitution and bill of rights protects the rights of American Citizens, not foreign nationals. Our forefathers gave no protective status to such an individual. Only international organizations and treaties have defined such requirements. Being a soverign nation does not require the adherance to such policies.

[jelloshotsrule]

Umm... hello? These prisons are holding non US citizens. The consitution and bill of rights protects the rights of American Citizens, not foreign nationals. Our forefathers gave no protective status to such an individual. Only international organizations and treaties have defined such requirements. Being a soverign nation does not require the adherance to such policies.

not true

when our country signs a treaty, it essentially becomes a part of our constitution, from what i understand. i assume this is the case for most treaties at least. the geneva conventions being one of them, i'm sure.

i will check with someone though for clarification

[hcuar]

not true

when our country signs a treaty, it essentially becomes a part of our constitution, from what i understand. i assume this is the case for most treaties at least. the geneva conventions being one of them, i'm sure.

i will check with someone though for clarification


Yeah... you might want to check on that. That's incorrect. It has NOTHING to do with our constitution. It's a treaty. We've broken, renegociated, and followed many treaties and agreements throughout history.

I'm not sure how old you are, so you may not have hadgovernment in high school yet. The only way to change the constitution is an amendment. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment for general information. Here's a page for info specifically for the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution At the bottom of the page are links about amendments.

We have NO requirement to follow a treaty. If another nation doesn't like our breaking of the treaty, they may declare war, embargo, whatever. However, no nation most likley will due to finacial or military response. AKA the bigger and wealthier you are, the more you can bend the rules. It's not necessarily nice, but it's true.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Umm... hello? These prisons are holding non US citizens. The consitution and bill of rights protects the rights of American Citizens, not foreign nationals. Our forefathers gave no protective status to such an individual. Only international organizations and treaties have defined such requirements. Being a soverign nation does not require the adherance to such policies.
Better take a better look at our Constitution, its still holds our govt to standards Bush and the Deferral gang have ignored, sidestepped etc. So because the deferral gang grab someone and give them a label that means they can be thrown in Jail with no trial ever? held for a lifetime?? We are better then this. What are we fighting for if Freedom, Liberty & Justice only applies to those you choose? Look close at the First phrase in the Constitution and tell me where justice is in throwing people into secret jails with no trials, secluded, no lawyers, for the rest of their lives even though they have yet been proven guilty?

[pseudobrit]

Yeah... you might want to check on that. That's incorrect. It has NOTHING to do with our constitution. It's a treaty. We've broken, renegociated, and followed many treaties and agreements throughout history.

I'm not sure how old you are, so you may not have hadgovernment in high school yet. The only way to change the constitution is an amendment. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment for general information. Here's a page for info specifically for the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution At the bottom of the page are links about amendments.

We have NO requirement to follow a treaty. If another nation doesn't like our breaking of the treaty, they may declare war, embargo, whatever. However, no nation most likley will due to finacial or military response. AKA the bigger and wealthier you are, the more you can bend the rules. It's not necessarily nice, but it's true.

A ratified treaty carries the same legal weight as federal law. Not sure how old you are, so you may not have had government in college yet.

[zimv20]

We have NO requirement to follow a treaty.
the act of signing it is an indication that we'll follow it. just because it's not been formally amended into the constitution doesn't make it any less illegal. i shall note the constitution specifies no speed limits, but breaking them is still illegal.

i'd say that, usually, when the US breaks a treaty, the leadership has changed.

[Sayhey]

Yeah... you might want to check on that. That's incorrect. It has NOTHING to do with our constitution. It's a treaty. We've broken, renegociated, and followed many treaties and agreements throughout history.

I'm not sure how old you are, so you may not have hadgovernment in high school yet. The only way to change the constitution is an amendment. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment for general information. Here's a page for info specifically for the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution At the bottom of the page are links about amendments.

We have NO requirement to follow a treaty. If another nation doesn't like our breaking of the treaty, they may declare war, embargo, whatever. However, no nation most likley will due to finacial or military response. AKA the bigger and wealthier you are, the more you can bend the rules. It's not necessarily nice, but it's true.

Please read the Constitution before posting on what it says.

Article. VI.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.US House of Representatives - US Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) emphasis added

The US has negotiated many treaties, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm). We are bound to follow such treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land." The argument that we have broken treaties in the past does nothing to relieve us of our obligations to follow the law, whether that comes from the text of our own Constitution or through negotiated and ratified treaties.

The real question is not your misunderstanding of the importance of treaty obligations, but rather how you cannot be outraged by the lengths this administration has gone to set up a system for detainees that is outside the law and outside any oversight. Is that what our government should stand for?

[takao]

secret prisons, kidnapping citizens of other countries, torture ... in other countries there are 6 days of nightly riots because of two teenagers who get killed by electric shocks hiding from the police in a transformator building :rolleyes:
i'm sure those CRS gendarmes might do wonders if sent to the white house ;)

[hcuar]

Please read the Constitution before posting on what it says.

US House of Representatives - US Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) emphasis added

The US has negotiated many treaties, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm). We are bound to follow such treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land." The argument that we have broken treaties in the past does nothing to relieve us of our obligations to follow the law, whether that comes from the text of our own Constitution or through negotiated and ratified treaties.

The real question is not your misunderstanding of the importance of treaty obligations, but rather how you cannot be outraged by the lengths this administration has gone to set up a system for detainees that is outside the law and outside any oversight. Is that what our government should stand for?

Again incorrect... See: http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm for a description of what the paragraph entails.

I'm not outraged. I'm rather happy that my safety is being protected by my government. As long as the US follows our constitution, I'm fine with that. If you think that covert intellegence is possible while being prim and proper, you're mistaken.

As to breaking the speed limit not being in the constitution... Please! See the section on how state and local governments may make their own laws which do not violate the federal constitution.

[hcuar]

Better take a better look at our Constitution, its still holds our govt to standards Bush and the Deferral gang have ignored, sidestepped etc. So because the deferral gang grab someone and give them a label that means they can be thrown in Jail with no trial ever? held for a lifetime?? We are better then this. What are we fighting for if Freedom, Liberty & Justice only applies to those you choose? Look close at the First phrase in the Constitution and tell me where justice is in throwing people into secret jails with no trials, secluded, no lawyers, for the rest of their lives even though they have yet been proven guilty?

Yes... it's allowed if the subject isn't a US citizen.

[pseudobrit]

Again incorrect... See: http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm for a description of what the paragraph entails.
...

As long as the US follows our constitution, I'm fine with that. If you think that covert intellegence is possible while being prim and proper, you're mistaken.

I'll repeat for emphasis: While a signed, ratified treaty does not act as an amendment, it carries the same weight as a federal law. Therefore, violation of the Geneva Conventions is equivalent to breaking federal law.

[hcuar]

I'll repeat for emphasis: While a signed, ratified treaty does not act as an amendment, it carries the same weight as a federal law. Therefore, violation of the Geneva Conventions is equivalent to breaking federal law.

My point is that it doesn't act as an amendment. So in order to serve the consitution, a treaty may be violated due to the constitution trumping a treaty. In addition, a treaty may be revoked or repealed.

I believe the spirit of the above mention paragraph by another poster was to ensure that state or local governments didn't pass laws which violate a treaty established by the federal government. The federal government may violate the treaty (with or without notification).

In the case of the geneva convention treaty, it wasn't violated based the classification given to the "insurgents". Hairsplitting yes... but legal.

[jelloshotsrule]

wow. thanks for the insults.

i will refrain from the multitude coming to mind.

from an email of someone i know, who just happens to know her stuff and by the way, works for the state dept. ie, the people who ultimately have to know. thanks for the gov't lesson though.

Treaties, which must have Senate Advice and Consent, are referred to in
the Constitution together with the Constitution and federal law as the
highest law of the land. Not all international agreements are Treaties
(in fact, most are not).

The U.S. ratified (Treaty status) the Geneva Conventions in 1955 and that
makes them part of U.S. law. (But we have not yet ratified two of the
Protocols Additional to the Conventions).

amen

[mactastic]

So when Clinton split legal hairs about what sex was you were totally in agreement with his technical assertion that he didn't lie?

[Sayhey]

Again incorrect... See: http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm for a description of what the paragraph entails.

I'm not outraged. I'm rather happy that my safety is being protected by my government. As long as the US follows our constitution, I'm fine with that. If you think that covert intellegence is possible while being prim and proper, you're mistaken.

As to breaking the speed limit not being in the constitution... Please! See the section on how state and local governments may make their own laws which do not violate the federal constitution.


If you post here long enough you will find that linking to right-wing wingnut's websites as references to try an uphold a weak argument does not impress anyone.

The point here isn't whether the US can enter into a treaty obligation that conflicts with the Constitution. There is no conflict between the obligations of the US under treaty obligations concerning the treatment of prisoners or detainees during time of war and the US Constitution. Far from it. Our Constitution anticipates such obligations and places them on equal footing as federal law. That is the meaning of the Article VI clause 2. If you want a basic understanding of this I recommend the US Senate's web site and the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee's study (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_senate_print&docid=f:66922.wais) on the question.
Where a treaty is deemed to be self-executing, any
conflicting provisions of State law must yield. This principle,
which is expressly enshrined in the supremacy clause of the
Constitution, was early affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ware
v. Hylton.\50\ According to Justice Chase:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 3 Dall. (3 U.S.) 199 (1796).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A treaty cannot be the supreme law of the land, that
is, of all the United States, if any act of a State
Legislature can stand in its way. If the Constitution
of a State * * * must give way to a treaty, and fall
before it; can it be questioned, whether the less
power, an act of the State Legislature, must not be
prostrate? It is the declared will of the people of the
United States, that every treaty made by the authority
of the United States, shall be superior to the
Constitution and laws of any individual State; and
their will alone is to decide. If a law of a State,
contrary to a treaty, is not void, but voidable only,
by a repeal, or nullification by a State Legislature,
this certain consequence follows, that the will of a
small part of the United States may control or defeat
the will of the whole.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Ibid. at 236-237. The principle has been reaffirmed by the
Court in numerous cases. For additional case authority, see
Constitution--Analysis and Interpretation, pp. 472-474.

In the event of a conflict between a self-executing treaty
and a Federal statute, it is well-settled that legal primacy
will be accorded the measure which is later in time, albeit the
courts will endeavor to harmonize the respective international
and domestic obligations if possible. As indicated by the
Supreme Court in Whitney v. Robertson:
By the Constitution a treaty is placed on the same
footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of
legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be
the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy
is given to either over the other. When the two relate
to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to
construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can
be done without violating the language of either; but
if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will
control the other, provided always the stipulation of
the treaty on the subject is self-executing. If the
country with which the treaty is made is dissatisfied
with the action of the legislative department, it may
present its complaint to the executive head of the
government and take such other measures as it may deem
essential for the protection of its interests. The
courts can afford no redress. Whether the complaining
nation has just cause or our country was justified in
its legislation, are not matters for judicial
cognizance.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 124 U.S. 581, 594 (1888). The Court has repeated the rule in
many cases. See discussion in Constitution--Analysis and
Interpretation, pp. 478-479, and Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371, 376-77
(1998).

What you are in effect saying is that you don't have to follow any federal laws [read as treaties] that you think don't agree with your flawed understanding of the Constitution. Never mind that this enables torture, "extraordinary rendition," unlimited detention, or any other horrific practice condemned throughout most of the rest of the world - and up to the advent of this administration in this country as well.

[srobert]

Yes... it's allowed if the subject isn't a US citizen.

Scary neighbor… :(

[takao]

i guess we all know how much problems the US still have with other countries laws or international treaties.. like flying over neutral countries with armed stealth bombers to save fuel (500 million $ stealth bombers getting intercepted + photographed by Saab Drakens from 1960: priceless)

or like it happened to a friend living in vienna near the US embassy where during a terror warning US marines simply locked the street completly and woudn't let him into his flat ... not once but twice

[solvs]

Yes... it's allowed if the subject isn't a US citizen.
Well, it's good to know that it's not illegal. I guess that makes it ok then. The only thing that surprises me is where you found this article. It's sad that I've become so used to things like this that I pretty much figured this was common knowledge. The worst part, is that this doesn't make us any safer. Quite the opposite really. Not only do we not always get what we want out of them information wise (if we even have the right people), others see us as no better (or worse) and Al Qaida gains a few new members as we loose a few more allies. And here I thought we were supposed to be the good guys. :(

Remember this when the government wants to intrude on your life for the sake of "security". Ben Franklin, Martin Niemoller, Tom Jefferson, and others (http://www.fen.net/quotes/freedom.shtml).

[tristan]

Geneva convention does *not* apply. It only applies to enemy soldiers in uniform on the battlefield. Al queda, insurgents, etc are considered outside the rules of warfare and undeserving of the privileges afforded to legitimate prisoners of war. This is because they hide among civilians. It's why spies and saboteurs in WWII were shot rather than getting trials.

There is also the legitimate argument that the Geneva convention applies only to signatories. if Al Queda didn't sign the agreement, they don't get its protection, and we shouldn't expect it from them. #2 argument against Geneva.

I have no problem with the US using tough tactics against enemy soldiers and terrorists - assuming that they're really terrorists and not some civilians that got rounded up by "mistake".

FYI Where the Geneva convention does apply is to civilian populations of occupied territories - i.e. Iraq. Up until the handover, you could make an argument that the US breached the Geneva convention by not taking better care of the Iraqi civilians (i.e. healthcare, hospital facilities, etc). But it's not like the insurgents made it easy for us.

[Stella]

Umm... hello? These prisons are holding non US citizens. The consitution and bill of rights protects the rights of American Citizens, not foreign nationals. Our forefathers gave no protective status to such an individual. Only international organizations and treaties have defined such requirements. Being a soverign nation does not require the adherance to such policies.

Then don't whine and complain when foreign countries beat up POW american soliders...

.. if your country can't treat other nationalities well, why should others.

[jelloshotsrule]

Geneva convention does *not* apply. It only applies to enemy soldiers in uniform on the battlefield. Al queda, insurgents, etc are considered outside the rules of warfare and undeserving of the privileges afforded to legitimate prisoners of war. This is because they hide among civilians. It's why spies and saboteurs in WWII were shot rather than getting trials.

There is also the legitimate argument that the Geneva convention applies only to signatories. if Al Queda didn't sign the agreement, they don't get its protection, and we shouldn't expect it from them. #2 argument against Geneva.

I have no problem with the US using tough tactics against enemy soldiers and terrorists - assuming that they're really terrorists and not some civilians that got rounded up by "mistake".

FYI Where the Geneva convention does apply is to civilian populations of occupied territories - i.e. Iraq. Up until the handover, you could make an argument that the US breached the Geneva convention by not taking better care of the Iraqi civilians (i.e. healthcare, hospital facilities, etc). But it's not like the insurgents made it easy for us.

this is a fair and important point, legally, for sure. however, i would like to see the conventions' regulations applied to all pows, detainees, etc. i mean, it's before the trials that these people get tortured and beat up, so how do you expect to KNOW they are "bad guys" for sure before the torture, etc, begins?

[hcuar]

So when Clinton split legal hairs about what sex was you were totally in agreement with his technical assertion that he didn't lie?

It's all about how good your lawyer is... I didn't agree with his impeachment. I didn't see what he did to be high crimes nor treason. I also didn't want him removed from power. (I voted for him, I also voted for Bush x2). Doesn't that blow your mind? :p

I'm don't think I'm left or right minded. I actually agree more with libertarians. :eek:

[Sayhey]

Geneva convention does *not* apply. It only applies to enemy soldiers in uniform on the battlefield.

Not only does the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) apply to certain prisoners, but this Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm) does also apply to all other "detainees." Among other things it says,

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) 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.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Article 4

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Article 5

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

[takao]

geneva conventions aside: the US signed treaties forbidding torture no matter what or who
and on the other side it's a far strech to equal a german citizen who got kidnapped by the CIA while visiting macedonia and flew to an afghanistan secret prison simply because he has a name similiar to a terror suspect with some guy shooting around with an ak-47

seriously i'm surprised nobody came up with "state-terrorism" because the US is no pretty close, they seem to have crossed the rubicon single handed

[Lacero]

If Bush really wants to win the War on Terrorism, he'll have to remove all the missiles and troops out of foreign countries and leave them in peace.

The War on Terrorism will end when the United States gets nuked by foreign groups.

[jelloshotsrule]

If Bush really wants to win the War on Terrorism, he'll have to remove all the missiles and troops out of foreign countries and leave them in peace.


hear hear!

[hcuar]

Not only does the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) apply to certain prisoners, but this Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm) does also apply to all other "detainees." Among other things it says,


Not sure what article 5 you're reading, but the one you linked reads as:

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Article 4 corresponds to those protected which doesn't include insurgents.

[Sayhey]

geneva conventions aside: the US signed treaties forbidding torture no matter what or who
and on the other side it's a far strech to equal a german citizen who got kidnapped by the CIA while visiting macedonia and flew to an afghanistan secret prison simply because he has a name similiar to a terror suspect with some guy shooting around with an ak-47

seriously i'm surprised nobody came up with "state-terrorism" because the US is no pretty close, they seem to have crossed the rubicon single handed

Such as The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm). The point is that the Bush administration is violating numerous treaties and its own laws in its treatment of prisoners and detainees. How can anyone support such actions is beyond me.

[hcuar]

If Bush really wants to win the War on Terrorism, he'll have to remove all the missiles and troops out of foreign countries and leave them in peace.

The War on Terrorism will end when the United States gets nuked by foreign groups.


Right... I'm sure that would help the stability of the world that requires the help of the US military to keep the peace. It's called the balance of power.

If the US gets nuked by foreign groups... well no one will be left. The US has a policy that requires full scale launch against any deployment of a WMD against all known enemies.

Treaties worked sooo well with countries like N. Korea. It took until GW to find out that N. Korea actually was producing nuclear weapons under the table.

[Sayhey]

Not sure what article 5 you're reading... read the second link in my post above and you will understand.

[tristan]

Interesting reading, but I disagree with your conclusions. Under article 5, it seems if insurgents have very few rights at all.

Lacero - Some conflicts are unwinnable, but you're still better off fighting them. Disease will never be completely cured, but I'm glad doctors still try. We are fighting a conflict with radical islam, and since I don't want to live under Sharia law, I'm glad we're opposing it.

The overall conflict is just, but Iraq was a major mistep. Less than a year after we bombed the taliban out of Afghanistan and removed a major staging ground and supportive regime, we started another conflict unnecessarily, botched it, and we are now in serious danger of handing Iraq, or at least part of Iraq, to Islamic fundamentalists. If that happens, islamic fundamentalists will have a strategic base in the middle east from which to expand, and could possibly destabilize and maybe control the entire middle east, north africa, and parts of central and south east Asia.

[hcuar]

read the second link in my post above and you will understand.

Sorry... I missed the second link... :rolleyes:

I do agree with tristan. I think it actually says they forfeit the stated rights as insurgents if they threaten the security of the state. I'm not defending Abu Graib (SP... I'm lazy). I'm defending holding people indefinately until the war is over with very little wiggle room for rights.

[jelloshotsrule]

I do agree with tristan. I think it actually says they forfeit the stated rights as insurgents if they threaten the security of the state. I'm not defending Abu Graib. I'm defending holding people indefinately until the war is over with very little wiggle room for rights.

and i assume you'd be fine with some foreign power holding a US citizen like that?

[Lacero]

and i assume you'd be fine with some foreign power holding a US citizen like that?
There are problems even with US prisons in Iraq holding US citizens, holding indefinitely and without rights.

Check out Cyrus Kar's experiences as documented by Nightline (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=73331713). You can listen to the podcast dated for August 26, 2005.

[hcuar]

and i assume you'd be fine with some foreign power holding a US citizen like that?

If they are a terrorist... fine. :rolleyes:

If they aren't a terrorist, I'd expect the US miliitary to liberate them with all the necessary force they could apply. :cool:

[jelloshotsrule]

well i know you're from canada, so maybe you don't realize that:

freedom isn't free, there's a hefty ****in' fee. and if you won't pitch in your buck oh five who will?

[jelloshotsrule]

If they are a terrorist... fine. :rolleyes:

If they aren't a terrorist, I'd expect the US miliitary to liberate them with all the necessary force they could apply. :cool:

i like how you roll your eyes, as though no americans could do wrong. and as lacero pointed out.....


you also assume that every single person being held by the US as a "terrorist" is guilty. what a joke that is.

[takao]

Lacero - Some conflicts are unwinnable, but you're still better off fighting them. Disease will never be completely cured, but I'm glad doctors still try. We are fighting a conflict with radical islam, and since I don't want to live under Sharia law, I'm glad we're opposing it.

to use your analogy: is it ok for doctors to kidnap people to test new medicaments on them ? or how about infecting people on purpose ?would you be happy with that too

i don't want to live in a world where i get kidnapped by a secret service on my holiday because they confused 2 names either ;)

don't get me wrong i don't like sharia law either (that's why i am worried about iraqy situation since it's closer to it than under saddam.. so much for sour irony) but it shouldn't be the standard to compare with when taking about US actions

[leekohler]

At what point does all this garbage stop, you guys? When do we hold the Fed accountable? What the hell do we have to do?

[tristan]

Well, I hope I'm not coming across as an advocate for Abu Ghraib or whatever. I don't think we should mistreat prisoners or be deliberately cruel to anybody. But I have no problem with interrogations or indefinite imprisonment for terrorists. Once you try to kill an American soldier, I'm personally not going to waste a lot of time worrying about your welfare.

[Sayhey]

Interesting reading, but I disagree with your conclusions. Under article 5, it seems if insurgents have very few rights at all.
Under article 5 insurgents (spies) are not afforded the same rights of communication as other prisoners, but are afforded the right to "be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." All of which is denied them under the present administration. I would also point out the link I provided above to the treaty against torture.

tristan, perhaps you can clarify your point. Do you claim that we are not violating numerous laws and treaties through the torture and detention without trial of prisoners of war and detainees? Or are you just arguing under which treaty provision is such conduct outlawed? I understand hcuar to believe such practices are fine by him, but I can't believe you would say so.:confused:

[takao]

But I have no problem with interrogations or indefinite imprisonment for terrorists. Once you try to kill an American soldier, I'm personally not going to waste a lot of time worrying about your welfare.

the question is: why are they making secret prisons and try to hide it? could it be that there are no real charges against those people or further torture ?

[tristan]

To bring it back on topic, according to the article, it does appear that the eastern european prisons were used because the countries are not Geneva convention signatories, and suspects can be held and interrogated there indefinitely. It also appears that there's some dissent about the practice from within the CIA. No indication of how many people are being held or what their backgrounds are (i.e. Iraqis, foreign fighters, Al Queda, etc).

[Sayhey]

Well, I hope I'm not coming across as an advocate for Abu Ghraib or whatever. I don't think we should mistreat prisoners or be deliberately cruel to anybody. But I have no problem with interrogations or indefinite imprisonment for terrorists. Once you try to kill an American soldier, I'm personally not going to waste a lot of time worrying about your welfare.
Ok, at least I now understand your positon. I would argue, as Sen. McCain and others do, that stoping torture by our government has everything to do with protecting our own troops as well as not becoming what we are fighting.

[hcuar]

i like how you roll your eyes, as though no americans could do wrong. and as lacero pointed out.....


you also assume that every single person being held by the US as a "terrorist" is guilty. what a joke that is.

My eye roll was in regards to "American Terrorists". I'm thinking about how rediculous people can be... ex: shoe bomber.

I don't think you understand the non declared combantant definition. The people being held are not declared war fighters. They aren't necessarily "guilty" of anything. They are being held because they have been determined to be a potential threat to the state (US). This is allowed under the geneva convention... If you aren't a US citizen, you better keep your nose clean. :D

[toontra]

If you aren't a US citizen, you better keep your nose clean. :D

Whether you are being sarcastic or not I can't tell, but your sentiment is repugnant.

[Don't panic]

I don't think you understand the non declared combantant definition. The people being held are not declared war fighters. They aren't necessarily "guilty" of anything. They are being held because they have been determined to be a potential threat to the state (US). This is allowed under the geneva convention... If you aren't a US citizen, you better keep your nose clean. :D

i don't think you understand that's just an excuse for pursuing barbaric practices with impunity.
and in many if not most cases they turned out NOT to be a threat.
I suppose you'd find legitimate and acceptable if the insurgent torture captured US soldier because they represent a potential threat to them

[jelloshotsrule]

I suppose you'd find legitimate and acceptable if the insurgent torture US captured US soldier because they represent a potential threat to them

don't you realize that americans are worth more than foreigners? duh

[Thanatoast]

Okay, I just want to get this straight...

Hcuar, you (and Tristan) are arguing that building secret prisons to torture confessions out of *suspected* terrorists is a viable way to "spread democracy and freedom"?

Just checking.

As for the topic, I heard on NPR (:D) that the Post didn't release the names of the countries involved because the resultant protests there would shut down the torture-centers. I think we should all write the Post and demand that they release the names of the offending parties.

It's time for Bush's Reign of Terror to end.

[hcuar]

Okay, I just want to get this straight...

Hcuar, you (and Tristan) are arguing that building secret prisons to torture confessions out of *suspected* terrorists is a viable way to "spread democracy and freedom"?

Just checking.

As for the topic, I heard on NPR (:D) that the Post didn't release the names of the countries involved because the resultant protests there would shut down the torture-centers. I think we should all write the Post and demand that they release the names of the offending parties.

It's time for Bush's Reign of Terror to end.

I'm not supporting torture. :eek: Take a step back and breath. :o

I'm supporting the holding off non US citizens determined to be a threat to the US without formal charges or hearing.

BTW: Bush doesn't intentionally order children to be killed. I realize casualties happen, but not intentionally. 9/11 was murder, so where the subway bombings in the UK.

There are days where I wonder if the current / upcoming generation could handle something like WWII or I. It'd be too much to ask to fight for freedom in other countries.

To Toontra:

As to the keeping your nose clean if you aren't a US citizen. It was sarcastic. :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

I'm not supporting torture. [...] I'm supporting the holding off non US citizens determined to be a threat to the US without formal charges or hearing.

...in countries which do not adhere to the geneva convention. this will lead to torture, that is the purpose of using such facilities. are you so naive as to think this won't happen?

[IJ Reilly]

I'm supporting the holding off non US citizens determined to be a threat to the US without formal charges or hearing.

Determined to be a threat by whom, and on what basis?

[tristan]

Hcuar, you (and Tristan) are arguing that building secret prisons to torture confessions out of *suspected* terrorists is a viable way to "spread democracy and freedom"?


Woah... way to completely rewrite my posts. I won't repeat myself, please just scroll up. Also, you threw in "suspected" - are they suspected because they were caught building an IED by the road or with new york subway plans on their laptop? Then, yes, that person should be interrogated and incarcerated. Are they suspected because they were in a dangerous part of town after dark? Then of course not.

[IJ Reilly]

Woah... way to completely rewrite my posts. I won't repeat myself, please just scroll up. Also, you threw in "suspected" - are they suspected because they were caught building an IED by the road or with new york subway plans on their laptop? Then, yes, that person should be interrogated and incarcerated. Are they suspected because they were in a dangerous part of town after dark? Then of course not.

So I repeat my question: By whom are the determined to be threat, and on what basis?

[Thanatoast]

Woah... way to completely rewrite my posts. I won't repeat myself, please just scroll up. Also, you threw in "suspected" - are they suspected because they were caught building an IED by the road or with new york subway plans on their laptop? Then, yes, that person should be interrogated and incarcerated. Are they suspected because they were in a dangerous part of town after dark? Then of course not.
Not so much rewrite as draw out to their logical conclusion.

You advocate allowing the government to capture and detain suspected terrorists. Yes, suspects. Without trial or evidence.

I have no problem with the US using tough tactics against enemy soldiers and terrorists - assuming that they're really terrorists and not some civilians that got rounded up by "mistake".

It's nice that you don't advocate torturing civilians, but Takao above mentioned the gentlemen who was captured while on vacation and transported to a secret prison, and his only crime was a mis-spelled name.

Are you okay with that? Your government is kidnapping people off the streets without so much as a how's-your-day and detaining them (at least) without evidence or trial.

You further seem to think that just because we're running secret CIA prisons in certain un-named countries that may or may not be signatories to Geneva and populating them with suspected terrorists that we've kidnapped off the streets, there's certainly no reason to suspect they're torturing people.

*ahem*

What I'm getting at is this: 2+2=4 You want tough tactics for bad guys. Insurgents have no rights. Secret prisons are okay. Geneva convention does *not* apply.

These things add up to abuse.

[Sayhey]

At this point I've got to recommend a few things to tristan and hcuar - and anyone else who haven't seen or read them. First, a Frontline documentary called "The Torture Question" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/), which is viewable online. IJ turned me on to it an if you watch this and don't come away with the idea that this administration has put into place guidelines designed to allow torture then I think your missing some vary obvious facts. Second, I recommend anything written by Seymour Hersh on the subject including his book, Chain of Command (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00081GZXM/002-1965813-7389603?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance), and articles "Torture at Abu Ghraib" (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact) and again "Chain of Command" (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2). Lastly, I would recommend reading Sen. John McCain's amendment (http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1611) to the Department of Defense Authorization bill and get involved with such organizations as Human Rights First (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/index.asp) in trying to defeat changes that would continue to allow torture.

[Frisco]

Bush has totally disgraced this country!

Will you forget when he is gone? I don't know, but I know I will never forget!

It's sad when a president can turn a citizen against his/her own country!

ps: Bush after my comment I am awaiting your torture at my front door :-(


sad

[tristan]

Not so much rewrite as draw out to their logical conclusion.


So my "logical conclusion" is that I support pulling people off the street because their names are misspelled. Did I say anything close to that? This is the second time you've attributed a position to me that is miles away from what I wrote.

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe the third time will be the charm:

Who decides which persons are a threat, and on what basis?

[Frisco]

Stop the arguing..please

Bottom line is that the the USA is the most corrupt nation on the planet. Admit it or not it's true. Get your head out of the sand!

But it's all about freedom :rolleyes:

[solvs]

Why is anybody arguing about Treaties!?! It doesn't matter how horrible these people may be, they're still people. They still have rights. Yes, even if they aren't American. It shouldn't take a peice of paper to prove that.

How do you defeat an enemy like this by becoming them?

[Frisco]

Why is anybody arguing about Treaties!?! It doesn't matter how horrible these people may be, they're still people. They still have rights. Yes, even if they aren't American. It shouldn't take a peice of paper to prove that.

How do you defeat an enemy like this by becoming them?

I agree. America has become and has alway been far worse. This type of immorality has only made things 10X worse.

[Frisco]

Why is anybody arguing about Treaties!?! It doesn't matter how horrible these people may be, they're still people. They still have rights. Yes, even if they aren't American. It shouldn't take a peice of paper to prove that.

How do you defeat an enemy like this by becoming them?

No one has rights in Bush's war on terror!

[Sayhey]

Maybe the third time will be the charm:

Who decides which persons are a threat, and on what basis?

No answer yet, IJ? Perhaps that's because the answer is that there is no impartial authority anyone can go to judge innocence. No civilian courts, no military tribunals. No legal authority a "designated terrorist" can appeal to. That's the great thing about all of this; the Bushies decide you're a threat and nobody can challenge them. Just put people in a dark hole where the "good guys" can do whatever they think is right. No oversight even by Congressional or Judicial review. If they didn't use Lear jets to secret suspects from country to country, you'd think we were in the dark ages. I think I understand Hcuar's blind obedience to this, I just can't figure out why tristan thinks this maybe acceptable.

[tristan]

Who decides which persons are a threat, and on what basis?

My understanding is that you're not supposed to have weapons in Iraq if you're a civilian, so if you have guns or bombs or whatever, then "you might be a terrorist" (channeling jeff foxworthy). If you're caught using them, then that's that. That should be the threshold. Some plans and communications would probably qualify too. How else would you do it? In a wartime situation you can't hold a trial and give the guy a lawyer, etc - you need info ASAP.

[neocell]

Bush/USA 2000s = Hitler/Germany 1930s; it's only a matter of perspective. Most of the world thinks that Hitler/Germany was just awful, but how did the citizens of Germany feel during the 1930s? I don't know, I'm not German and I didn't live there in the 1930s, but I wonder if it's similar to what's going on now in the USA. Most of the world thinks the USA is wrong, but no one is doing anything about it. What will history say 50 years from now when they look back at this time...,"I can't believe the world let the USA annihilate 10 million arabs just for oil..."? US foreign policy is just disgusting, pretty much all the western nations are bad, but since the US is the biggest, well it's the baddest. How they exploit countries, weaker governments, unstable countries all for money, money and more money. Everything is about cash and making more.
Communism makes complete sense from a social setting (though it's practicality can be questioned) though Americans are taught that it's the absolute worst, most evil thing, next to insurgents (currently). It's amazing that a country can justify murdering millions, through starting wars, supporting wars they're not directly involved in, though their business are profiting immensely from, and have no one stand up to them. You should really watch/read some Noam Chomsky material and watch the movie Corporation and get really disgusted.
Supposedly citizens of the United States of American are god-fearing people but apparently you guys need to fear just a little bit more, because when the time comes and you're standing at the gates chatting it up with Peter you better have a pretty damn good reason for supporting a government that so easily justifies slaughter for a fatter wallet.
Sleep well

[toontra]

My understanding is that you're not supposed to have weapons in Iraq if you're a civilian, so if you have guns or bombs or whatever, then "you might be a terrorist" (channeling jeff foxworthy). If you're caught using them, then that's that. That should be the threshold. Some plans and communications would probably qualify too. How else would you do it? In a wartime situation you can't hold a trial and give the guy a lawyer, etc - you need info ASAP.

How do you know that those detained were found in the possession of weapons - you don't! - you can't possibly know because there is no due process.

Even if they were, it's my understanding that it is common in Iraq for civilians to have guns (as I believe it is in the US). What would you say if an invading power interpreted the ownership of a gun by US civilians as membership of a terrorist insurgency and therefore withheld all humanitarian rights of those people?

[skunk]

My understanding is that you're not supposed to have weapons in Iraq if you're a civilian, so if you have guns or bombs or whatever, then "you might be a terrorist" My understanding is that almost everybody in Iraq probably has an AK47 or a sidearm for personal protection. Living in a war zone, why wouldn't they?

[toontra]

To Toontra:

As to the keeping your nose clean if you aren't a US citizen. It was sarcastic. :rolleyes:

Excuse me for the misunderstanding. The reason is probably that this statement is the logical conclusion of your arguments in that (and previous) posts.

Adding grins and rolling eyes doesn't disguise the repugnance of your attitude, which typifies US arrogance increasingly hated around the world.

[BakedBeans]

which typifies US arrogance increasingly hated around the world.

i would like to add, that not everyone in the world thinks your wrong, please dont let one brit speak for all. because its not the way i feel.

[toontra]

i would like to add, that not everyone in the world thinks your wrong, please dont let one brit speak for all. because its not the way i feel.

And to be clear, I'm not of course speaking of all US people - I'm speaking of the foreign policy of the current administration and those (fewer by the day it seems) who actively support it.

PS BakedBeans - I'm not sure your caveat is necessary. I don't think anyone assumes that one Brit speaks for them all - do they?!!

[pseudobrit]

PS BakedBeans - I'm not sure your caveat is necessary. I don't think anyone assumes that one Brit speaks for them all - do they?!!

You mean there's more than one of you? :eek: !

[hcuar]

i would like to add, that not everyone in the world thinks your wrong, please dont let one brit speak for all. because its not the way i feel.

I realize that this discussion has been almost pointless. No one is going to change their minds based on anything read or written here. At times I wonder why Macrumors even allows these types of threads. Usually people get offended and mad.

I'd like to point out that this "evil" country allows these opposing viewpoints. I'd also like to point out that the US is a major contributor to the economies of the world. I think everyone should take a minute to read the following site:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/sinclair.asp

I quoted from snopes in order to ensure no one questioned the existence of the article.

Original text: http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/news/unique/am_text.html

I'm now done with this thread. No more posting because I don't think it will do any good nor have purpose.

[toontra]

You mean there's more than one of you? :eek: !

I think that the variety of spelling, grammar & punctuation displayed in this forum will tell you there are certainly multiple Brit posters, scary as that may be ;)

[toontra]

I realize that this discussion has been almost pointless. No one is going to change their minds based on anything read or written here. At times I wonder why Macrumors even allows these types of threads. Usually people get offended and mad.


The reason people get heated and mad is because current US foreign policy is ****ing a lot of people around the world at the moment. This isn't some academic debate - countries are being unilaterally invaded, civilians being killed and being secretly imprisoned. A reason for heated debate if ever there was one.

As for this forum, it begs the question as to why you posted here in the first place if you then call into question the validity of having the forum at all.

[pseudobrit]

I realize that this discussion has been almost pointless. No one is going to change their minds based on anything read or written here. At times I wonder why Macrumors even allows these types of threads. Usually people get offended and mad.

...I'm now done with this thread. No more posting because I don't think it will do any good nor have purpose.

What a chicken**** thing to do.

If that's your attitude, then it's better off you get out and stay out. Don't come down here and jerk everyone around again if you're not interested in sustaining engaging debate.

Why did you even bother?

So you could cite some obscure, dated, flag-waving prattle and bow out with some silly sense of superiority? Bugger off.

[pseudobrit]

I think that the variety of spelling, grammar & punctuation displayed in this forum will tell you there are certainly multiple Brit posters, scary as that may be ;)

And sometimes it's even scarry. ;)

[BakedBeans]

I think that the variety of spelling, grammar & punctuation displayed in this forum will tell you there are certainly multiple Brit posters, scary as that may be ;)

Another spelling and grammar freak? My grammar, punctuation and spelling are all fine, when i need them to be. Macrumors does not warrant me taking time to correct typos (sorry, typographical errors) or take the vast amount of effort it takes to move my finger to the shift key to CAPITALISE my posts.

;)

Seriously though, I did feel it warranted me pointing out that you don't speak for all, not all english are like that and its easy to make the generalisation that we all against what the american government are doing.

[mactastic]

It took until GW to find out that N. Korea actually was producing nuclear weapons under the table.
********. Under Clinton we had NK's plutonium program under lock, seal, and inspection. We knew they were fudging their uranium enrichment program, but that is not anywhere near as big a deal.

I have a feeling you didn't learn about plutonium versus uranium in high school, so let me fill in a few gaps for you. Plutonium is readily converted to fissile material in a matter of months with little energy input. Uranium enrichment takes on the order of years to produce much fissile material. In addition it takes massive amounts of continuous, stable electricity flow. Have you seen a map of NK at night? Not a lot of electricity in that country.

No my friend, Clinton had NK at least ten years away from a nuclear device. Yet when Cowboy George took his "bring 'em on" attitude to the North Koreans, they responded by kicking out the inspectors, unsealing the plutonium reactors, extracting the plutonium, and proceeded to make at least a handful of nukes.

Ohhh yeah, we're sooooo much safer now. :cool:

[IJ Reilly]

How do you know that those detained were found in the possession of weapons - you don't! - you can't possibly know because there is no due process.

Exactly. With no need to observe existing laws and treaties, government employees unknown can abduct anyone in the world and spirt them off to places unknown for reasons unknown and detain them indefinitely. Once there, they can presumably torture and even kill them. No rules, no accountability.

[tristan]

So what's your solution? Some guy across the street starts shooting at as with his AK, and throws it down and put his hands up when we come and get him, and you want to give that guy a lawyer?

You seem to think that all the detainees are innocent victims of American imperialism who just happened to be walking down the street with the wrong name. I think that the detainees are most likely cowards on the enemy side who tried to kill us or innocent civilians, and then threw their hands up when it became clear that in the next three seconds, they had nowhere to run and about to get killed.

Way back at the beginning of this thread, I said the following:
I have no problem with the US using tough tactics against enemy soldiers and terrorists - assuming that they're really terrorists and not some civilians that got rounded up by "mistake"

And I stand by that. If people are just getting rounded up off the street and put in jail, of course I don't support it. I would hope that people in prison are there for a reason - not least because its a waste of resources to hold innocent people. But people do have to be incarcerated and interrogated in this war, and someone, somewhere has to make the decision to do so.

And if you don't trust the American military on the ground to make the decision whether someone is a terrorist, what's your alternative? Let any terrorist you capture go? Or fly them individually to the International Criminal Court and give them a public defender?

[tristan]

Oh, and to respond to hcuar, sure these discussions are useful for the most part, and I'll be happy to debate anyone who seems to have a lick of sense. It helps me examine my opinions and see the arguments on the other side. Of course there's always somebody who says "we're living in Nazi Germany dude", and I just ignore them, because writing a post of all the reasons we're not living in Nazi germany is definitely a waste of time.

[toontra]

And if you don't trust the American military on the ground to make the decision whether someone is a terrorist, what's your alternative? Let any terrorist you capture go? Or fly them individually to the International Criminal Court and give them a public defender?

Two points. Firstly, I don't distrust the judgement of troops on the ground - that's not the point here. The instructions for interrogation and incarceration come from above - we're talking about US administration foreign policy here.

Secondly, to answer your question on alternatives, how about simply abiding by international conventions - the Geneva Convention would do for starters. Why do you have a problem with that? Your suggestion of individual trials at the ICC is a ridiculous parody - no-one here has suggested that.

Let's not forget that this isn't even a war situation any longer, at least in the conventional sense - it is an occupation. That being the case, the onus is even stronger on the occupying force to obey recognized international codes of decency.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Freedom, Liberty and Justice for all, think about it. Torture, Secret prisons, no due process isnt the things that make us great. Bush with his idiotic policys are giving everyone in the world cause for alarm. 200 years and we never needed to strip libertys and freedoms. 2 world wars, a cold war and more and yet because of these islamic thugs Bush is creating a Police State who does things like outing a Cia agent, A war with no WMDs, wont admit it and now wants to stay in Iraq? plus wants to use torture, have secret prisons with no oversite? Not in my America. Freedom Liberty and Justice for all! If these words dont apply to everyone then they are worth nothing! nothing at all! Its what make's the U.S. the greatest country on earth.

[mactastic]

So what's your solution? Some guy across the street starts shooting at as with his AK, and throws it down and put his hands up when we come and get him, and you want to give that guy a lawyer?

You seem to think that all the detainees are innocent victims of American imperialism who just happened to be walking down the street with the wrong name. I think that the detainees are most likely cowards on the enemy side who tried to kill us or innocent civilians, and then threw their hands up when it became clear that in the next three seconds, they had nowhere to run and about to get killed.

Way back at the beginning of this thread, I said the following:
I have no problem with the US using tough tactics against enemy soldiers and terrorists - assuming that they're really terrorists and not some civilians that got rounded up by "mistake"

And I stand by that. If people are just getting rounded up off the street and put in jail, of course I don't support it. I would hope that people in prison are there for a reason - not least because its a waste of resources to hold innocent people. But people do have to be incarcerated and interrogated in this war, and someone, somewhere has to make the decision to do so.

And if you don't trust the American military on the ground to make the decision whether someone is a terrorist, what's your alternative? Let any terrorist you capture go? Or fly them individually to the International Criminal Court and give them a public defender?
Would you stand for the indefinite detention and torture of US Special Forces -- who often operate out of uniform? How about an American civilian who happens to be with or near them?

It's telling that John McCain -- a former POW and victim of torture -- feels differently than you.

[tristan]

Two points. Firstly, I don't distrust the judgement of troops on the ground - that's not the point here. The instructions for interrogation and incarceration come from above - we're talking about US administration foreign policy here.

Then what should the policy be, in your opinion?

Secondly, to answer your question on alternatives, how about simply abiding by international conventions - the Geneva Convention would do for starters. Why do you have a problem with that?
Geneva convention is for POWs, not terrorists. But to answer your question, the Geneva convention is impractical because a) it doesn't allow interrogation, and b) it's really set up for prisoners from the other side of an armed, organized conflict. POWs get mail from home, exercise time, rights of appeal, private property, mess halls, chaplains, rank priviliges, salaries, repatriation, relief shipments, etc.

Let's not forget that this isn't even a war situation any longer, at least in the conventional sense - it is an occupation. That being the case, the onus is even stronger on the occupying force to obey recognized international codes of decency.
I disagree. It's a guerilla war where the enemy blends in with civilian populace. That renders the geneva convention invalid and obsolete.

[tristan]

Would you stand for the indefinite detention and torture of US Special Forces -- who often operate out of uniform? How about an American civilian who happens to be with or near them?

No, I don't stand for it, why is another reason that I think the Geneva convention is a sham. Our enemy does not abide by anything close to the Geneva convention. They shouldn't expect the same treatment from us. But if you read my comments, you would see that I never advocated cruelty or torture.

[toontra]

I disagree. It's a guerilla war where the enemy blends in with civilian populace.

I disagree. It is an occupation. That's certainly how it is viewed around the world. The "War on Terrorism" is a fabrication IMO.

Do you not see the irony in your stance? The US troops are purportedly in Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people, but in order to maintain their presence they have to engage in inhumanitarian behaviour.

The solution is simple - get the hell out. I say that as one who argued that the invasion was illegal and morally wrong from the outset.

[zimv20]

Geneva convention is for POWs, not terrorists.
i'd like to think that the US, being the champion of human rights, the rule of law, freedom and democracy, would choose to follow the geneva convention, even if some government lawyers point to loopholes and argue it doesn't apply.

that's the kind of country i'd like to live in.


"In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not just what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves."

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_leadership_woes;_ylt=Atmb_eSwUugpRJSF3kNTcUqyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)

[toontra]

No, I don't stand for it, why is another reason that I think the Geneva convention is a sham. Our enemy does not abide by anything close to the Geneva convention. They shouldn't expect the same treatment from us. But if you read my comments, you would see that I never advocated cruelty or torture.

OK. Let's clear up a few points. According to Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, described as the top US military policy commander in Iraq (interviewed on UK TV's Channel 4 news tonight), The US military at all times abides by the Geneva Convention, including in the current war on terrorism in Iraq.

The justification he gave for this was simple - if any US troops were captured he hoped they would by treated similarly.

So Tristan, there you have it. According to the head military honcho, the Geneva Convention SHOULD be followed at all times. I prefer his judgement to yours - he should know, after all.

Which brings us to these "secret" prisons. He wouldn't comment on these, but it is clear that they are being run by the CIA, not the military (outside of ANY legal control and seen by many as counter productive).

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by Bush, Oct. 26, 2000

"In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not just what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves."

This could be the biggest lie he's ever told.

[scem0]

yeah, that's sickening for sure :(.

_Emerson

[tristan]

Regardless of how you feel about the war, the intelligence, etc, right now we're in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide security for the government, and we're still finding terrorist cells in Pakistan and even western countries. The only way to prevent these islamic radicals from spreading terror is through collecting and acting on intelligence. The Geneva convention prevents that collection process, and that's why it's impractical.

I have no problem with the US Military developing a code of justice for detainees and treating them fairly. But the Geneva convention is not that code - read through it and you'll see why. I do not see how that General could say we are complying with Geneva, unless we're providing terrorists with chaplains, mail from home, rank privileges, private property, etc. So even aside from the barriers of collecting intelligence, the Geneva convention just isn't workable, which is expected because it was designed for completely different conflicts and combatants.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Doing everything in secret isnt the answer, we can fight this war on terror without secret prisons,torture and trampling on OUR Constitution and laws. This is all a Power Grab by the federal govt to do whatever it wants to whoever it wants. Joe Wilson is only 1 example out of many. If these guys are terrorists then give em a trial and throw em in jail. Not the Everyone we pick up is automatic guilty for life without trial,jury trial or even outside contact. Come on this is the year 2005 not the 1800s.

[toontra]

I do not see how that General could say we are complying with Geneva, unless we're providing terrorists with chaplains, mail from home, rank privileges, private property, etc.

Well, he did. He was quite categoric about it, and he is in a position to know. As it was a TV interview I don't have a transcript - there may be something on Channel 4's website.

Furthermore, his reasoning was clear. For the safety of US troops, the Geneva Convention should be followed on the basis that any abuse of detainees would likely be counter-productive and could lead to reprisals. Makes sense to me.

I also have a problem with your attitude that the "enemy" (in this case largely civilian) are contemptible scum who are not worthy of respect. As I said before, a strange way to treat those who you claim to be liberating.

Just found a link: http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1068
there's a link in there to a video of the whole interview (WMP needed).

[mactastic]

But if you read my comments, you would see that I never advocated cruelty or torture.
OK, so you advocate aggressive interrogation tactics but not cruelty or torture. Give us some examples. Is waterboarding over the line? Isolation in stress positions? Sleep deprivation? Drugging? Roughing up the interviewee? Maybe breaking a rib or two? Bouncing their head off a wall or table? Dislocation of limbs? Humiliation? Sexual humiliation? Chaining to the floor overnight in cold weather? Hosing down with cold water and leaving in cold weather? Filling prison cellars with water and leaving prisoners in cells where they can not sit or lay down because the water is too deep? How about if that water is replaced with sewage? Fake executions? "Mummification" in a sleeping bag or other restraint? Dogs, muzzled or unmuzzled?

[Thanatoast]

So my "logical conclusion" is that I support pulling people off the street because their names are misspelled. Did I say anything close to that? This is the second time you've attributed a position to me that is miles away from what I wrote.
And the third time you've turned a blind eye toward the consequences of your positions.

[tristan]

Furthermore, his reasoning was clear. For the safety of US troops, the Geneva Convention should be followed on the basis that any abuse of detainees would likely be counter-productive and could lead to reprisals. Makes sense to me.

There's a huge gap between following the geneva convention and abuse. I'll check out the video when I get a chance.

I also have a problem with your attitude that the "enemy" (in this case largely civilian) are contemptible scum who are not worthy of respect. As I said before, a strange way to treat those who you claim to be liberating.

We're not liberating the people who shoot at us. We're trying to protecting the people who don't shoot at us from the people who both shoot at us and kill civilians. And no, I don't think people who target civilians are worthy of respect.

[tristan]

And the third time you've turned a blind eye toward the consequences of your positions.

Can you link those consequences please? I wasn't aware that I was supporting pulling people off the street and locking them up. In my first post, I explicitly said I don't support that.

[tristan]

OK, so you advocate aggressive interrogation tactics but not cruelty or torture. Give us some examples. Is waterboarding over the line? Isolation in stress positions? Sleep deprivation? Drugging? Roughing up the interviewee? Maybe breaking a rib or two? Bouncing their head off a wall or table? Dislocation of limbs? Humiliation? Sexual humiliation? Chaining to the floor overnight in cold weather? Hosing down with cold water and leaving in cold weather? Filling prison cellars with water and leaving prisoners in cells where they can not sit or lay down because the water is too deep? How about if that water is replaced with sewage? Fake executions? "Mummification" in a sleeping bag or other restraint? Dogs, muzzled or unmuzzled?

I'm not an expert in torture, I don't know exactly where the line should be. I'm not advocating bamboo under the fingernails, but if you can save lives by shining the bright light in the face and some sleep deprivation, that sounds good to me.

[skunk]

We're not liberating the people who shoot at us.No, you're done "liberating". Now you're trying to put the lid back on the box you so recklessly opened (with a little help from us, granted).
We're trying to protecting the people who don't shoot at us from the people who both shoot at us and kill civilians. And no, I don't think people who target civilians are worthy of respect.You're just trying to protect your own sorry asses from the consequences of your own foolishness. And in doing so, you are killing "civilians". That's your problem right there: what do you do when the civilians are attacking you? It's not supposed to happen, is it? It was supposed to be flowers and cups of tea, or so you were told. Your distinction is both arbitrary and dishonest.

[zimv20]

We're not liberating the people who shoot at us. We're trying to protecting the people who don't shoot at us
in an occupation, i'm not sure it's so easy to tell the difference. didn't we learn that in vietnam?

if it were that easy, there'd be no crime.

[toontra]

I don't think people who target civilians are worthy of respect.

Hah, that is precisely the kind of statement the insurgents are using in their propaganda against US troops. Do you not understand - contempt breeds contempt. Abuse breeds abuse. Is this what you want, to be embroiled in an ever-declining spiral of contempt and atrocity?

Or perhaps you are of the belief that, if a small number of insurgents are terminated or "disappeared", the "war" is winnable. If so, IMO, you are dreaming.

[IJ Reilly]

Hah, that is precisely the kind of statement the insurgents are using in their propaganda against US troops. Do you not understand - contempt breeds contempt. Abuse breeds abuse. Is this what you want, to be embroiled in an ever-declining spiral of contempt and atrocity?

Or perhaps you are of the belief that, if a small number of insurgents are terminated or "disappeared", the "war" is winnable. If so, IMO, you are dreaming.

Ironically, a small number of disappearances would not have caused much of a fuss had it been a very selective process, and had it not been played out against the backdrop of the Iraq occupation and general world-wide alienation from U.S. intentions and methods. I actually expected some disappearances after 9/11 and frankly I would not have cried in my beer if people like bin Ladin and his top people had simply vanished from the face of the Earth. Instead we've got Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, rampant prisoner abuse, tens of thousands of dead civilians, and now apparently, secret prisons operated completely outside of any known law. And to top it off, the world's chief villain, bin Ladin, can't even be found.

So like just about everything else they've done, the Bush administration got it all backwards.

[solvs]

I wasn't aware that I was supporting pulling people off the street and locking them up. In my first post, I explicitly said I don't support that.
What do you think is happening? That's pretty much exactly what we're doing. That's why we're so pissed. Doesn't mean we don't want to get the bad guys. We just don't want to be as bad as them.

[toontra]

Ironically, a small number of disappearances would not have caused much of a fuss had it been a very selective process, and had it not been played out against the backdrop of the Iraq occupation and general world-wide alienation from U.S. intentions and methods. I actually expected some disappearances after 9/11 and frankly I would not have cried in my beer if people like bin Ladin and his top people had simply vanished from the face of the Earth. Instead we've got Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, rampant prisoner abuse, tens of thousands of dead civilians, and now apparently, secret prisons operated completely outside of any known law. And to top it off, the world's chief villain, bin Ladin, can't even be found.

So like just about everything else they've done, the Bush administration got it all backwards.

I tend to agree with you. I was in support of the US going after Bin Laden and wouldn't have shed a tear if he had been "neutralised".

But what we have now is the worst of all possible worlds - a full scale (virtually) unilateral invasion followed by a limitless military occupation which is already ****ing off the civilian population, compounded by CIA goons (under instruction from Rumsfeld & Bush) going around the place acting without ANY control and obeying NO recognised rules of any kind in a desperate effort to foreshorten the insurgency of their own making.

[mactastic]

I'm not an expert in torture, I don't know exactly where the line should be. I'm not advocating bamboo under the fingernails, but if you can save lives by shining the bright light in the face and some sleep deprivation, that sounds good to me.
And what happens when shining the bright light and keeping someone awake doesn't get you the information you are pretty sure they have? Do you take it to the next level?

And if this aggressive interrogation you advocate is so much more effective than traditional interrogation, why aren't police allowed to use it?

[tristan]

Intelligence, collected both inside and outside Iraq, is the only way to prevent attacks before they happen. How do you all propose to get that intelligence? All I hear is criticisms, not solutions. And the issue of preventing attacks on civilians goes way beyond Iraq, its an issue everywhere from New York to London to Madrid to Bali to Karachi to Kabul.

And I would like to draw a distinction between what I believe and what the administration believes or is doing. As anyone who's read my posts knows, I'm not an Bush cheerleader. If the administration is rounding up civilians unnecessarily, I've repeatedly said I don't support that, even though a few people here keep saying I do. There should be a threshold of evidence before you incarcerate somebody and interrogate them, and then guidelines for interrogation. As long as that those guidelines are enforced and maintained, I would support that and think it would be effective.

Obviously, rounding up people off the street will be a waste of time and energy and will create new terrorists. But putting someone with a weapons cache in a prison cell and asking them who the weapons are for and then going after those people is exactly what we need to be able to do, and do quickly.

[IJ Reilly]

As has been pointed out many times, the problem is a lack of accepted standards and any kind of accountability. You have no way of knowing whether the people being rounded up are of any intelligence value and you will never know so long as the entire operation is held completely beyond any law of any land. Under these conditions, people tend to go nuts. Witness Abu Gharib, the one example about which we know the most. We also already know that the vast majority of people held at Guantanamo Bay are of little or no intelligence value. As has also been pointed out numerous times, torture does not produce valuable information.

You want a solution? Here it is: good old fashioned human intelligence. This takes time and effort, but it will produce over time and doesn't require breaking anybody's legs.

[skunk]

Intelligence, collected both inside and outside Iraq, is the only way to prevent attacks before they happen. How do you all propose to get that intelligence? All I hear is criticisms, not solutions.The fundamental problem with the Iraqi misadventure was, and still is, the lamentable lack of human intelligence on the ground. Indiscriminate sweeps are no substitute for an ear to the ground.

[solvs]

But putting someone with a weapons cache in a prison cell and asking them who the weapons are for and then going after those people is exactly what we need to be able to do, and do quickly.
But if that was what we were doing, why would it need to be secret prisons? Not saying you give out the location, but there should still be accountability and due process. We are not arguing over what needs to be done, we are arguing over how to do it.

[toontra]

tristan,

I pointed you to a link where a top US general in Iraq AND an ex-head of the CIA said that breaking the Geneva Convention is counter-productive. You earlier stated that the idea of following the Geneva Convention was ridiculous.

At least have the courtesy of looking at the link and responding to it before you carry on this thread, otherwise allow me to dismiss your argument as ill-founded nonsense.

[tristan]

toontra, I haven't read those links. I have read through most of the geneva convention, and it's pretty obvious to me that it's unworkable in these circumstances because it doesn't allow any interrogation at all, and it provides tons of other things like mail from home, chaplains, etc. I don't need to hear the administration's position because I don't care what they think - I make up my own mind. I just saw Carter talking about the Geneva convention, and he seemed to use adherence to it as a proxy for "no torture", which isn't accurate. My only guess is that these people can say they're abiding by the geneva convention because they don't categorize the enemy as POWs and thus don't give them POWs rights. They are only following the convention when it comes to treatment of the civilian population. The Abu Ghraib convictions had nothing to do with Geneva, they were prosecuted under the UCMJ, as the detainees were not POWs.

skunk, again, I never proposed random sweeps, torture, etc. If you believe that the existence of secret prisons automatically leads to random sweeps and torture, read below.

ij, solvs, it seems to me that you're assuming that a secret prison has no accountability and almost guarantees roundups and tortures. I would disagree - I believe a secret prison would likely have oversight, it would just be by officials with security clearances. So I don't see any downsides from secrecy. The upsides are increased security, and the ability to collect information.

I also think that secret prisons are probably not used for typical Iraqis - they would be too expensive. They are more likely used for foreign soldiers, to identify where they were trained and how they entered the country, and for people who have participated in terrorist plots, like the Bali bombings, to identify coconspirators and funding sources. Without interrogations, I have no idea how you would get that critical information unless you got really really lucky with an informant.

[pseudobrit]

Without interrogations, I have no idea how you would get that critical information unless you got really really lucky with an informant.

We could send in Dirty Harry. :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

toontra, I haven't read those links. I have read through most of the geneva convention, and it's pretty obvious to me that it's unworkable in these circumstances because it doesn't allow any interrogation at all, and it provides tons of other things like mail from home, chaplains, etc. I don't need to hear the administration's position because I don't care what they think - I make up my own mind. I just saw Carter talking about the Geneva convention, and he seemed to use adherence to it as a proxy for "no torture", which isn't accurate. My only guess is that these people can say they're abiding by the geneva convention because they don't categorize the enemy as POWs and thus don't give them POWs rights. They are only following the convention when it comes to treatment of the civilian population. The Abu Ghraib convictions had nothing to do with Geneva, they were prosecuted under the UCMJ, as the detainees were not POWs.

skunk, again, I never proposed random sweeps, torture, etc. If you believe that the existence of secret prisons automatically leads to random sweeps and torture, read below.

ij, solvs, it seems to me that you're assuming that a secret prison has no accountability and almost guarantees roundups and tortures. I would disagree - I believe a secret prison would likely have oversight, it would just be by officials with security clearances. So I don't see any downsides from secrecy. The upsides are increased security, and the ability to collect information.

I also think that secret prisons are probably not used for typical Iraqis - they would be too expensive. They are more likely used for foreign soldiers, to identify where they were trained and how they entered the country, and for people who have participated in terrorist plots, like the Bali bombings, to identify coconspirators and funding sources. Without interrogations, I have no idea how you would get that critical information unless you got really really lucky with an informant.
i understand your worldview, but i disagree. i also think you're in denial. sorry.

[pseudobrit]

There's also the question of the value of long-term incarceration for interrogation.

After at most one or two years, the two-way intelligence value of a captured enemy operative is null. The enemy infrastructure will adjust because they either know you've got him or assume you do and that he sang. More likely it will just naturally evolve in that span and the guy you've got will no longer be of any value to anyone.

How do we expect an "enemy combatant" captured in 2001 to give us new information? Do we really think he's sitting on a long-term, fully developed plan for an attack that will take place, unmodified, 7 years in the future from when we nabbed him?

[mactastic]

There's also the question of the value of long-term incarceration for interrogation.

After at most one or two years, the two-way intelligence value of a captured enemy operative is null. The enemy infrastructure will adjust because they either know you've got him or assume you do and that he sang. More likely it will just naturally evolve in that span and the guy you've got will no longer be of any value to anyone.

How do we expect an "enemy combatant" captured in 2001 to give us new information? Do we really think he's sitting on a long-term, fully developed plan for an attack that will take place, unmodified, 7 years in the future from when we nabbed him?
And you can't let them go because they'll be pissed and probably seek revenge. I mean christ, we've all seen 'Rambo', right?

[tristan]

There's also the question of the value of long-term incarceration for interrogation.

After at most one or two years, the two-way intelligence value of a captured enemy operative is null. The enemy infrastructure will adjust because they either know you've got him or assume you do and that he sang. More likely it will just naturally evolve in that span and the guy you've got will no longer be of any value to anyone.


This is a good point. I would agree that after several months or so, you probably won't get any new or useful information. But what do you do with them then? Send them home to try again? I think you have to hold them until the conflict is over.

[3rdpath]

This is a good point. I would agree that after several months or so, you probably won't get any new or useful information. But what do you do with them then? Send them home to try again? I think you have to hold them until the conflict is over.

and can the war ever be over when you release multitudes of pissed-off tortured individuals?

we're putting out the fire with gasoline...

[tristan]

i understand your worldview, but i disagree. i also think you're in denial. sorry.

Well, if your issue is that I'm ignoring the reality of an incompetent and self-serving administration, rest assured I'm not. I'm just saying what I think the policy should be. The Abu Ghraib UCMJ policy was essentially correct, it just wasn't implemented or enforced.

[zimv20]

I think you have to hold them until the conflict is over.
...which is what's specified in the GC. however, as you've pointed out, this isn't like other wars, and this is one place where that's a problem. the boundaries of the "War on Terror" are as ill-defined as the boundaries as the "War on Drugs." and how long has that been going on?

[tristan]

and can the war ever be over when you release multitudes of pissed-off tortured individuals?


And I advocated torture when exactly? Do I have to change my signature to "I do not advocate torture"?

And yes, there was another war that ended even though thousands of soldiers were tortured on the losing side. Vietnam. (See the Rambo trilogy.)

[tristan]

...which is what's specified in the GC. however, as you've pointed out, this isn't like other wars, and this is one place where that's a problem. the boundaries of the "War on Terror" are as ill-defined as the boundaries as the "War on Drugs." and how long has that been going on?

Okay, what do you want to do? Some Syrian guy lobs mortars in our camp and throws his weapon down when you catch and puts his hand on his head. What now? I say, find out where he got the mortar, find out how he got into the country, figure out who he's working with, and detain him for the length of the conflict. What would you rather do?

[zimv20]

detain him for the length of the conflict. What would you rather do?
my point being: there's no end to the conflict. terrorism will never be eradicated. enforcing this part of the GC is akin to a life sentence.

i've got no great answers for where we should go from here. all my answers fall into the "too late" category, but the adminstration didn't ask me.

i do not think the answer is to pull out of iraq under the current situation. what we need is a friggin' massive PR makeover and for the UN to take over iraq w/ the backing of the world. good luck, eh?

i think the best way to proceed is to arrest bush and put him on trial in the hague for warcrimes. that would buy us some goodwill. fixing up afghanistan, pulling out of saudi arabia, and coming down hard on israel to solve the palestinian crisis would take us further. following that w/ a humble foreign policy and re-opening our doors to foreign students would be the next step, concurrent w/ a massive push from NGOs, the Peace Corps et. al. to demonstrate the softer, helpful side of the US.

right now, we're in the shithouse and the rest of the world likes us there.

[pseudobrit]

But what do you do with them then? Send them home to try again?

Don't you think their status as a terrorist operative in the network would be slightly compromised by their capture and cooperation with US forces?

Hey, look everybody! Bob's back from that 23 month CIA interrogation! C'mon, Bob, pull up a chair, we're about to go over the details of our latest terror plot. Here's a new Rolodex with all the up-to-date contact info for our network. And remember, check Channel 6 for snow delays.

[tristan]

It depends upon whether the other terrorists have seen the movie "Face Off". :-)

The issue of detention is much larger than Iraq though. you have foreign fighters in Afghanistan and you have bombmakers in Bali, assassins in Jordan, etc. They either have to go into the military justice system or the criminal justice system. In UK/North Ireland, I guess they went into the criminal justice system, right? Maybe that's where they go eventually.

[toontra]

The issue of detention is much larger than Iraq though. you have foreign fighters in Afghanistan and you have bombmakers in Bali, assassins in Jordan, etc. They either have to go into the military justice system or the criminal justice system. In UK/North Ireland, I guess they went into the criminal justice system, right? Maybe that's where they go eventually.

Which brings us back to the subject of this thread - imprisonment without legal process. Imprisonment without trial was practiced for a period in Northern Ireland in an effort to combat terrorism (called internment).

It failed. It was counter-productive & acted as a recruiting tool for the IRA. In retrospect everyone from all political parties involved admit it was a disastrous mistake.

Don't forget, we were fighting terrorism on our doorsteps in the UK for 30 years - we are fairly used to it as a concept. We have learned that abusing the human rights of detainees (many of whom here were also entirely innocent, by the way) is NOT the way to start getting things better.