What A REAL Gulag Is!!

[IControlThePast]

Clinton was not good for america. It's not respect. Europeans are like the passive aggressive envious friend who likes to see you fail.

I'm not saying that Clinton was good for us, but that it is possible for us to have good standing in the world, or to better our standing in the world.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm not saying that Clinton was good for us, but that it is possible for us to have good standing in the world, or to better our standing in the world.

So you agree with me. Clinton was bad for us and the Eurosocialists liked him for that.

Don't you see the pattern here?

 

[IControlThePast]

So you agree with me. Clinton was bad for us and the Eurosocialists liked him for that.

Don't you see the pattern here?

I don't think that they liked him because he was bad for us. I mean under him we really our first surplus in a long time. That wasn't bad for us. He also spent much more money on counter-Terrorism than the previous presidents. Those were two steps he made that were good. I don't think they liked him because he was bad for us.

 

[Annie]

In hindsight, let me see your source on that one. I did a bit of research and I found a bunch of sources that said this:

"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."

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Article_4
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

From the Geneva Conventions. Read the highlighted, from what I comprehend they can hold them as long as the conflict lasts, UNLESS they bring them to trial:

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Art. 45. Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities

1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.​

Art. 75. Fundamental guarantees

1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.

2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular: (i) murder; (ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental; (iii) corporal punishment; and (iv) mutilation;

(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form or indecent assault; (c) the taking of hostages; (d) collective punishments; and (e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

3. Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such persons shall be released with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to exist.

4. No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following: (a) the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence; (b) no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility; (c) no one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account or any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby; (d) anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law; (e) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence; (f) no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt; (g) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (h) no one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence in respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has been previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure; (i) anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to have the judgement pronounced publicly; and (j) a convicted person shall be advised on conviction or his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised.

5. Women whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to the armed conflict shall be held in quarters separated from men's quarters. They shall be under the immediate supervision of women. Nevertheless, in cases where families are detained or interned, they shall, whenever possible, be held in the same place and accommodated as family units.

6. Persons who are arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed conflict shall enjoy the protection provided by this Article until their final release, repatriation or re-establishment, even after the end of the armed conflict.

7. In order to avoid any doubt concerning the prosecution and trial of persons accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity, the following principles shall apply: (a) persons who are accused or such crimes should be submitted for the purpose of prosecution and trial in accordance with the applicable rules of international law; and (b) any such persons who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or this Protocol shall be accorded the treatment provided by this Article, whether or not the crimes of which they are accused constitute grave breaches of the Conventions or of this Protocol.

8. No provision of this Article may be construed as limiting or infringing any other more favourable provision granting greater protection, under any applicable rules of international law, to persons covered by paragraph 1​

 

[Bonnie]

Got to scroll down for this:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004633.php

Fantastic!!!!!!!

 

[Annie]

http://www.oic-oci.org/press/english/Jun 2005/quran.htm

PRESS RELEASE

OIC URGES THE UNITED STATES TO LIVE UP TO ITS RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT SHOW LENIENCY TO PERPETRATORS OF QUR’AN DESECRATION

The Official Spokesman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ambassador Atta El-Manan Bakhit, has stated that the confession by the southern command of the United States army on the occurrence of cases of desecration of the Holy Qur’an in Guantanamo prison was a confirmation of the practices that had been reported in the papers and strongly condemned by the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

He said that this disgraceful conduct of those soldiers reveal their blatant hatred and disdain for the religion of millions of Muslims all over the world and throws into doubt the nature of the instructions given to the American soldiers on religious values and principles of tolerance.

He added that these unequivocally rejected practices could only lead to an incitement of religious feelings and a deepening of the gulf of difference and intolerance between the Muslim world and the United States of America.

The OIC Spokesman urged the United States Government to live up to its responsibilities and not be lenient with the perpetrators of the desecration. He also demanded that those responsible for this despicable crime should be brought to justice immediately and that urgent measures should be taken to calm the tension in the Muslim world and ensure that such detestable acts are not repeated in the future.

 

[Comrade]

You misunderstand, read my post. We can interrogate them, but not hold them for interrogation indefinately without trial. The ruling will allow us to hold them as prisoner.

As Kathianne and I have now pointed out, you CAN hold them until the conflict is resolved.

I'm still convinced that by international law they are subject to a military tribunal, as our government for some reason ruled, but that for checks and balances it should be conducted by the Judicial branch.

Well I'm still convinced you can't prove this argument by quoting anything in the text of Geneva, which has been provided to you several times. That would sure be a start.

Have members of the Judicial branch as "judges" instead of military offices. The groups of judges serve as the jury. Let the defendant have legal counsel to review the evidence against him and represent him.

Have the depositions be created when the alleged Terrorists are taken prisoner. Then send over a prisoner with the deposition(s) that correspond to him.

I just watched 60 minutes this evening and it talked just about this subject. Did you happen to watch it?

Ok, then I would like you to prove the following statements , with links:

"And like you really mean that if a Liberal were in power, you'd favour a conservative Supreme Court overriding the expressly assigned authority for conducting foreign policy due to the executive branch? You know that will be the case after another few terms of Conservative rule install conservative judges, just in time for the next Liberal in the not-so-far-off future. It will happen. And then you'll totally switch sides again. I've seen a pattern of arguments here, and it's really about how you hate Bush after all. I mean it's not you really personally care about how these head chopping religious extremists don't get their own US sponsored show trial. It's clear to me now, you oppose Bush for personal reasons, and know very well how such show trials would undermine everything he hopes to accomplish in the war on terror. Isn't it? Even if it means we lose the war on terror. I see now how AI operates and you'd just rather take up the party line, and not care a whit for the repercussions involved with what you speak of."

I was trying on your 'feeling' hat for awhile. Here, you can have it back.

That will be kinda hard considering I critisized Clinton explicitly in this thread while I haven't said anything bad about President Bush, and in fact the only time I mentioned the name Bush it was in the title of a US court case on the matter.

But you implicated Bush by saying the courts should overrule the exective office earlier.

It's because I believe in the right to a fair trial, isn't it

No, it is because you want to overrule the constitution by by granting the courts a non-existent right to rule against the executive office on foriegn dealings. The treatment of Gitmo prisoners fall exclusively to the Executive office.

I don't care whether my arguments make people take one political side or another. I make them because I feel it is for the best interest of the US. I put my country above partisanship.

Well you have to convince everyone else in America first what you feel is right before you go and decide what is best for us first.

 

[Annie]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050605/ts_nm/rights_guantanamo_amnesty_dc_4

'Don't know for sure' about Guantanamo: Amnesty USA

By Lori SantosSun Jun 5, 1:14 PM ET

Despite highly publicized charges of U.S. mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, the head of the Amnesty International USA said on Sunday the group doesn't "know for sure" that the military is running a "gulag."

Executive Director William Schulz said Amnesty, often cited worldwide for documenting human rights abuses, also did not know whether Secretary Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved severe torture methods such as beatings and starvation.

Schulz recently dubbed Rumsfeld an "apparent high-level architect of torture" in asserting he approved interrogation methods that violated international law.

"It would be fascinating to find out. I have no idea," Schulz told "Fox News Sunday."

A dispute has raged since Amnesty last month compared the prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the vast, brutal Soviet gulag system of forced labor camps in which millions of prisoners died.

A leading Democratic U.S. senator on Sunday repeated his call for a full investigation and said the detention center should be closed.

"The end result is, I think we should end up shutting it down, moving those prisoners. Those that we have reason to keep, keep. And those we don't, let go," Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delware told ABC's "This Week."

There have been a number of accusations of American mistreatment of the detainees and of the Koran, the Islamic holy book, at the base.

The U.S. military on Friday released details about five cases top officials said were among only 10 reported over the course of more than 28,000 prisoner interrogations.

Schulz said, "We don't know for sure what all is happening at Guantanamo and our whole point is that the United States ought to allow independent human rights organizations to investigate." Their point being that they, AI, should be able to call the shots for the US?


He also said he had "absolutely no idea" whether the International Red Cross had been given access to all prisoners and said the group feared others were being held at secret facilities or locations. So does that mean they can lie and incite violence? Because they 'feared....'

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and, most recently, Rumsfeld have repudiated the Amnesty report.

The United States holds about 520 men at Guantanamo, where they are denied rights accorded under international law to prisoners of war. Many have been held without charge for more than three years.

Schulz noted that it was Amnesty's headquarters in London that issued the annual report on global human rights, which said Guantanamo Bay "has become the gulag of our times."

Asked about the comparison, Schulz said, "Clearly this is not an exact or a literal analogy."

"... But there are some similarities. The United States is maintaining an archipelago of prisons around the world, many of them secret prisons into which people are being literally disappeared ... And in some cases, at least, we know that they are being mistreated, abused, tortured and even killed." Hmm, we got some figures on deaths, though not circumstances, but the rest? Well for sure they mean that prison in Iraq, how many times can they squeeze that rock?

"And whether the Americans like it or not, it does reflect how the more than 2 million Amnesty members in a hundred countries around the world and indeed the vast majority of those countries feel about the United States' detention policy," he said. What he's really saying is that 'it doesn't matter if true or not, they'll believe what they like!

Biden added: "More Americans are in jeopardy as a consequence of the perception that exists worldwide with its existence than if there were no (Guantanamo)." Freaking genius! There was no Gitmo 9/11. Not at the time of the USS Cole, African Embassies bombed, not with first WTC bombings, stupid!

 

[IControlThePast]

As Kathianne and I have now pointed out, you CAN hold them until the conflict is resolved.

We can hold them if they have POW status, or if they don't have POW status and we convict them.

Well I'm still convinced you can't prove this argument by quoting anything in the text of Geneva, which has been provided to you several times. That would sure be a start.

I'm asking for a Judicial commission to review POW status. If they are granted POW status, then detain them. If they are not, then they are tried by Court-Martial.

I just watched 60 minutes this evening and it talked just about this subject. Did you happen to watch it?

Nope, didn't even hear about it. Was it good?

But you implicated Bush by saying the courts should overrule the exective office earlier.

But I also implicated everyone else who had been in the executive office while Gitmo existed too.

No, it is because you want to overrule the constitution by by granting the courts a non-existent right to rule against the executive office on foriegn dealings. The treatment of Gitmo prisoners fall exclusively to the Executive office.

Our courts say otherwise. http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-1519.pdf

 

[no1tovote4]

Now you're agreeing that the trials won't create more conspiracy theories. I'm don't think we should do this to stop conspiracy theories, but for checks and balances. In the public forum though, it would actually give us more respect. I don't believe the standard of evidence is very high or that the tribunals looked at these very closely if they were able to be fooled by a fake ID.

I agreed with that from the beginning, that is nothing new. However unless the trials are open, the conspiracy theories would be there and we would be paying higher costs to transport, pay their attorneys, etc. while taking on added danger by bringing Terrorists to US soil.

The costs override the minimal gain we would acheive through these "public forum" trials that would create the same "theories" from those that oppose us regardless of how "open" they might be.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't think that they liked him because he was bad for us. I mean under him we really our first surplus in a long time. That wasn't bad for us. He also spent much more money on counter-Terrorism than the previous presidents. Those were two steps he made that were good. I don't think they liked him because he was bad for us.

Why is it so difficult to see that Clinton did everything possible to derail this "surplus", he vetoed the budgets and shut down the government because he didn't like the Contract With America, later he finally signed them and "Declared Victory" and the Dems all believed him. It was the Republican Congress, newly made with actual Conservative ideals that did that.

I agree the budget is looking crappy, I don't like much of what Bush does, I get tired of people saying that he is Conservative when he spends like a Liberal and I get tired of the Republicans going along with him just because he has an R by his name, often selling out what they were voted in to do.

Just don't fool yourself that Clinton was the one that supposedly "balanced the budget". (Neither did the Congress, it was a "projected" surplus and it never materialized, borrowing 100 billion is not a surplus in any language but the closest we came to actually balancing the budget).

 

[IControlThePast]

I agreed with that from the beginning, that is nothing new. However unless the trials are open, the conspiracy theories would be there and we would be paying higher costs to transport, pay their attorneys, etc. while taking on added danger by bringing Terrorists to US soil.

The costs override the minimal gain we would acheive through these "public forum" trials that would create the same "theories" from those that oppose us regardless of how "open" they might be.

We have legal jurisdiction over Gitmo so we can try the prisoners there.

Why is it so difficult to see that Clinton did everything possible to derail this "surplus", he vetoed the budgets and shut down the government because he didn't like the Contract With America, later he finally signed them and "Declared Victory" and the Dems all believed him. It was the Republican Congress, newly made with actual Conservative ideals that did that.

I agree the budget is looking crappy, I don't like much of what Bush does, I get tired of people saying that he is Conservative when he spends like a Liberal and I get tired of the Republicans going along with him just because he has an R by his name, often selling out what they were voted in to do.

Just don't fool yourself that Clinton was the one that supposedly "balanced the budget". (Neither did the Congress, it was a "projected" surplus and it never materialized, borrowing 100 billion is not a surplus in any language but the closest we came to actually balancing the budget).

Why, because he increased taxes, while Bush I made promises to not raise taxes again. Also, because it is unfathomable for a whole party to go from a balanced budgets platform to cutting taxes and fighting two wars instantly. If Congress is really controlling the budgets, then it wouldn't matter how much Bush wanted to spend ilke a Liberal, because the Republican Congress creates the budgets and would keep them Conservative, right? Most of that Republican Congress is left over from the Clinton years too I believe.

 

[no1tovote4]

We have legal jurisdiction over Gitmo so we can try the prisoners there.

Then it would be "controlled" still by the Administration, which judges were sent, etc. The exact same problems would still exist, with no gain whatsoever and the loss of judges that are needed domestically.

Why, because he increased taxes, while Bush I made promises to not raise taxes again. Also, because it is unfathomable for a whole party to go from a balanced budgets platform to cutting taxes and fighting two wars instantly. If Congress is really controlling the budgets, then it wouldn't matter how much Bush wanted to spend ilke a Liberal, because the Republican Congress creates the budgets and would keep them Conservative, right? Most of that Republican Congress is left over from the Clinton years too I believe.

It wasn't just increasing taxes, there was the Welfare Reform, that he fought until it was politically expedient to claim "victory". There were many other items in the Contract With America, not the least of which was the actual goal of balancing the budget, they also played a shell-game with our Social Security funds, taking it and using it in the spending as if they were general funds. However a "projected" balance, and a "projected" surplus is not a balanced budget, no matter how many times one might wish to say so.


As for the budget issues, not necessarily if the Congress and Senate appear to be walking in unison with Bush, following the Leadership while often selling-out the very reasons they were elected in the beginning. Politics are overcoming the better judgement of those in those positions, they need the support of the Party in order to have the funds for their new elections and the help that will be necessary to retain their seats.

Amazingly the Democrats were upset at the idiotic Pill Bill, saying it was not enough, yet now use it to say Bush spends too much, the same with the funding of Education at the Federal level. They were also upset at the suggested Guest Worker program saying it was not enough and now are upset at the amount of money that is being spent, it is disingenuous not to realize that the amount of spending would be far higher than any amount we would gain by "reclaiming" the original tax level, we would be in the same boat and would have less oars available to move our own personal vehicles relying too much on the Feds to "help" us.

There is nothing that I fear more than the Federal Government telling me that is it "here to help".

 

[Bonnie]

Amnesty Chief: 'Gulag' Not the Best Analogy

Sunday, June 05, 2005

WASHINGTON — The American head of Amnesty International admits his group did not pick the best analogy when it compared detainee conditions at Guantanamo Bay (search) to the Soviet-era "gulag" forced-labor system.

"There are only about 70,000 in U.S. detention facilities, and to the best of our knowledge, they are not in forced labor, they are not being denied food. But there are some analogies between the gulags and our detention facilities," William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in an interview with FOX News.

"The U.S. is running an archipelago of detention facilities — many of them secret facilities — around the world and people in those are being disappeared into them … they are being held incommunicado."

Cilck on the video box to the right for a report by FOX News' Mike Emanuel.

Amnesty International (search) recently slammed the United States' treatment of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba. In its latest worldwide report, Amnesty International angered many U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, with its gulag analogy. President Bush called claims of improper detainee treatment "absurd."

"It's an absurd allegation," Bush said in the White House Rose Garden this week. "The United States is a country that ... promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation."

Bush said "every single complaint" regarding those detained is investigated.

"It seemed like to me they [Amnesty International] based some of their decisions on the word of — and the allegations — by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble — that means not tell the truth," the president added. "And so it was an absurd report. It just is."

While U.S. officials admit there have been sporadic cases of questionable treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, they say it's not at all widespread or of the magnitude Amnesty International claims. To refute that, Amnesty International on Thursday said officials should just open the doors of the detention center to humanitarian workers so they can see for themselves.

During a press briefing this week, Rumsfeld noted that most would define a "gulag" as where the Soviet Union kept millions of forced labor concentration camps "or where Saddam Hussein mutilated and murdered untold numbers because they held views unacceptable to his regime."

"To compare the United States and Guantanamo Bay (search) to such atrocities cannot be excused," he said. "Free societies depend on oversight and they welcome informed criticism, particularly on human rights issues. But those who make such outlandish charges lose any claim to objectivity or seriousness."

He added that "no force in the world has done more to liberate people ... than the men and women of the United States military" and called Amnesty International's allegations "reprehensible."

A former Soviet prisoner who is a well-known human rights activist says comparing Gitmo to a Soviet gulag is off base.

"In Guantanamo Bay, there was a very serious violation of human rights and it's very important to deal with this and to correct it," said Natan Sharansky (search), a former Soviet dissident and political prisoner who was a prominent member of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's cabinet until May 2. "But the comparison of Amnesty International is very typical, unfortunately, for this organization, which has no moral clarity."

Sharansky argued that Amnesty International compromises its work by refusing to differentiate "between democracies where there are sometimes serious violations of human rights and dictatorships where no human rights exist at all."

"This comparison between gulag and Soviet Union and United States of America, erases all these differences," he said. "It makes moral equivalence between these two very different worlds and that's unfortunately very a typical, systematical, mistake of Amnesty International."

To that end, Schulz said his group has no favorites and they are "equal opportunity offenders."

"We do our best within the limits of human fallibility," he said. "To apply one universal standard -- one plumline to every society -- to China and to the U.S. to Israel and to Cuba, to Afghanistan and Zimbabwe."

But Amnesty International critics say that may be part of the problem.

They point out that the group's international report has multiple pages criticizing Israel and milder critique of the Palestinian Authority. Meanwhile, the report devotes a similar amount of space to the slaughter in Sudan as it does poor treatment by police officers in Switzerland.

Human rights expert Anthony Arend from Georgetown University said calling Guantanamo Bay a 'gulag' prevents people from focusing on real abuses in the world.

"That's why I think Amnesty needs to get out on top of it to clarify what the report really says and to note that the use of the 'gulag' phrase was an unfortunate phrase, it's the wrong phrase, it's the incorrect phrase, and did not accurately categorize what the U.S. is doing," Arend said.

While Arend said dismissing Amnesty International's work is the wrong thing to do, he said he can see where the use of the term, 'gulag' would lead people to draw that conclusion.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,158555,00.html

 

[Annie]

from the calm poster. Where did any source get the story? Why the US Military, that was investigating these complaints. Just like the pics at the jail came from the military. Now some of us may have questions about the military as far as this goes, but AI needs to shut up!

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/06/storm-in-toilet.html

Sunday, June 05, 2005
A storm in a toilet
The Hood report into mishandling of Koran at Guantanamo Bay is out, and what a fizzer it has turned out to be - to the great disappointment of the mainstream media, which are still nevertheless running with the "Pentagon confirms mishandling/desecration" line. This doesn't look too impressive when you actually contrast it with what has been uncovered during the investigation.

In summary: Guards 5, Detainees 15.

The most serious incident involved urine sprinkling a Koran. The guard who was relieving himself says he had no intention of doing anything sacrilegious - the wind carried the urine through the airwent and into the cell block. In any case, following the incident he had been transferred to the gate duty, with no further contact with prisoners.

The second most serious incident involved an interrogator stepping onto a Koran. The person later apologized but as it doesn't seem to have been their only lapse in behavior, their employment was terminated.

The other three cases are even more minor - certainly no "flushing Koran down the toilet" material.

So what about the detainees?

Hood also said his investigation found 15 cases of detainees mishandling their own Qurans. "These included using a Quran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Quran, attempting to flush a Quran down the toilet and urinating on the Quran," Hood's report said. It offered no possible explanation for the detainees' motives.

In the most recent of those 15 cases, a detainee on Feb. 18 allegedly ripped up his Quran and handed it to a guard, stating that he had given up on being a Muslim. Several guards witnessed this, Hood reported.

That's pretty serious stuff - deliberately destroying and desecrating the holy book - including the famous "toilet flush". Strangely, I do not expect rallies and riots throughout the Islamic world protesting the detainees' "mishandling" of their own Korans; although should such rallies eventuate, they would probably still lay most of the blame on the US authorities for failing to stop the prisoners from committing desecration. It's early days though, the Hood report has only just been released, so there is still time for the righteous anger from the Gaza Strip to Jakarta at the sacrilegious actions of suspected Al Qaeda terrorists. But I won't be holding my breath seeing that several other recent events do not seem to have roused the Islamic street at all.

Only a few days ago, another Shia mosque in Pakistan was bombed. A letter recovered from a body of one of the militants shot by the police warns of more such attacks in the future. There certainly have been many in the past. As De A.H. Jaffor Ullah notes in the Bangladesh "Independent" many of these attacks are being carried out on Muslim Sabbath day.

In Iraq, meanwhile, a suicide bomber had driven a minibus full of explosives into a Sufi monastery in Balad, killing nine. On the same day, in Basra, another Shia cleric was assassinated.

Bombing places of worship and killing religious leaders - words like sacrilege, blasphemy, and desecration spring to mind, at least to my mind. But wait, the victims were Shia and Sufis, and since 90 per cent of Muslims are Sunni and not exactly friendly, maybe "the silence of the imams" can be explained by the general ill-feeling among the orthodox majority toward heretics?

So how about this:

A few weeks ago, one of Afghanistan's top religious clerics, Mawlavi Abdullah Fayaz, presided over a meeting of some 500 other senior religious leaders, who have condemned the Taliban and officially removed the title "leader of the faithful" from Mullah Omar. A few days ago, Fayaz was assassinated. Two days later, the mosque in Kandahar where his funeral was being held, was suicide bombed, killing at least 20 people and injuring 50 others.

Fayaz was an orthodox Sunni, and the bombed mosque in Kandahar was a famous Sunni place of worship.

The reaction? Zilch. No rallies, no riots, no chanting, no flag-burning.

So what's the explanation? Is there a desecration double-standard at play, where Muslims can get away with murder (literally) but it's only not OK if the infidels do it? Don't think so. Most likely this stark contrast between the outrage in one case and the deadly silence in the other is a sort of an underhanded compliment for America - the recognition of the fact that if the United States have done (or is said to have done) something wrong, you can jump up and down, burn the stars and stripes, chant against the Great Satan, and the Great Satan will profusely apologize for hurting your feelings. But if the Islamic extremists do something wrong - something sacrilegious and offensive - and you start jumping up and down in protest, the extremists will simply come over and kill you.

There are problems within the Muslim world, but the United States is the least of the worries.
# posted by Arthur : 12:55 PM

 

[Comrade]

We can hold them if they have POW status, or if they don't have POW status and we convict them.

See once more my previous request:

"Well I'm still convinced you can't prove this argument by quoting anything in the text of Geneva, which has been provided to you several times. That would sure be a start."

Again, I ask you quote the Geneva conventions specifically to prove what you say is true.

I'm asking for a Judicial commission to review POW status. If they are granted POW status, then detain them. If they are not, then they are tried by Court-Martial.

What your asking is fine, but it doesn't mean that is what is required by either International or US law.

Nope, didn't even hear about it. Was it good?

It was almost like this argument, except nobody was trying to say that Geneva required a trial to determine the status of the Gitmo detainees.

Because it doesn't. I read the damn thing. Adjudictation or a trial is only in the case of bringing formal charges in order to strip that person of humane treatment, or punish them for a crime. Geneva recognizes the reality of holding all combatants indefinately during wartime.

Our courts say otherwise. http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-1519.pdf

Good link, but all it does is prove you wrong.

The issue here is whether or not the Gitmo detainee shall be granted a writ of habeas corpus.

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

In this case, the court denies the motion for dismissal by government, and objects to the current methods set up to try such a case by the government.

However, it clearly agrees with the Geneva Conventions on the rights due to the governement to hold indefinately the petitioner, and he is to be returned to Gitmo, and not to be tried under the current military adjucation system, which you insist should be the case.

In fact, this link proves just the opposit of your argument. Did you read through the whole thing? Improbable. Here's the conclusion:

CONCLUSION
It is now clear, by virtue of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi, that the detentions of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay are not unlawful per se. The granting (in part) of Hamdan’s petition for habeas corpus accordingly brings only limited relief. The order that accompanies this opinion provides: (1) that, unless and until a competent tribunal determines that Hamdan is not entitled to POW status, he may be tried for the offenses with which he is charged only by courtmartial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;

(This doesn't mean he MUST be tried.)

Which is exacty what I've been saying to you, over and over again.

(2) that,unless and until the Military Commission’s rule permitting
Hamdan’s exclusion from commission sessions and the withholding
of evidence from him is amended so that it is consistent with and
not contrary to UCMJ Article 39, Hamdan’s trial before the
Military Commission would be unlawful; and

(Which vacates the current attempt at a military tribunal which you proposed earlier.)

(3) that Hamdan must be released from the pre-Commission detention wing of Camp Delta and returned to the general population of detainees, unless some reason other than the pending charges against him requires
different treatment. Hamdan’s remaining claims are in abeyance.

Your arguments would be much more effective if you selectively quoted such material in the future, instead of simply linking to them.

 

[IControlThePast]

What your asking is fine, but it doesn't mean that is what is required by either International or US law.

It's the right thing to do, with a system of checks and balances.

Good link, but all it does is prove you wrong.

The issue here is whether or not the Gitmo detainee shall be granted a writ of habeas corpus.

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

Really? Actually it establishes that the courts do have rights to rule over matters at Gitmo, and that they have the jurisdiction there, making your statement "The treatment of Gitmo prisoners fall exclusively to the Executive office" false.

In this case, the court denies the motion for dismissal by government, and objects to the current methods set up to try such a case by the government.

However, it clearly agrees with the Geneva Conventions on the rights due to the governement to hold indefinately the petitioner, and he is to be returned to Gitmo, and not to be tried under the current military adjucation system, which you insist should be the case.

In fact, this link proves just the opposit of your argument. Did you read through the whole thing? Improbable. Here's the conclusion:

Did I read the whole thing, all 46 pages? Nope, but I read the conclusion.

Art. 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

Most of these Terrorists do not have POW status. A POW can be held until the end of the war. Either way, we have to establish POW status to hold them indefinately as POWs, as my link states, but the trial for POW status should be conducted by the Judicial Branch instead of a tribunal. If they fail to meet POW status, then they have the right to trial by court-martial over their alleged crimes, and upon conviction can be held.

 

[Comrade]

It's the right thing to do, with a system of checks and balances.

OPINION. Which has absolutely nothing to do with your assurances that a trial is supposedly legally mandated by either International or U.S. law.

Actually? Actually it establishes that the courts do have rights to rule over matters at Gitmo, and that they have the jurisdiction there, making your statement "The treatment of Gitmo prisoners fall exclusively to the Executive office" false.

You can't have it both ways. The court ruled that holding Gitmo detainee indefinately is legal, while trying them under anything less than a full court martial proceedings is illegal. And you're wrong about the legal mandate to conduct such a trial. Your earier assurances have been that a trial is necessary for the Gitmo detainees.

However, the entire of text of the Supreme Court ruling leads to the opposite conclusion.

Did I read the whole thing, all 46 pages? Nope, but I read the conclusion.

Then you knew no such trial was necessary and just decided to ignore that fact when presenting your argument.

Most of these Terrorists do not have POW status. A POW can be held until the end of the war.

No, an inmate of Gitmo does not have to have POW status in order to be held indefinately. They must be granted POW status in order to be tried, but they also are not required to be tried as they remain a detainee in wartime, insofar as as humanitarian conditions continue to exist in their detention.

You're consistently refusing to recognize that the Geneva Conventions do not require a trial for each POW, and what's more, now ignore any details from your last link which prove the Supreme Court ruling supports this indefinate confinement. This is getting silly, on your part. Why don't i make the font of the ruling even bigger, so this can sink into your head:

CONCLUSION
It is now clear, by virtue of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi, that the detentions of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay are not unlawful per se.

Is that big enough for you to take notice? After all, it's your own link.

Either way, we have to establish POW status to hold them indefinately as POWs, as my link states, but the trial for POW status should be conducted by the Judicial Branch instead of a tribunal.

Why don't you try quoting from your own (or even Geneva Convention) links next time, just to humor us. You know that restating the same false assertation again and again is growing old.

If they fail to meet POW status, then they have the right to trial by court-martial over their alleged crimes, and upon conviction can be held.

Hey, you can continue to make these asserations all day. But the more you deny my link to your own Supreme Court ruling the more silly you sound. Why don't you pick a section of your provided link and quote the section which remotely supports this first, and then we'll pick it apart from there.

I.E.: THERE IS NO RIGHT TO THE DETAINEES TO HAVE A TRIAL BY ANY MEANS AS LONG AS THEY ARE HELD UNDER HUMANITARIAN CONDITIONS

And if you want to continue to insist to the contrary upon such a thing in this thread, why don't you quote something of relevence to back this up. Even if it's from www.whatreallyhappened.com. Because this is really getting ridiculous.

 

[IControlThePast]

OPINION. Which has absolutely nothing to do with your assurances that a trial is supposedly legally mandated by either International or U.S. law

Actually checks and balances is a large part of US Law. I have yet to see you provide any opinion on this that indicates that this would not provide a better checks and balances system, or that C&B are not important to US Law.

You can't have it both ways. Either the court ruled to hold the prisoners indefinately or you're wrong about the need for a trial, according to your assertation that a trial to determine POW status is is necessary.

Here is some big text, maybe you will read it this time:

It is now clear, by virtue of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi, that the detentions of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay are not unlawful per se

The key word, the qualifier, per se. It doesn't say "there is nothing wrong with Gitmo" at all. It says there is nothing intrinsically wrong with detaining people there as POWs. Yes, some prisoners can be detained indefinately, but they require tribunals and trials to determine that, and that's what the per se is for.

Then you knew no such trial was necessary and just decided to ignore that fact when presenting your argument.

No such trial is necessary, but a tribunal is. I'm arguing that from a legal point, a judicial review is a better solution than a tribunal because it is a check on Executive power.

No, an inmate of Gitmo does not have to have POW status in order to be held indefinately. They must be granted POW status in order to be tried, but they also are not required to be tried.

Yes they are required to be tried, did you not read the whole thing?

"Unless and until a competent tribunal determines that Hamdan is not entitled to POW status, he may be tried only for the offenses with which he is charged only by Court-Martial."

Now this applies to all prisoners after the ruling, not just Hamdam, because the challenge was that the "length of the pretrial detention violat[ed] the 3rd Geneva convention." You can find this on the fourth page. Otherwise all prisoners could just file the same writ and get the same result from the court telling that they'd need a tribunal to determine POW status...and so on. That is why we've got mandatory tribunals.

In addition, on page 18 "The government must convene a competent tribunal...and seek a specific determination to Hamdan's status under the Geneva Conventions." If they don't do this, they are in violation of the 3rd Geneva Convention. If the prisoner is found to be a POW, he can be detained until the war is over. If he is not afforded POW rights, then he get's a trial by Court-Martial to determine if he can be detained (more on this lower).

Hey, you can continue to make these asserations all day. But the more you deny my link to your own Supreme Court ruling the more silly you sound. Why don't you pick a section of your provided link and quote the section which remotely supports this first, and then we'll pick it apart from there.

"Until a competent tribunal determines that Hamdan is not entitled to POW status, he may be tried only for the offenses with which he is charged only by Court-Martial."

So it must first be decided by tribunal (while I argue a ruling from the Judicial Branch would be better) whether he is a POW. If he is, he may be detained. If he is not, he get's a trial by Court-Martial, as I asserted.

 

[Comrade]

Actually checks and balances is a large part of US Law. I have yet to see you provide any opinion on this that indicates that this would not provide a better checks and balances system, or that C&B are not important to US Law.

I'm only following the law with respect to your own linked supreme court rulings. Which explicitely state that the current military tribunals are not sufficient for habeus corpus, and that the prisoner should be returned to the general Gitmo detainee population immediately. You presume somehow that this same Supreme Court ruling said that this prisoner must then be immediately reinstated to a trial with full US citizen rights. Which is absolute fantasy:

It is now clear, by virtue of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi, that the detentions of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay are not unlawful per se

Per Se. Meaning in this particular case. Which was a poor choice on your part to quote as an example of a case which required a legal trial.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with detaining people there as POWs. Yes, some prisoners can be detained indefinately, but they require tribunals and trials to determine that, and that's what the per se is for.

Apparently not this one. Next petitioner, please.

No such trial is necessary, but a tribunal is. I'm arguing that from a legal point, a judicial review is a better solution than a tribunal because it is a check on Executive power.

You were arguing that based on International and U.S. law, a trial should be granted to Gitmo detainee. You used a link which explicitely stated a ruling to the contrary. You're far beyond the point of backtracking this to personal opinon at this point. Please prove your assertation based on links to Geneva or U.S.A. code, as you insisted earlier. Or else leave your own feelings out of it.

Yes they are required to be tried, did you not read the whole thing?

"Unless and until a competent tribunal determines that Hamdan is not entitled to POW status, he may be tried only for the offenses with which he is charged only by Court-Martial."

Yes, he MAY be tried. That is, per the choice of the government, who wishes to remove his rights or punish him per the military code of justice.

Or he may be held indefinately until the resolution of conflict.

Right?

RIGHT?

Now this applies to all prisoners after the ruling, not just Hamdam, because the challenge was that the "length of the pretrial detention violat[ed] the 3rd Geneva convention." You can find this on the fourth page. Otherwise all prisoners could just file the same writ and get the same result from the court telling that they'd need a tribunal to determine POW status...and so on. That is why we've got mandatory tribunals.

We have no such mandatory tribunals. Or else I assume you can link to such law in either International or U.S. law.

In addition, on page 18 "The government must convene a competent tribunal...and seek a specific determination to Hamdan's status under the Geneva Conventions." If they don't do this, they are in violation of the 3rd Geneva Convention. If the prisoner is found to be a POW, he can be detained until the war is over. If he is not afforded POW rights, then he get's a trial by Court-Martial to determine if he can be detained (more on this lower).

But he is afforded humanitarian treatement, and therefore remains in legal limbo, in line with both International and U.S. law. Contrary to what you insistently state otherwise.

"Until a competent tribunal determines that Hamdan is not entitled to POW status, he may be tried only for the offenses with which he is charged only by Court-Martial."

And therefore he won't be tried, and left in captivity, accorded to both International and U.S. law, unles you can link to and prove otherwise.

So it must first be decided by tribunal (while I argue a ruling from the Judicial Branch would be better) whether he is a POW. If he is, he may be detained. If he is not, he get's a trial by Court-Martial, as I asserted.

Or no trial at all, which is accorded per both International and U.S. law, despite your insistence to the contrary, despite your inability to link to such text and prove otherwise. This is getting old. Can you quote Geneva yet?