GITMO trials unfair according to former Nuremberg prosecutor.

[jillian]

The war isn't over, whether they are 'enemy combatants' or 'non-enemy combatants' as defined in Geneva Conventions, it's pretty much assumed they will be detained until the end of hostilities. Then it would be decided whether to put on trial or just release.

And who is our war against? Terrorism is a tactic and an ideology.

Do you keep them interned until they're dead because a war against a tactic can't ever end since the tactic will always be used.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

 

[maineman]

And who is our war against? Terrorism is a tactic and an ideology.

Do you keep them interned until they're dead because a war against a tactic can't ever end since the tactic will always be used.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

bingo!

 

[Annie]

And who is our war against? Terrorism is a tactic and an ideology.

Do you keep them interned until they're dead because a war against a tactic can't ever end since the tactic will always be used.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

Then Nuremberg shouldn't be thrown in. That was a war crimes trial, there was a war, declared by the Congress. Following that war, there were trials, though many for some reason offed themselves. On the other hand, the vast majority of POW's were just released, to go home.

 

[maineman]

as far as the Gitmo detainees, when do you honestly think that the "hostilities" will cease and THEY can "just go home"?

 

[Annie]

as far as the Gitmo detainees, when do you honestly think that the "hostilities" will cease and THEY can "just go home"?

Seriously, I haven't a clue. Then again, I'm sure it seemed that way to the British, Germans, American, etc. caught in 1941/42. For the Brits, Germans even earlier. That seemed a war without end, at the time.

 

[maineman]

Seriously, I haven't a clue. Then again, I'm sure it seemed that way to the British, Germans, American, etc. caught in 1941/42. For the Brits, Germans even earlier. That seemed a war without end, at the time.

those, of course were wars against countries with finite populations and finite resources. Of course they would end.

This war, that creates more enemies than it kills has no such boundaries or limitations, except OUR population and OUR resources. Are you suggesting that when we have spent the american treasury down to zero and every able bodied American man is either dead or wounded in this cataclysmic battle against, not a country, but an idea and a tactic, that THEN we will let the Gitmo detainess go home?

 

[Annie]

those, of course were wars against countries with finite populations and finite resources. Of course they would end.

This war, that creates more enemies than it kills has no such boundaries or limitations, except OUR population and OUR resources. Are you suggesting that when we have spent the american treasury down to zero and every able bodied American man is either dead or wounded in this cataclysmic battle against, not a country, but an idea and a tactic, that THEN we will let the Gitmo detainess go home?

No to the later and you have only your opinion to the former. While I am looking at what is happening on the ground, to the best of my ability, I'm neither blinded by the administration nor so arrogant as to think I KNOW what's going to happen in the future.

I really doubt that things will continue as is after September, I'm realistic. At the same time I believe that problems with ME/Islam are not just a reaction to us being 'there', it's much larger on their side than ours, currently. That probably is the nexus of our disagreements. In any case, time will tell.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Then Nuremberg shouldn't be thrown in. That was a war crimes trial, there was a war, declared by the Congress. Following that war, there were trials, though many for some reason offed themselves. On the other hand, the vast majority of POW's were just released, to go home.

The same principles of jurisprudence should apply regardless. The Bush administration has used the 'war on terror' to remove what it determines to be "alien unlawful enemy combatants" from the protections not only of the US Constitution, but from the fair trial protections established in international law and treaties which the US is signatory to. And the definition of 'alien unlawful enemy combatant' is so broad that almost anyone could be caught up in its net.

I would strongly suggest that you take some time to read <a href=http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engAMR510442007>Amnesty International's analysis</a> of the trials as they are set up under the Military Commissions Act. It is not a matter of republican v. democrat...liberal v. conservative...right v. left. It is right v. wrong, and the Bush administration is wrong. I trust you, dear lady, to take the time to do this. If, after reading it, you remain unconvinced then we shall agree to disagree.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Anyone wants to try our leaders, com arrest them.

I doubt any of them will travel outside the US once they leave office.

 

[Bullypulpit]

No to the later and you have only your opinion to the former. While I am looking at what is happening on the ground, to the best of my ability, I'm neither blinded by the administration nor so arrogant as to think I KNOW what's going to happen in the future.

I really doubt that things will continue as is after September, I'm realistic. At the same time I believe that problems with ME/Islam are not just a reaction to us being 'there', it's much larger on their side than ours, currently. That probably is the nexus of our disagreements. In any case, time will tell.

Why, then, should we wait until September? How many more of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines must die as a salve to the ego of the man we call "Mr. President"?

 

[Annie]

The same principles of jurisprudence should apply regardless. The Bush administration has used the 'war on terror' to remove what it determines to be "alien unlawful enemy combatants" from the protections not only of the US Constitution, but from the fair trial protections established in international law and treaties which the US is signatory to. And the definition of 'alien unlawful enemy combatant' is so broad that almost anyone could be caught up in its net.

I would strongly suggest that you take some time to read <a href=http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engAMR510442007>Amnesty International's analysis</a> of the trials as they are set up under the Military Commissions Act. It is not a matter of republican v. democrat...liberal v. conservative...right v. left. It is right v. wrong, and the Bush administration is wrong. I trust you, dear lady, to take the time to do this. If, after reading it, you remain unconvinced then we shall agree to disagree.

Bully, we went over this topic more than a year ago. Thanks but no thanks on the AI link. I'll go with the Geneva Conventions definitions. Just like this isn't WWII regarding tactics/definitions/justifications, so it is not regarding Nurenberg. As Jillian said, apples and oranges.

 

[dilloduck]

Why, then, should we wait until September? How many more of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines must die as a salve to the ego of the man we call "Mr. President"?

You're silly if you think only one man is running this show

 

[Bullypulpit]

You're silly if you think only one man is running this show

No, but he is the public face of that creeping evil.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, we went over this topic more than a year ago. Thanks but no thanks on the AI link. I'll go with the Geneva Conventions definitions. Just like this isn't WWII regarding tactics/definitions/justifications, so it is not regarding Nurenberg. As Jillian said, apples and oranges.

What...? Afraid of reading an opposing point of view...? One which might undermine your cherished belief in the correctness of this President and his Administration...? If "liberal" arguments are so weak, why the trepidation?

As for the Geneva Conventions, give Article 5 a read. For your convenience, I've posted it...

<blockquote>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 <b>any doubt</b> 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, <b>such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal</b>. (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

Since they wear no insignia nor abide by the laws of war, captured al Qaeda and Taliban fighters would likely not fall under the definition of a POW as laid out in the Conventions. They are, however, entitled to the protections provided for POW's by the Conventions until their status can be determined by a "competent tribunal". The recent dismissal of charges by the current tribunal in GITMO was due to the fact that their status had not been satisfactorily determined. I really don't think George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld constituted the 'competent tribunal' envisioned in the Conventions.

As for making analogies between the 'war on terror' and the war against Nazi Germany, it seems that it's fine so long as it's Bush's supporter's on the Hill and in the right wing noise machine doing so. When this tactic is turned against them, however, they squeal like stuck pigs.

 

[Annie]

What...? Afraid of reading an opposing point of view...? One which might undermine your cherished belief in the correctness of this President and his Administration...? If "liberal" arguments are so weak, why the trepidation?

As for the Geneva Conventions, give Article 5 a read. For your convenience, I've posted it...

<blockquote>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 <b>any doubt</b> 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, <b>such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal</b>. (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

Since they wear no insignia nor abide by the laws of war, captured al Qaeda and Taliban fighters would likely not fall under the definition of a POW as laid out in the Conventions. They are, however, entitled to the protections provided for POW's by the Conventions until their status can be determined by a "competent tribunal". The recent dismissal of charges by the current tribunal in GITMO was due to the fact that their status had not been satisfactorily determined. I really don't think George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld constituted the 'competent tribunal' envisioned in the Conventions.

As for making analogies between the 'war on terror' and the war against Nazi Germany, it seems that it's fine so long as it's Bush's supporter's on the Hill and in the right wing noise machine doing so. When this tactic is turned against them, however, they squeal like stuck pigs.

As said earlier, we went round and round on the Conventions, always came down to 'we can't act like them' v. 'don't have a suicide pact.' Not doing that again, this is beginning to remind me of Jason.

As for AI, I have read many of their pronouncements, along with many from IROC and then the clarifications that come months later. While I don't go slamming sources, some I keep reading, some I choose to skip. So far, I still have that right.

 

[mattskramer]

Anyone wants to try our leaders, com arrest them.

Other nations do not have the physical power (not moral authority) to arrest our leaders. When push comes to shove, we will change the rules or leave the union.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Other nations do not have the physical power (not moral authority) to arrest our leaders. When push comes to shove, we will change the rules or leave the union.

But we should cow tow to these countries when it comes to our defense, our security, our freedom? As for Moral authority, YA France machine guns a crowd of unarmed civilians with their "peace Keepers", pays Saddam bribes for oil contracts, lies to us about invading iraq, but we should listen to them. Germany sells chemicals and equipment to Iraq and refuses to meet nato requirements but we should listen to them.... shall I go on with your " Moral" authority?

 

[Bullypulpit]

But we should cow tow to these countries when it comes to our defense, our security, our freedom? As for Moral authority, YA France machine guns a crowd of unarmed civilians with their "peace Keepers", pays Saddam bribes for oil contracts, lies to us about invading iraq, but we should listen to them. Germany sells chemicals and equipment to Iraq and refuses to meet nato requirements but we should listen to them.... shall I go on with your " Moral" authority?

US companies were involved in the kickbacks to Saddam as well, El Paso Corp and Chevron just to name two. And the Bush administration DIDN'T lie about the rationales for invading Iraq? Come now old son, even you aren't that naive. Haliburton, under Dick Cheney's stewardship and through it subsidiaries, sold oil field equipment to Saddam's Iraq. So, please don't whine about the moral authority of this administration. It has none.

 

[Care4all]

Comparing Terrorists to uniformed members of a national Government is patently Idiotic.

Why though? Aren't they human beings?

Isn't our evidence STRONG enough to convict them under fairer, more JUST, conditions?

care

 

[mattskramer]

But we should cow tow to these countries when it comes to our defense, our security, our freedom? As for Moral authority, YA France machine guns a crowd of unarmed civilians with their "peace Keepers", pays Saddam bribes for oil contracts, lies to us about invading iraq, but we should listen to them. Germany sells chemicals and equipment to Iraq and refuses to meet nato requirements but we should listen to them.... shall I go on with your " Moral" authority?

But we should cow tow to these countries when it comes to our defense, our security, our freedom?

No.

As for Moral authority, YA France machine guns a crowd of unarmed civilians with their "peace Keepers", pays Saddam bribes for oil contracts, lies to us about invading iraq, but we should listen to them.

I never called France a moral authority.

Germany sells chemicals and equipment to Iraq and refuses to meet nato requirements but we should listen to them.... shall I go on with your " Moral" authority?

I never called Germany a moral authority either. It is funny to watch you try to put words in my mouth. Please read posts more carefully - Sheesh.